Question 1 on Carrol

What are the main fallacies of the narrative approach? How could they be solved with further application of theory or amendment?

The main fallacies of the narrative approach are that everyone must agree upon a starting point for the narrative to begin, unless it is to be the first art object ever created ever time the narrative approach is going to be utilized. But starting in the Renaissance period as everything being defined as bona fide art, then it is relatively easy to use the narrative approach. However, many other fallacies arise after that, like the piece of art in question being relative enough to a Renaissance piece which complete undermines the narrative approach which says the art in question must be compared to the most recent art movement in history. And each art movement which is not considered authentic and artistic enough must be proved next to the last one, so on and so forth.

With the application of theory, provided that certain individuals do not completely deny theory or the application of it, one can see the depth in art. However, "depth" implies that art and the meaning of it has a bottom which is not true. But then the vicious cycle of art having endless meaning with different ideas applied to it comes along. Theory must be applied only when necessary and cannot be overbearing. For example, Pablo Picasso wrote a manifesto about why he used cubism and provided evidence. This is also an important aspect for defining postmodernist art which relies solely on theory with the minor visual aspects. The problem therein lies in the application of too much theory which afflicts much of the postmodern artworld of today.