Discussion with George Albert about the exhibition "Forbidden Art"
Запись от Гор Чахал размещена 09.07.2010 в 15:17
• chahal · 2009-10-23 23:51:08
«The aim of the exhibition (on Erofeev) was a demonstration and discussion of the newly emerged phenomenon of self-censorship, narrowing the range of thematic and aesthetic content of art, rather than displaying the works themselves».
exhibition showed (by Erofeev), as a result of the newly emerged phenomenon of self-censorship a range of thematic and aesthetic content of art is shrinking by 3 thematic and aesthetic content: pornography, obscene sacrilege of religious shrines.
Fantastic discovery in the field of art!
• yuri · 2009-10-24 00:55:26
Gore, but you do not want to make prosecution witness?
• chahal · 2009-10-24 12:12:30
No, Yura. I do not want. But I think that the level of the exhibition is consistent with the level of discussion that this exhibition has caused. As well as the level of coverage of this debate.
• yuri · 2009-10-24 17:14:55
Let's raise the level of diskucsii.
Gore, of course, you can close your eyes to their surroundings and discuss " level of the exhibition. The exhibition will recall showed the work of different artists, taken for various reasons from various exhibitions in 2006. Not those who did not like the curators, and taken for censorship reasons, such as work Kosolapova caviar was removed from the final exhibition in the Tretyakov Gallery. No more "curatorial ideas" on this show was not - a purely remedial action with adequate design course - the notorious holes in the walls.
artists and works that were exhibited there, it is museum level. I think you understand the difference between the works of Kabakov and juices and inscriptions on the walls.
The problem of censorship affects us all - you yourself have suffered from it (an incident with your show at Vinzavod). Thus, Samodurov and Erofeev suffered and for you.
However, in my LJ you write that, on the contrary, you have suffered because of them - do you think that after the incident with "Forbidden Art 2006" Your work on the religious theme were afraid to display. I think that logic is wrong - if the problem is not noticed, it does not disappear, but will only get worse.
Do you think that the work Kosolapova can shoot, because they seem to be someone "anti-religious", and your work can not shoot because you think their "religious". In my opinion, it is agreed to censorship. Or that you can sacrifice the rights of others, just to keep my rights. In addition to sampling the rights not happen - they are the same for the "good" and "bad".
• chahal · 2009-10-24 23:48:26
Yura, and may be contrary , finally open my eyes and begin to discuss the level of exhibitions organized by our curators?
As for censorship, for censorship reasons from 2003 till now I was able to organize only two solo exhibitions, although before that I did for 2 exhibitions per year ( http://www.chahal.ru/data/exibitions/ebodyr.htm ). Since the failures attributable to the owners in exhibitions exhibition spaces that, since the anti-religious actions Avdyei Ter-Oganyan and Exhibition Centre Sakharov any religious subject matter of art is currently inappropriate response in the community, I am writing in my LiveJournal, which has suffered because of them. Why are human rights defenders are not interested in the topic censoring Christian themes in modern art, think I'll ask you as well?
• yuri · 2009-10-25 01:27:18
In this case, the show was completely adequate to its task , That is what I wrote. Here we must not discuss the level of the exhibition, and the level of censorship, this exhibition was made.
If you think you've managed to arrange only 2 of the exhibition is due to censorship (ie, conversations owners of venues were not simply excuse), it is just cause to support Erofeev and Samodurov. In addition, the gallery owners were afraid to refuse you do not Erofeev, and thugs - one more reason to the pogrom and censorship to fight, but do not blame Erofeev.
As for censoring Christian themes in contemporary art, the exhibition "Forbidden Art 2006" was directed against such censorship - at work Kosolapov - also a Christian theme.
And the case with an exhibition at Vinzavod when you have demanded help from the Patriarchate - also censorship of Christian art, but you agreed to such censorship, but did not protest. Can we blame human rights defenders in the absence of interest, if you have already agreed to the censorship, and?
• chahal · 2009-10-25 10:02:59
It is about the same, and I wrote: the show was quite adequate discussion that it provoked, adequate to its task.
If you think, the priority of human rights in our country - protecting the rights of the artist to foul language, then you deserve a witness Vladimir Boyandrina.
• chahal · 2009-10-25 11:50:24
And if you do, Jura, says in papers Kosolapov still present Christian themes, then you deserve the witness twice as Samodurov and Erofeev just say that despite the presence in these works of Christian symbolism, the Christian themes, they are irrelevant. Help the court to understand, dear.
• yuri · 2009-10-25 13:10:06
1) Gore, once again about the right of foul language:
you understand the difference between work Kabakov and juices and inscriptions on the walls?
2) The court should not be the difference between the use of Christian symbols or Kosolapov you - you both have an equal right to it.
Indeed, I suspect that for the "witnesses" no difference between a "Christian artist Chahal" and "non-Christian artist Kosolapov" either. 'll Sort it out with Yerofeyev and Kosolapov - and will arrive to you.
