Two movements in Scottish art from the 19th and 20th Centuries were clearly on a European scale of excellence: The Glasgow Boys and The Scottish Colourists”. Discuss if this is so and compare and contrast each group’s approach to their subject matter and method.

25/08/19 2-37 PM
could you please check grammar and the quality. Also, just checked with my teacher and the maximum the paper can have is 2100 words. More than that and I’ll be penalised 1.5% per every 100 extra words (or any part of it). Also the teacher does not need a full poem written inside the paper because she consider it is cheating (the writer is using a lot of words to copy paste a poem rather than using the words to actually writing a good paper analysing and demonstrating knowledge about the topic)

31/08/19 11-26 AM]
thanks for the revised work but unfortunately there are still many mistakes and the essay does not reply the question that was asked:

Two movements in Scottish art from the 19th and 20th Centuries
were clearly on a European scale of excellence
: The Glasgow Boys and The Scottish Colourists”.
Discuss if this is so
and compare and contrast each group’s approach to their subject matter and method.

It’s not only about talking about each group, comparing and contrasting each other. The essay needs to include a discussion on how do I think they were on a European scale of excellence. It still fails to do so.

Also, the teacher pointed out grammar mistakes and lack of information that haven’t been corrected yet. I think it’s becoming a bit of a joke and I’d ask the writer to focus on this paper rather than doing something very quickly within 24 hours without paying attention. I’m attaching proof of the revised work marked by the teacher, and I’ll give you some examples just now:

Page 1:

-previous paper, teacher said “comprised of several men” is a grammar mistake. Still appears “comprised of” in the revised work.

-previous paper, teacher pointed out “Ferguson” was mispelled. It’s Fergusson with 2 s. Still appears “Ferguson” in the revised work.

-previous paper, teacher said “was influential on the present-day Scottish art and culture” is a grammar mistake, it’s IN, not ON. But this grammar mistake still appears in the revised work.

-previous paper, teacher asked about more information regarding the “Scottish Colourists are among the most cherished Scotland’s artists loved by all gallery-goers” part…expanding a bit more, when, how, then…in the revised paper the writer mentioned “high prices in all the exhibitions they participated” but still didn’t mention any exhibition.

-Also, teacher is having big problems with the “poem” the writer is talking about. Although the writer now quoted the poet (Colin Will) is still not clear what he means by “the first poem ever composed”, and also he mentions this when talking about James Gurthie but, second page, he says “the poem concern Francis Cadell”. Please, make this clear because it’s very confusing.

Page 2:

-They were born in Scotland in the 1970s…wow. They were born in the 1870s. Please double check what you write before sending a revised document. The date is completely wrong. Also teacher asked from the previous paper to expand information about their visits to France: How long did they stay there? when? where? But still, the revised paper does not mention anything about that. Changes have been made but very vaguely in this revised version.

-Also, previous paper teacher asked when and where regarding the “they only showed up together 3 times”. Revised paper still not covering this.

-At the end of page 2 writer says “all these depicted their european scale of excellence”. teacher says that I keep telling that but still not proving why I think so. Why they were at a european scale of excellence? How? what styles? It’s everything very vague, not showing a deep knowledge about the topic and my teacher is becoming very upset about this, since she clearly thinks I’m pulling her leg. Therefore, I think the writer is pulling mine.

Page 3:

-Teacher asked in the previous paper who and how regarding the “art of Japanese print and French realism”. Still not covered in the revised work.

-Grammar mistake again, “production of paintings basing on natural environments”. Not basing, it’s BASED.

-Previous paper, teacher said “you keep telling me they clearly were at a europen scale of excellence but tell my why, how, explain…”, well, the writer in the revised work just add “as far as the european scale of excellence is concerned when they were named as a power house of european culture in 1990”. This makes no sense at all and does not explain why these artists were at a european scale of excellence. I mean, Glasgow was name european city of culture in 1990, but what??? How does it explain that some artists that did not oulive the WWI were excellent artists at an european level?? This is beyond a joke and teacher is extremely upset because not even with her suggestions the writer has been able to produce a decent paper explaining why these artists were important. It makes me suspect that the writer does not have a deep knowledge about art.

Page 4:

-“Most of the major art collections were formed in Glasgow”. Ok, but examples???? again, it’s very vague.

-Writer mentions “glasgow boys were scaling the greater heights of European scales of excellence”. Again…WHY???? HOW???? and what about the colourists???

Page 5:

-Mispelling again a name. Joseph Crawl, he wrote. Rather than Joseph Crawhall. Is it too much to ask to revise a paper before uploading it? Uploading a paper with grammar mistakes and names mispelled is so wrong in so many levels guys…

-Whistler. In the previous essay teacher asked for further information about this, who???. But still in the revised paper writer changed nothing about it.

-Teacher corrected “with a graphics memory” in the previous paper, pointing out it is “with a graphic memory”. Still in the revised paper the writer didn’t correct that grammar mistake.

The last page is kind of Ok, but still many mistakes and not answering what the question is asking.

From @ 9/2/19 5:59 AM
I just had a look at the revised document and I’m starting to feel extremely angry.

First paragraph: they only unveiled together 3 times while they were still alive. The first incident ocurred ib the 1950s when art historian TJ Honeyman brough them (Cadell, Hunter and Peploe) together in his book the Scottish Colourists 1950. Fergusson later joined in the 1980s during the second incident.

Why does the writer use the word “incident”? It suggests something unpleasant but anyway…What second incident? And what was the third time? And the most interesting thing, did the incidents happen using a Ouija board? Because the artists were beyond dead by 1950s.

How could I trust this essay if the first paragraph states that they were still alive in the mid and late 20th century.

Please. Take this seriously once and for all.