The Art of XX century. For children, uncles and aunts

[Art-lover]

Does it make sense in the film, which I look?
Why pictures are similar to the ruins or in piles of garbage?
Yes, it's just scribble!
The picture is clearly not finished!
Such a child would draw!
Complete nonsense!
The artist simply mocks us!
Paintings by old masters are much clearer.
The fact that today it is art, no art.
Why such a scribble hangs in a museum?

It turns out that in the West ask such questions. But hysterical appeals to respond to them with the help of police and psychiatrists, there is much less than in our region. Perhaps because there is much more produce books, like this:

Francoise Barbe-Gall
«How to talk to children about art»
(Frangoise Barbe-Gall «Comment parler dart aux enfants»).

I would like to offer an excerpt from it, containing a brief FAQ on some aspects of contemporary art for amateurs.
Warn local issues of the Inquisition: the basic content of the book devoted to an examination of classic works of art, not propaganda "degenerative" values.

The book was reprinted in France, translated into English, and enjoys great success in England and America.

Читать дальше... 

Does the artist provide explanations for their paintings?

Many people think that to really explain the meaning of the picture can only be the artist himself, if it will provide explanatory text. This position implies, as if painting less eloquent than words. This is pure fallacy. We do not expect from a pianist, that he will play the sonatas, explained in words, what is music, with why should an artist do? Painting itself is a special language. With the help of visual images, the artist does not illustrate, and materializes ideas. Artists who have written about their own work (for example, some abstractionists), do not engage in their own interpretation of his paintings, but rather to explain their motives for creating or expounded general considerations.
This question is closely related to another - on the limits of authority
art critics, art historians and art critics. The essence of their activity is reduced to just to get to the "text", standing for the manner and decrypt it. Of course, their finding should be based on thorough knowledge of history - the country's history, art and creativity of this country are interested in their artworks.

Art of the XX century

What is abstract painting?

Painting is called abstract if it does not reflect the visible reality. In abstract painting not objects, places, people, real or imagined, there is only a mixture of colors and shapes. This painting does not "reproduce" - she "produces" itself. Conventional division of abstract paintings and figurative (substantive) for many artists is not definitive: in the images that emerged in interaction with reality, to some extent still is a reality, although the actual "photographic" display it there. Elements of abstract and figurative can have such artists coexist in one picture: for example, on the canvas by Francis Bacon, we see the feet of Isabella Rostorn "puddle" spilled paint. But the artists of the opposite type - "clean" abstractionists - firmly and irrevocably separated from the objective abstract art. In a broader sense, the notion of "abstract" is usually applied to the forms, not connected with the surrounding reality, such as ornaments, used in Islamic art, and generally to any meets this requirement forms of decorative art.

Why modern paintings are often exhibited without frames?

By the end of the XIX century, artists such as Van Gogh, Seurat and Pissarro, abandoned heavy gilded frames, and they prefer a more modest - white or color. It was a rejection of the bourgeois, the tradition of painting belonging to consider luxury interiors. New Painting, democratic in spirit, got rid of the outdated "trinkets". Later, in the XX century, many artists in general have ceased to use the frame. This once again emphasized self-sufficiency of painting, which should not be constrained by any external frame. In addition, the art of XX century usually focuses on the process of work, rather than its result, and the absence of the frame contributes to the feeling that the picture is not only not over, but can not be completed. This pattern is not seen as isolated, bounded by something an object as well as open space.

Why the name is not always associated with the fact that we see in the picture?

We are accustomed to accurate, descriptive names, which in the past were given pictures of their authors themselves or museum inventories, and therefore the names of many works of art of XX century, we seem to be confusing or even meaningless. Yet this does not speak of a deliberate disregard for the artist to the viewer or the desire to annoy him. Name can not directly correspond to the content of the picture, his role is much meanings. It may be associated with something (or someone) that at one time inspired artist, can make to think about the hidden meaning, inspired by a particular mood, to give the painting a poetic or humorous color - etc. In many cases the name becomes a full part of the same picture as the image itself: one is inseparable from the other.

Why so many pictures without a title?