Therefore, protecting Samodurov and Erofeev - do to protect themselves. I mean, the right to a good Christian art can not be exercised without the right of any other art - "anti-Christian," "atheist," using foul language, just a worthless, etc.
Or do you really think that if not Kosolapov, juices, Kabakov, then you will have more opportunities to exhibit? And you are ready to use this feature?
And if Erofeev with Samodurov plant - generally come flowering of art?
• chahal · 2009-10-25 14:15:32
1) Jura, the abundance of some and the same inscriptions on the walls, in the exhibition halls, in literature and mass media has long been erased any distinction between the work Kabakov and juices. Striding modern art - as if his pants are not broke. The problem of extending the boundaries of art is relevant in the 70 years of the last century, where apparently, you're stuck.
2) For the trial and there is no difference between the use of Christian symbolism and me Kosolapov. At the exhibition Russia-2 are the same plaintiffs in 2005, had already filed in court. The reason for the lawsuit served as my work "The Sun of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty". And, you know, Yura? Moscow Judgement failed to see, as in this paper uses the symbols, some theme, this work involves, and what kind of reaction from the viewer, it can cause.
I am always ready to answer for their work before any court, Yura. < br />
And not to me, Yuri, who exhibit and who do not display. And to call someone to plant may be just your sick imagination. I'm trying to debate with you on the pages of art portal as an artist with the artist. Therefore, if the absence of professional reasons you start to try to defame, oporochit me, purely a Bolshevik, attributing to me absurd absurd judgments, God will judge you, my dear Soviet man.
• yuri · 2009-10-25 14: 45:39
Gore, I do not mean to offend you, believe me. I just made the logical conclusions from what you wrote.
And I said to you not as an artist and an artist, but as a citizen to a citizen (as it does not sound stupid). Discuss the case Erofeev and Samodurova with "professional" point of view, that, behold, they did a bad show, or that they are not so interpret Christian symbols - means to bury our heads in the sand and help the rioters. They are judged not for the fact that the show was not good enough, but for the fact that they raised the issue of censorship, and did so in the Sakharov Center, which is already an eyesore to the authorities.
Many exhibitions Erofeev is for what to criticize and I do it publicly. Here - not the case. And when you're in that context, saying: "I do not decide who to stand, and who do not display, you give the right to such solutions censorship.
I do not doubt that you are ready to answer for their work before any court, but I very much hope that you will not have to do it regularly. It is this perspective we are now discussing.
• chahal · 2009-10-25 16:47:58
You just made the absurd conclusions, such that I, speaking for the improvement of our exhibitions curators, call censorship, the planting of unsuitable and try to capture the Moscow exhibition space. I do not know as a citizen of what country you're trying to talk to me as a citizen of Germany? USSR?
Not tbebe, Jura, I specify the time when I allowed someone to criticize and when not. I do not do politics, I'm an artist. And criticism of mediocre article on the dull debate about the talentless. And I have to do it, because I believe that the victim in this story - the art, which are used in an attempt to attract public attention by both litigants. How Erofeev with Samodurov, who organized this exhibition to create a scandal in an episode of the situation to reduce interest in the Sakharov Centre, as well as marginal pravoslavnutye patriots who seek any excuse, publicly declare their obschestvennopoleznoy organization.
I am fed up watching as time and again artists are trying to use a non-artistic purposes.
would be interested in the issue of censorship Sakharov Centre in the Russian society, he would have organized an exhibition about the real issues of freedom of speech in the media, harassment of journalists and the like. But this exhibition would not be scandalous. She does not need Samodurov. Inspired by the scandal with the exhibition "Caution, Religion", he decided to go in a rut. Strained to touch the previous scandal feelings of believers, clicking again and again to one sore point of course much easier than to engage in serious human rights activities.
• yuri · 2009-10-25 18:32:35
Gore, if you not engage in politics, politics deals with you.
Do not criticize "mediocre article on the dull debate about the talentless" - maybe you had not noticed, but this report from the courtroom, rather than Art History paper. "Talentless excuse" is that the judge your colleagues for what they have organized the exhibition.
(I did not even comment on your comments about the motives and Samodurova Erofeev - it looks like a newspaper is true of the Brezhnev era)
Sakharov Center has organized events on the real issues of freedom of speech and harassment Journalists, you just do not know about them. You do not engage in politics, you're an artist. Besides the problem of censorship in art too, very real - and you know very well about this.
A victim in this story, really - art.
• chahal · 2009-10-25 20: 19:23
Yura, so might as well say: if you're not doing biking, biking deals you. And so on. I just do not do politics, Jura, and the arts. What, in my opinion, much of effective policies. Forgive me.
