Compare and Contrast Mattias Grunewald isenheim altarpiece
Works of art throughout cultures and different time periods address similar themes in different ways.
Contemporary artists are still creatively addressing many of the same themes as artists of the past. For this
research paper you will focus on thematic connections between two artworks of your choosing. You will be
selecting one artwork from our textbook Gateways to Art and drawing connections with a work done by a
contemporary artist discussed in PBS’s Art 21 series. This will entail looking over past works we have covered
in your textbook, completing the remaining readings listed in your syllabus, and going to the PBS website to
watch videos. The site is organized by themes and also alphabetically by artist name. Videos can be found
HERE. (Links to an external site.)
Please make sure to choose works which have a unique connection with a thematic focus such as their
material, conceptual framework, formal qualities, etc. The connections you draw will ultimately become the
thesis of this research paper. Your thesis should be defended throughout the paper with careful analysis and
research of the works and cultures discussed.
Below are examples of possible essay topics. Please note that these are only examples. You are required to
think of your own topics.
1) Compare/contrast England’s prehistoric Stonehenge with James Turrell’s contemporary Earthwork Roden
Crater. Compare/contrast the scale and formal similarities of both of these works as well as the relationship
each work has with the land, the sun, and the sky.
2) Compare/contrast Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon with the work of contemporary artist Fred
Wilson. Compare/contrast the act of collecting or appropriating artifacts from past cultures and incorporating
them into new works in each artist’s practice.
3) Compare/contrast The Woman of Willendorf with Louise Bourgeois’s figurative sculptures. Compare/contrast
how ideas of fertility, gender, sexuality and the body are dealt with in both works.
owns the device, many insurance companies have provided coverage of the therapy by using a case-by-case system, determined by the medical necessity of treatment. The Musella Foundation for Brain Tumor Research and Information created an assistance program from patients needing TTF therapy for recurrent GBM. Also, certain patients who live in the United States and meet specific income conditions can receive up to $5,000 per year for the treatment (ECRI Institute 2016). According to the New York Times, Novocure offers the treatment for free for patients without health coverage (Grady 2014). Prognosis When patients used Optune (TTF therapy) for 12 hours or more a day and also took TMZ during the same period, 86% of patients increased their survival rate compared to just taking TMZ alone. The more compliant patients were with using the device, the better their outcome was. In order to get the best results and maximal survival benefit, patients should aim to use the device for at least 18 hours a day. For patients who had compliance over 90%, their median survival was 24.9 months and their 5-year survival rate was 29.3% (Ram 2017). When dealing with glioblastoma (GBM), the median overall survival rate is around 15 months and the rate of 5-year survival is estimated to be 5% (Tykocki 2018). Conclusion In conclusion, hyperthermia therapy and tumor treating field therapy come from very different scientific concepts, but both aim to kill cancer cells and save cancer patient’s lives. Hyperthermia treatment was created after witnessing patients with high fevers achieve remission and tumor treating field therapy was created after someone thought of the idea. Although hyperthermia therapy has been since the ancient times, not much has changed with the process since the early 1900’s and it is still used in the same fashion today, if used at all. Even though in addition with radiation, hyperthermia therapy shows therapeutic results, very few cancer treatment centers boast about their use of this specific therapy. It is covered by Medicare and some insurance companies though, so we can assume it is still used today. On the other hand, Tumor Treating Fields have only recently been discovered and on the market for doctors to prescribe and for patients to use. Since discovering the success of the treatment, many clinical and preclinical trials are in the works and they will hopefully achieve promising results. Already, the amount of time it has added for patients with GBM is lifechanging. This technology is one of the first to change the life expectancy for GBM in a very long time. Also, it has very little reported side effects for everything that it can do. There are many benefits to this treatment and very few, if any drawbacks, exce>GET ANSWER