There is a suggestion that the painting without a title eloquent and expressive enough to do without labels. There are artists who deliberately avoid calling their work, fearing it would diminish their significance. The lack of accompanying words as if inviting the viewer to look at the picture of the "pure", without any mediation. Freeing of the name, the picture at the same time eliminating the need to conform to it. Not being tied to words, the picture does not contradict them, and in fact they may be neglected, the ideal image is not needed in the language. In a sense, it brings the art of natural phenomena: after all, a mountain, for example, exists by itself and should not necessarily be called a mountain. So often it seems that the name - a cumbersome, extra supplement. However, it should be emphasized that the names are of practical importance - without them it would be difficult to compile a catalog and inventory. And when an artist chooses for his picture version of "Untitled", it is partly disingenuous - somehow he still calls it! Often, "nameless" paintings are numbered and are united in the series - "Untitled number 1", "Untitled number 2", etc. Thus, the viewer is invited to consider the individual works as part of a cycle - similar to what we have in music (concerto number 1, concert number 2, etc.).

Why do many artists again and again returned to one of your favorite subject?

According to popular opinion, these artists are developing the same "rich vein" for the sake of profit and thereby conceal the failure to develop creatively. Perhaps there is some truth, but one should bear in mind two important points. First, the artists are people too and need our daily bread. Renoir himself admitted that he would die of starvation, if not written for dozens of its lovely still lifes. Consumer demand can significantly affect the artist's work, forcing him to repeat. Only financially independent person (or persons not of this world!) Can afford to oppose the laws of the market and resist the temptation to produce what sells well. Secondly, the repeated appeal to a particular subject is not always a rehash of the same. Many artists limited repertoire provides scope for in-depth, detailed study. And then it is not a repetition, and subtle and complex art of variation. In a society that manages the fickle fashion, in a society obsessed with novelty (as if the novelty alone is worth something!), Adherence to one line speaks of an enviable inner freedom of the artist. He creates his own world and opens in him the depth that others did not dream.

How to tell whether there is meaning in the painting, which I look?

Before the paintings by old masters such a question does not arise. The clarity of the plot and the skill of the artist speak for themselves: one of Vermeer's paintings is enough to appreciate his work. Another thing painting today. Modern painting almost never seen as a result. It is rather a certain stage, a moment, as a single word in a book or a brick in the entire wall. To understand all its implications, now must be considered in the broader context, and for that to know the biography of the artist, the evolution of his art and his place in art history. For the viewer it is not easy, but the exhibition and the book helped. In any case, it is important to remember: what you see here and now - no more than an episode in a long process.

Why does the picture are similar to the ruins or in piles of garbage?

Contemporary art that emerged from the bowels of the consumer society, often uses the waste that society. And in today's films all too often we see garbage. If, however, apply to the deeper causes of this phenomenon, we must remember that the traditional system of mapping the world of art has been completely overturned after the Second World War - among other things, the atomic bomb. Hiroshima showed humanity, what would be his end. In the painting, along with all sorts of waste, appeared Theme ruin, ruins, traces the life of the deceased, and thus memories. Diligently archaeologists art collecting crumbs and saves for the future of the debris of the collapsed peace. Art becomes a commentary on history. Laconic and externally sparse modern art inspires us, that even the most inconspicuous detail is worthy of our attention, that the slightest crack or stain must be able to look as if we saw them in the first - or last - time.

Yes, it's just scribble!

This kind of sentence - the result of misunderstanding. In our time we can not expect from the painting of what we are accustomed to - the same technique as in paintings by old masters, and the same use. When we look at the girl in jeans, we do not expect to see the silhouette of the Marquise in crinoline ... If we notice in the picture of some sort, it seems, haste, ineptitude, carelessness, lack of elaborate forms, the violation of proportions, etc., that does not mean that the artist can not draw, but due to the nature of artistic challenges. The image in the painting - a phenomenon different from the narrative or imitation: it is equivalent to reality. The themes chosen by the artist - the chaos, loneliness, innocence, the flow of memories, joy, etc. - in the painting does not "tell" and not "played", as in the theater, and transmitted directly, through the expression of form and color.

The picture is clearly not finished!

Only the author can decide completed his picture or not. No other judge this is not right. The part can not understand why the artist has stopped work at some stage. He is guided by its own considerations. Requiring complete the picture should not be elevated into an absolute, it depends largely on the historical context. If modern painting seems unfinished, this could be the fault of our outdated criteria. Often, the impression is created deliberately unfinished: the artist gives the viewer understand that the work will continue, he interrupted only briefly ... Painting expresses dissatisfaction with the author of what has been done at the moment, and at the same time speaks of enduring thirst for creativity.


Such a child would draw!

Of course, the child can draw something similar to what we see in the museums of modern art. But the child does not have the emotional and intellectual maturity, which allows you to create a picture. Children draw spontaneously (as well as sing or dance), and the artist creates consciously. One of the biggest challenges of the artist is to combine in his work all the benefits of experience, spiritual and sensual, with characteristic directness of children. The artist is not seeking the return of lost innocence, but to the transfer of completeness and power of feelings, which are typical of children who are experiencing their first time.