Our debate I began as an attempt critical thinking of the exhibition. You brought it back to normal there is a vicious circle:
Friends, not the time to discuss the artistic merits of the action Avdyei Ter-Oganyan. We have to save a comrade from the court. Friends, not the time to discuss the artistic merits of the exhibition "Caution religion." We have to save the brothers in the shop. Friends, not the time to discuss the artistic merits of the exhibition "Forbidden Art", we must save friends ...
In my opinion, the only way to break this vicious circle - still tense up and begin to discuss the artistic merits of the mentioned stocks. Otherwise, the contemporary art in our society will be associated with only three mentioned by me in the first comment thematic and aesthetic content.
• yuri · 2009-10-26 01:24:14
Gore, if we only discuss the artistic merits of the shares for which our colleagues are subject to a court or forced to emigrate, we soon would not be anyone to discuss it - we'll be transferring.
However, once again - Eisenberg article - no review, and reporting from the courtroom.
When Openspeys will interview with you, Kosolapov returned Ter-Ohanian about your art, or justified Yerofeyev about his curatorial guidelines - I'm happy to delve into subtle definitions and ingenious arguments about art.
give you an example - imagine that we live somewhere in Saudi Arabia and you painted nudes, no matter the purpose of provoking, or just for studying. When you will be judged for pornography and amputated arm sinned, I think it's inappropriate to discuss the professional advantages of your figure - if you made a mistake in anatomy and properly distributed chiaroscuro.
There are other no less vicious circle:
friends, why should we protect Ter-Oganyan, we're not politicians, we - the artists, let's discuss the artistic merits of his action.
No need to stand up for the participants of the exhibition "Caution, Religion", still show - shit.
Why stand up for Erofeev and Samodurov, they themselves are to blame, but it's time to discuss the artistic merits of the exhibition "Forbidden Art". < br /> • chahal · 2009-10-26 10:19:44
Yes, Yura. Yard punks uses just such rhetoric. As a result, the territory of the courtyard are decent people do not walk around the yard turns into a wasteland. And contemporary art in our society begins to firmly associated with a gang of hoodlums.
That's why I suggested that separate flies from cutlets and begin to discuss the artistic quality of provocation, imposed on us by our friends. And plead not a great artist Avdyei Ter-Oganyan, whose greatness lies in the fact that he was the victim of judicial persecution. Not to defend the freedom of the artist, thus destroying all that is sacred to the community and educate in this case generation of vandals. And honestly say that we are not defending the artist Avdeev, a citizen Avdeev, and seek to protect him any honest arguments, not to hide behind the broad back of art.
I am sure that the public will understand us much better .
• yuri · 2009-10-26 14:31:13
Gore, finally you are with me at least somewhat agreed.
I say We defend the right of a citizen.
We defend the right of a citizen to be an artist and curator. Whether good or bad.
And as such, to criticize and analyze "all that is sacred to the society" - is, in general, one of our roles in society. Not only, but very important.
I do not think that this is brought up "generation of vandals, unless you count the pogrom of the exhibition" Caution art "case of instantaneous re-education. I think that bringing up the ability to think independently, and not just mindlessly awe.
Now, about the artistic component. I would not have anyone to call great, but I think that Avdei Ter-Oganyan artist is very large and important for the Russian post-Soviet art. Could it be worse than we are with you. Moreover, I think it is an action "Young atheist" is also an important and interesting, and I do not think purpose of this action was a scandal - or we would have long forgotten about her.
About the exhibition "Caution, Religion" can not say anything - not seen. But judging from what I know about her - an ordinary group show, what a million. Nothing really cynical and blasphemous there was no such things can be seen at other shows, and even now, officially passing biennials. Kids are just not lucky that the authorities had a tooth on the Sakharov Center and it was a convenient excuse to kill him with his hands "orthodox".
"Forbidden Art 2006".
I understand that this was an exhibition of works taken from other shows and its purpose was to point out the problems with censorship, rather than raise aesthetic issues. Therefore, to discuss the artistic quality is not good here - it is necessary to discuss the censorship, the topic quite relevant.
As for the works shown in this exhibition, and taken from others, the ones I've seen - good work of good artists. Nothing provocative, and even more so blasphemous, I do not see them. I would be happy if they hung on my wall.
There simply is no fact or intention to offend anyone, so the court, according to the more critical, so - witness how much they were offended would have visited would be at this show, about which they learned from the Internet or from a familiar story in a year after it was closed. Not to mention appearing in court expertise - it is simply a mockery of common sense and justice.
• chahal · 2009-10-26 14:40:37
can happen anything. But when the massacre happened in the gallery exhibition Djikia Gelman good. Nobody called the looters and defenders of the culture of the Russian people. Public opinion was mixed. In the case of a pogrom of the exhibition "cautiously religion, public opinion diametrically divided. Причём большая часть общества погром не осудило или во всяком случае сочувственно отнеслась к погромщикам. Чувствуете разницу?
