Attraction to Abstraction

When Elkins inserts his thoughts that Modernism started in the Renaissance, I took a step back. I agree that thoughts, methods, theories were commenced in the Renaissance and yes being a precedent, but on the other hand doesn't everything stem off each other in some way, shape, or form? Could one not call every time period Modern? I guess I just wasn't really convinced by his argument. And he also commented that by the time of David’s Marat, "art was not ready to understand its place in the disenchantment of the world." So did it ever? And will we ever fully understand art? This goes back to Semiotics and Gentileschi, does she really mean to make the sword look like a cross or are we just over-interpreting? T.J Clark on the other hand has some bold statements about Abstract Expressionism with the play on the word 'vulgar'. Breaking the word into three little definitions: one-freedom, two-Expressive, and three-Leads to status of Genius. I think in this time period this word fits nicely because that’s what Pollock has come to represent, and why I suppose people love him. But I especially like the definition given by my little dictionary; lacking sophistication or good taste. I got that Clark really did not want to have the funeral for Abstract Expressionism. That Pollock and Still's never finished what they started therefore it is still alive and that we can still physically related to the time period is holding onto the past a little to much. Yes, one can continue with the theories, techniques, styles of this type of art, but to say they never finished what they started seems odd, because how do we know when anything is finished? I was a bit confused by both these authors’ arguments and have walked away not really convinced with anything, except that I like the use of the word vulgar. Maybe, in class it will all become clear...it usually does. --Ciao