Total nonsense!

If there are no familiar landmarks picture, it does not mean that it is meaningless. Maybe you're just not able to decipher. Called the product of nonsense tantamount to casually dismiss everything that you do not understand. You are not going to say that a man who speaks in a tongue, is nonsense: you just need a translator. So with painting: sometimes wiser to recognize that you have not yet learned to understand its language. "That anyone namalyuet!" To say that the easiest, but it's not true. Nevertheless, when on a blank canvas, you see one-united-governmental line or a few colored spots, such reactions are understandable. Indeed, purely technical "anyone" in a position to take the brush and easily write, for example, mono. But to reach such an understanding of the world, which will enable it to conceive and carry out this work, capable of only a few. The artist often takes years to have a certain type of painting, and at the same time, giving his work to the public, he risked facing a complete lack of understanding. Imitate this painting is not meant to understand it, with the work that has nothing in common. And we are talking about creativity, that at some time in some place was found an artist who has matured in his head - and then became incarnate - a kind of creative idea, and we see its result. Paint and be an artist - not the same. The mere fact that a painting does not make a person an artist. Painting should be a way of life, a way of communicating with the world. This implies a serious choice that not everyone on the shoulder.

artist simply mocks us!

Believe me - the artist, like any of us, not before: it has something to do. Sometimes, of course, that his creative freedom, which manifests itself in a certain way, causes irritation of the public. The audience may seem, being laughed at or bullied if he comes to the picture of bias - that is, if he knows in advance that should give him a painting. If his expectations are not met, he feels cheated. But while the audience loses sight of one important thing, how you can consider yourself a target for ridicule, if you do not have to look at this particular picture, and even more coming from her delight! Painting is not imposed on anyone, it exists by itself. Incidentally, statistics show that the artists and their work much more often than the audience, become a target for biting ridicule and even abuse.

Paintings of old masters are much clearer

A common misconception. Indeed, it is easier to see what is shown in the picture, but this is not enough: you have to decipher the plot. Meanwhile, many stories - historical, literary, religious, mythological - all too often leave a modern audience in bewilderment. Even if the plot seems clear to understand the meaning of the work is not so easy. For example, it is clear that the "Mona Lisa" - a beautiful portrait of a woman, but is that all that the artist put into his work? In the past century, the perception of painting required a knowledge of a particular set of characters. To understand the Uccello painting "Saint George", you need to know, for example, that the knight symbolizes the good and the dragon - the evil. To understand the "Birth of Venus" by Botticelli, we must remember that Venus - the goddess of love and beauty and that she was born from sea foam. Today painting contains a different kind of guidance, and sends the viewer to the modern experience. It expresses what is familiar to us all: the fear of universal destruction, the desire to overcome it, rebellious mood, desire, hope, confusion, feelings, fighting instincts ... I understand this can immediately, without any additional information.

What is today called art, no art

Such a categorical statement assumes that you know something that is real art: In your opinion, this definition is suitable only painting, done in a technically and aesthetically, and that perfection is the same - regardless of the vicissitudes of history. But it is different. Since prehistoric times, art has played in society an enormous role. It is known that primitive man brought dyes for hundreds of miles from deposits of minerals and that the paint was valued by them as well as weapons. Painting was then one of the conditions of survival, and not just a way to decorate the home or household goods. The picturesque image creates a special space in which - and through that - the artist has his destiny. This is a bridge between the personality of the artist and the outside world, thanks to him that an artist can express what he feels, to aspire to, what hopes, what fears and what not accept. For centuries painting is indeed appearing created by mankind ideals of beauty, but that its function is not exhausted. No painting or art in general can not be reduced to one only search for beauty, even if sometimes we wish that it were so.

Why does this scribble hangs in a museum?

Museum buys a particular picture because it captures, and a certain stage career of the artist, and a certain historical stage. If both of these essential points coincide, the picture becomes a "landmark" that is truly significant. The task of the museum of modern art is not to give us mere aesthetic enjoyment. Of course, it happens that art helps us escape from the hardships of real existence, but it is also a laboratory, where the accumulated human experience. Contemporary art allows us to consider what surrounds us, as if through a magnifying glass - even distorting. Either way, all the time, in its place: the perception of certain things can be blunt or, conversely, worsen, some paintings lose their former importance, while others will find new strength effect on the audience.