• chahal· 2009-10-26 15:16:22
• Кроме того, что защищать следует каждого гражданина, с чем я никогда и не спорил, нам Юра с тобой ни о чём не договориться. Я люблю Авдея как человека и уважаю как Художника, хотя не считаю особо крупным или важным. Глумление над модернизмом, которым он известен - довольно общее место в современном искусстве. Этим и ты отличился в своей серии «Я не...». По-сути, акция «Юный безбожник» не выходит за рамки его деятельности до этой акции. Разница лишь в том, что глумиться над Матиссом, позволительно каждому. И Матисса общество знает плохо, и дела ему до Матисса, в общем-то нет. Хотя, уверен, что для какого-то контингента Матисс тоже может являться святыней. Поэтому с художественной точки зрения, акция Авдея, не имеет никакой ценности, на мой взгляд. Тиражирование идеи, которую как мы можем увидеть на выставке «Искусство или смерть», он разрабатывал ещё в 80-е годы. То есть, очевидно, что Авдей, как художник никак не развивается,. И это не может служить ему комплиментом. Художник одного приёма.
Об остальных выставках я выскажусь позднее. Устал.
• yuri· 2009-10-26 15:45:28
Делится общество в своем отношении к погромам или не делится - погром остается погромом. Я тут никакой разницы не чувствую. И если общество "сочувственно отнеслась к погромщикам" - я не с обществом.
• chahal· 2009-10-26 16:03:08
Кроме того, Юра, если тебе не известно, то акция «Юный безбожник» была вторичной и фактически. Точно такую же акцию с глумлением над иконами Авдей уже осуществил ранее, на биннале в Цетине (Черногория), организованной тем же Ерофеевым. Сербы оказались ещё проще москвичей. Их и перевоспитывать не пришлось. Тут же с гор спустились черногорские монахи и разгромили всю выставку к едрене фене, а всех участников церковь предала анафеме. И все дела.
После этого в мастерской Авдея случилось общее собрание известного тебе круга художников, которые после художественного разбора содеянного просли Авдея не повторять больше своих художеств в такой форме. Авдей наплевал на мнение друзей и полез на рожон. Художник же. Я не осуждаю его как гражданина, и буду защищать, насколько это в моих силах. Но доводы моей защиты не будут художественными. Я бы аппелировал к тому, например, что человек только что бросил пить. Ушёл в глухую завязку. Ну вы, дорогие присяжные знаете, как это бывает непросто. Заколбасило парня. Войдите в его положение. С кем не бывает и т.п.
• chahal· 2009-10-26 17:34:47
Я не считаю, Юра, что критика и анализ "всего, что свято для общества" - это, в общем-то, одна из наших функций в обществе. Я сторонник скаутского лозунга: критикуя, предлагай!
Художники - критики мне давно не интересны, хотя и понимаю, что такая позиция вероятно не очень распостранённая в нашей среде. На днях вот Марина Литвинович пыталась заявить о чём-то подобном в сфере политики, так её тут же ошельмовали и «закавычили» любители тотальной критики. Оппазицианеры, так сказать.
• chahal· 2009-10-27 19:51:39
А если вернуться к нашим овчам, то данный процесс показывает, что если художественное сообщество не в состоянии самостоятельно определить границы художественного пространства, за дело берутся искусствоведы в погонах. Поскольку по конституции любой гражданин, не согласный с представлениями, скажем, Юрия, о допустимых пределах его публичной деятельности, может решить возникшие разногласия в гражданском или уголовном суде, если Прокуратуре гражданского суда покажется для этого недостаточно.
"Какая угодно" выставка является публичной деятельностью. А любая публичная деятельность регулируется Правом, если иметь ввиду правовое общество. И личная свобода гражданского лица ограничена пространством, занимаемым телом этого лица. И то не всегда. Например при беременности после 12-ой недели.
• chahal· 2009-10-28 13:30:38
Вероятно - это никому не интересно. Как отличить подлинник от фальшифки? Анализом материалов, исследованием техники автора и т.п. Вот я и предложил этим заняться. А то всё нет времени, сейчас не время - принцип действия кидал возле обменных пунктов, подсовывающих тебе второпях куклу вместо настоящих дензнаков.
• chahal· 2009-10-28 14:13:52
Я, например, считаю, что целью (осознанной или подсознательной) Ерофеева и Самодурова является не обозначение проблемы, а создание этой проблемы. До выставки «осторожно, религия» со времён перестройки, я не сталкивался с проблемой цензуры. Вообще. В 2002 году я преспокойно выставил в ЦДХ на Мастерских Москвы проект «Хор», в котором впервые открыто заявил о христианской тематике в своём творчестве. Никаких цензурных проблем выставка не имела. Наоборот, вызвала лишь позитивную прессу. А после скандала с выставкой «Осторожно, религия» у меня начались цензурные проблемы. Сначала завуалированные: ну ты понимаешь, сейчас не лучшее время для выставок на христианскую тематику, сделай что-нибудь другое, пожалуйста. А после выставки «Запретное искусство» цензура перешла в открытую форму.
Так кто вызывает эту цензуру?
• chahal· 2009-11-01 10:31:37
А с другой стороны, хочется спросить и граждан, ведущихся на подобные провокации или использующих их как повод для привлечения внимания к своей общественной организации: в какой книге впервые Христос подвергался не только критике со стороны неверующих в Него, но и был ошельмован, поруган, оплёван, подвергся жесточайшим истязаниям, пыткам, был казнён самым унизительным способом?
Правильный ответ: Книга эта называется «Святое Евангелие». Так вот, вам никогда не приходило в голову подать в суд на издателей этой книги за разжигание религиозной розни и оскорбление христианских святынь? Я не верю, что искренно верующего христианина, может задевать то, как и в какой форме о его вере и святынях высказываются неверующие в Христа. (Я не имею ввиду конечно физическое оскорбление святынь, как например, рубку икон, что совершенно недопустимо). То есть, если в кощунственных «произведениях искусства» христианские святыни не используются непосредственно (как реди-мейд), такие «произведения» не могут задевать чувства верующих.
http://www.openspace.ru/art/projects/132/details/13101/page3/?view_comments=all
Link to original
«The aim of the exhibition (on Erofeev) was a demonstration and discussion of the newly emerged phenomenon of self-censorship, narrowing the range of thematic and aesthetic content of art, rather than displaying the works themselves».
exhibition showed (by Erofeev), as a result of the newly emerged phenomenon of self-censorship a range of thematic and aesthetic content of art is shrinking by 3 thematic and aesthetic content: pornography, obscene sacrilege of religious shrines.
Fantastic discovery in the field of art!
• yuri · 2009-10-24 00:55:26
Gore, but you do not want to make prosecution witness?
• chahal · 2009-10-24 12:12:30
No, Yura. I do not want. But I think that the level of the exhibition is consistent with the level of discussion that this exhibition has caused. As well as the level of coverage of this debate.
• yuri · 2009-10-24 17:14:55
Let's raise the level of diskucsii.
Gore, of course, you can close your eyes to their surroundings and discuss " level of the exhibition. The exhibition will recall showed the work of different artists, taken for various reasons from various exhibitions in 2006. Not those who did not like the curators, and taken for censorship reasons, such as work Kosolapova caviar was removed from the final exhibition in the Tretyakov Gallery. No more "curatorial ideas" on this show was not - a purely remedial action with adequate design course - the notorious holes in the walls.
artists and works that were exhibited there, it is museum level. I think you understand the difference between the works of Kabakov and juices and inscriptions on the walls.
The problem of censorship affects us all - you yourself have suffered from it (an incident with your show at Vinzavod). Thus, Samodurov and Erofeev suffered and for you.
However, in my LJ you write that, on the contrary, you have suffered because of them - do you think that after the incident with "Forbidden Art 2006" Your work on the religious theme were afraid to display. I think that logic is wrong - if the problem is not noticed, it does not disappear, but will only get worse.
Do you think that the work Kosolapova can shoot, because they seem to be someone "anti-religious", and your work can not shoot because you think their "religious". In my opinion, it is agreed to censorship. Or that you can sacrifice the rights of others, just to keep my rights. In addition to sampling the rights not happen - they are the same for the "good" and "bad".
• chahal · 2009-10-24 23:48:26
Yura, and may be contrary , finally open my eyes and begin to discuss the level of exhibitions organized by our curators?
As for censorship, for censorship reasons from 2003 till now I was able to organize only two solo exhibitions, although before that I did for 2 exhibitions per year ( http://www.chahal.ru/data/exibitions/ebodyr.htm ). Since the failures attributable to the owners in exhibitions exhibition spaces that, since the anti-religious actions Avdyei Ter-Oganyan and Exhibition Centre Sakharov any religious subject matter of art is currently inappropriate response in the community, I am writing in my LiveJournal, which has suffered because of them. Why are human rights defenders are not interested in the topic censoring Christian themes in modern art, think I'll ask you as well?
• yuri · 2009-10-25 01:27:18
In this case, the show was completely adequate to its task , That is what I wrote. Here we must not discuss the level of the exhibition, and the level of censorship, this exhibition was made.
If you think you've managed to arrange only 2 of the exhibition is due to censorship (ie, conversations owners of venues were not simply excuse), it is just cause to support Erofeev and Samodurov. In addition, the gallery owners were afraid to refuse you do not Erofeev, and thugs - one more reason to the pogrom and censorship to fight, but do not blame Erofeev.
As for censoring Christian themes in contemporary art, the exhibition "Forbidden Art 2006" was directed against such censorship - at work Kosolapov - also a Christian theme.
And the case with an exhibition at Vinzavod when you have demanded help from the Patriarchate - also censorship of Christian art, but you agreed to such censorship, but did not protest. Can we blame human rights defenders in the absence of interest, if you have already agreed to the censorship, and?
• chahal · 2009-10-25 10:02:59
It is about the same, and I wrote: the show was quite adequate discussion that it provoked, adequate to its task.
If you think, the priority of human rights in our country - protecting the rights of the artist to foul language, then you deserve a witness Vladimir Boyandrina.
• chahal · 2009-10-25 11:50:24
And if you do, Jura, says in papers Kosolapov still present Christian themes, then you deserve the witness twice as Samodurov and Erofeev just say that despite the presence in these works of Christian symbolism, the Christian themes, they are irrelevant. Help the court to understand, dear.
• yuri · 2009-10-25 13:10:06
1) Gore, once again about the right of foul language:
you understand the difference between work Kabakov and juices and inscriptions on the walls?
2) The court should not be the difference between the use of Christian symbols or Kosolapov you - you both have an equal right to it.
Indeed, I suspect that for the "witnesses" no difference between a "Christian artist Chahal" and "non-Christian artist Kosolapov" either. 'll Sort it out with Yerofeyev and Kosolapov - and will arrive to you.
Therefore, protecting Samodurov and Erofeev - do to protect themselves. I mean, the right to a good Christian art can not be exercised without the right of any other art - "anti-Christian," "atheist," using foul language, just a worthless, etc.
Or do you really think that if not Kosolapov, juices, Kabakov, then you will have more opportunities to exhibit? And you are ready to use this feature?
And if Erofeev with Samodurov plant - generally come flowering of art?
• chahal · 2009-10-25 14:15:32
1) Jura, the abundance of some and the same inscriptions on the walls, in the exhibition halls, in literature and mass media has long been erased any distinction between the work Kabakov and juices. Striding modern art - as if his pants are not broke. The problem of extending the boundaries of art is relevant in the 70 years of the last century, where apparently, you're stuck.
2) For the trial and there is no difference between the use of Christian symbolism and me Kosolapov. At the exhibition Russia-2 are the same plaintiffs in 2005, had already filed in court. The reason for the lawsuit served as my work "The Sun of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty". And, you know, Yura? Moscow Judgement failed to see, as in this paper uses the symbols, some theme, this work involves, and what kind of reaction from the viewer, it can cause.
I am always ready to answer for their work before any court, Yura. < br />
And not to me, Yuri, who exhibit and who do not display. And to call someone to plant may be just your sick imagination. I'm trying to debate with you on the pages of art portal as an artist with the artist. Therefore, if the absence of professional reasons you start to try to defame, oporochit me, purely a Bolshevik, attributing to me absurd absurd judgments, God will judge you, my dear Soviet man.
• yuri · 2009-10-25 14: 45:39
Gore, I do not mean to offend you, believe me. I just made the logical conclusions from what you wrote.
And I said to you not as an artist and an artist, but as a citizen to a citizen (as it does not sound stupid). Discuss the case Erofeev and Samodurova with "professional" point of view, that, behold, they did a bad show, or that they are not so interpret Christian symbols - means to bury our heads in the sand and help the rioters. They are judged not for the fact that the show was not good enough, but for the fact that they raised the issue of censorship, and did so in the Sakharov Center, which is already an eyesore to the authorities.
Many exhibitions Erofeev is for what to criticize and I do it publicly. Here - not the case. And when you're in that context, saying: "I do not decide who to stand, and who do not display, you give the right to such solutions censorship.
I do not doubt that you are ready to answer for their work before any court, but I very much hope that you will not have to do it regularly. It is this perspective we are now discussing.
• chahal · 2009-10-25 16:47:58
You just made the absurd conclusions, such that I, speaking for the improvement of our exhibitions curators, call censorship, the planting of unsuitable and try to capture the Moscow exhibition space. I do not know as a citizen of what country you're trying to talk to me as a citizen of Germany? USSR?
Not tbebe, Jura, I specify the time when I allowed someone to criticize and when not. I do not do politics, I'm an artist. And criticism of mediocre article on the dull debate about the talentless. And I have to do it, because I believe that the victim in this story - the art, which are used in an attempt to attract public attention by both litigants. How Erofeev with Samodurov, who organized this exhibition to create a scandal in an episode of the situation to reduce interest in the Sakharov Centre, as well as marginal pravoslavnutye patriots who seek any excuse, publicly declare their obschestvennopoleznoy organization.
I am fed up watching as time and again artists are trying to use a non-artistic purposes.
would be interested in the issue of censorship Sakharov Centre in the Russian society, he would have organized an exhibition about the real issues of freedom of speech in the media, harassment of journalists and the like. But this exhibition would not be scandalous. She does not need Samodurov. Inspired by the scandal with the exhibition "Caution, Religion", he decided to go in a rut. Strained to touch the previous scandal feelings of believers, clicking again and again to one sore point of course much easier than to engage in serious human rights activities.
• yuri · 2009-10-25 18:32:35
Gore, if you not engage in politics, politics deals with you.
Do not criticize "mediocre article on the dull debate about the talentless" - maybe you had not noticed, but this report from the courtroom, rather than Art History paper. "Talentless excuse" is that the judge your colleagues for what they have organized the exhibition.
(I did not even comment on your comments about the motives and Samodurova Erofeev - it looks like a newspaper is true of the Brezhnev era)
Sakharov Center has organized events on the real issues of freedom of speech and harassment Journalists, you just do not know about them. You do not engage in politics, you're an artist. Besides the problem of censorship in art too, very real - and you know very well about this.
A victim in this story, really - art.
• chahal · 2009-10-25 20: 19:23
Yura, so might as well say: if you're not doing biking, biking deals you. And so on. I just do not do politics, Jura, and the arts. What, in my opinion, much of effective policies. Forgive me.
Our debate I began as an attempt critical thinking of the exhibition. You brought it back to normal there is a vicious circle:
Friends, not the time to discuss the artistic merits of the action Avdyei Ter-Oganyan. We have to save a comrade from the court. Friends, not the time to discuss the artistic merits of the exhibition "Caution religion." We have to save the brothers in the shop. Friends, not the time to discuss the artistic merits of the exhibition "Forbidden Art", we must save friends ...
In my opinion, the only way to break this vicious circle - still tense up and begin to discuss the artistic merits of the mentioned stocks. Otherwise, the contemporary art in our society will be associated with only three mentioned by me in the first comment thematic and aesthetic content.
• yuri · 2009-10-26 01:24:14
Gore, if we only discuss the artistic merits of the shares for which our colleagues are subject to a court or forced to emigrate, we soon would not be anyone to discuss it - we'll be transferring.
However, once again - Eisenberg article - no review, and reporting from the courtroom.
When Openspeys will interview with you, Kosolapov returned Ter-Ohanian about your art, or justified Yerofeyev about his curatorial guidelines - I'm happy to delve into subtle definitions and ingenious arguments about art.
give you an example - imagine that we live somewhere in Saudi Arabia and you painted nudes, no matter the purpose of provoking, or just for studying. When you will be judged for pornography and amputated arm sinned, I think it's inappropriate to discuss the professional advantages of your figure - if you made a mistake in anatomy and properly distributed chiaroscuro.
There are other no less vicious circle:
friends, why should we protect Ter-Oganyan, we're not politicians, we - the artists, let's discuss the artistic merits of his action.
No need to stand up for the participants of the exhibition "Caution, Religion", still show - shit.
Why stand up for Erofeev and Samodurov, they themselves are to blame, but it's time to discuss the artistic merits of the exhibition "Forbidden Art". < br /> • chahal · 2009-10-26 10:19:44
Yes, Yura. Yard punks uses just such rhetoric. As a result, the territory of the courtyard are decent people do not walk around the yard turns into a wasteland. And contemporary art in our society begins to firmly associated with a gang of hoodlums.
That's why I suggested that separate flies from cutlets and begin to discuss the artistic quality of provocation, imposed on us by our friends. And plead not a great artist Avdyei Ter-Oganyan, whose greatness lies in the fact that he was the victim of judicial persecution. Not to defend the freedom of the artist, thus destroying all that is sacred to the community and educate in this case generation of vandals. And honestly say that we are not defending the artist Avdeev, a citizen Avdeev, and seek to protect him any honest arguments, not to hide behind the broad back of art.
I am sure that the public will understand us much better .
• yuri · 2009-10-26 14:31:13
Gore, finally you are with me at least somewhat agreed.
I say We defend the right of a citizen.
We defend the right of a citizen to be an artist and curator. Whether good or bad.
And as such, to criticize and analyze "all that is sacred to the society" - is, in general, one of our roles in society. Not only, but very important.
I do not think that this is brought up "generation of vandals, unless you count the pogrom of the exhibition" Caution art "case of instantaneous re-education. I think that bringing up the ability to think independently, and not just mindlessly awe.
Now, about the artistic component. I would not have anyone to call great, but I think that Avdei Ter-Oganyan artist is very large and important for the Russian post-Soviet art. Could it be worse than we are with you. Moreover, I think it is an action "Young atheist" is also an important and interesting, and I do not think purpose of this action was a scandal - or we would have long forgotten about her.
About the exhibition "Caution, Religion" can not say anything - not seen. But judging from what I know about her - an ordinary group show, what a million. Nothing really cynical and blasphemous there was no such things can be seen at other shows, and even now, officially passing biennials. Kids are just not lucky that the authorities had a tooth on the Sakharov Center and it was a convenient excuse to kill him with his hands "orthodox".
"Forbidden Art 2006".
I understand that this was an exhibition of works taken from other shows and its purpose was to point out the problems with censorship, rather than raise aesthetic issues. Therefore, to discuss the artistic quality is not good here - it is necessary to discuss the censorship, the topic quite relevant.
As for the works shown in this exhibition, and taken from others, the ones I've seen - good work of good artists. Nothing provocative, and even more so blasphemous, I do not see them. I would be happy if they hung on my wall.
There simply is no fact or intention to offend anyone, so the court, according to the more critical, so - witness how much they were offended would have visited would be at this show, about which they learned from the Internet or from a familiar story in a year after it was closed. Not to mention appearing in court expertise - it is simply a mockery of common sense and justice.
• chahal · 2009-10-26 14:40:37
can happen anything. But when the massacre happened in the gallery exhibition Djikia Gelman good. Nobody called the looters and defenders of the culture of the Russian people. Public opinion was mixed. In the case of a pogrom of the exhibition "cautiously religion, public opinion diametrically divided. Причём большая часть общества погром не осудило или во всяком случае сочувственно отнеслась к погромщикам. Чувствуете разницу?
• chahal· 2009-10-26 15:16:22
• Кроме того, что защищать следует каждого гражданина, с чем я никогда и не спорил, нам Юра с тобой ни о чём не договориться. Я люблю Авдея как человека и уважаю как Художника, хотя не считаю особо крупным или важным. Глумление над модернизмом, которым он известен - довольно общее место в современном искусстве. Этим и ты отличился в своей серии «Я не...». По-сути, акция «Юный безбожник» не выходит за рамки его деятельности до этой акции. Разница лишь в том, что глумиться над Матиссом, позволительно каждому. И Матисса общество знает плохо, и дела ему до Матисса, в общем-то нет. Хотя, уверен, что для какого-то контингента Матисс тоже может являться святыней. Поэтому с художественной точки зрения, акция Авдея, не имеет никакой ценности, на мой взгляд. Тиражирование идеи, которую как мы можем увидеть на выставке «Искусство или смерть», он разрабатывал ещё в 80-е годы. То есть, очевидно, что Авдей, как художник никак не развивается,. И это не может служить ему комплиментом. Художник одного приёма.
Об остальных выставках я выскажусь позднее. Устал.
• yuri· 2009-10-26 15:45:28
Делится общество в своем отношении к погромам или не делится - погром остается погромом. Я тут никакой разницы не чувствую. И если общество "сочувственно отнеслась к погромщикам" - я не с обществом.
• chahal· 2009-10-26 16:03:08
Кроме того, Юра, если тебе не известно, то акция «Юный безбожник» была вторичной и фактически. Точно такую же акцию с глумлением над иконами Авдей уже осуществил ранее, на биннале в Цетине (Черногория), организованной тем же Ерофеевым. Сербы оказались ещё проще москвичей. Их и перевоспитывать не пришлось. Тут же с гор спустились черногорские монахи и разгромили всю выставку к едрене фене, а всех участников церковь предала анафеме. И все дела.
После этого в мастерской Авдея случилось общее собрание известного тебе круга художников, которые после художественного разбора содеянного просли Авдея не повторять больше своих художеств в такой форме. Авдей наплевал на мнение друзей и полез на рожон. Художник же. Я не осуждаю его как гражданина, и буду защищать, насколько это в моих силах. Но доводы моей защиты не будут художественными. Я бы аппелировал к тому, например, что человек только что бросил пить. Ушёл в глухую завязку. Ну вы, дорогие присяжные знаете, как это бывает непросто. Заколбасило парня. Войдите в его положение. С кем не бывает и т.п.
• chahal· 2009-10-26 17:34:47
Я не считаю, Юра, что критика и анализ "всего, что свято для общества" - это, в общем-то, одна из наших функций в обществе. Я сторонник скаутского лозунга: критикуя, предлагай!
Художники - критики мне давно не интересны, хотя и понимаю, что такая позиция вероятно не очень распостранённая в нашей среде. На днях вот Марина Литвинович пыталась заявить о чём-то подобном в сфере политики, так её тут же ошельмовали и «закавычили» любители тотальной критики. Оппазицианеры, так сказать.
• chahal· 2009-10-27 19:51:39
А если вернуться к нашим овчам, то данный процесс показывает, что если художественное сообщество не в состоянии самостоятельно определить границы художественного пространства, за дело берутся искусствоведы в погонах. Поскольку по конституции любой гражданин, не согласный с представлениями, скажем, Юрия, о допустимых пределах его публичной деятельности, может решить возникшие разногласия в гражданском или уголовном суде, если Прокуратуре гражданского суда покажется для этого недостаточно.
"Какая угодно" выставка является публичной деятельностью. А любая публичная деятельность регулируется Правом, если иметь ввиду правовое общество. И личная свобода гражданского лица ограничена пространством, занимаемым телом этого лица. И то не всегда. Например при беременности после 12-ой недели.
• chahal· 2009-10-28 13:30:38
Вероятно - это никому не интересно. Как отличить подлинник от фальшифки? Анализом материалов, исследованием техники автора и т.п. Вот я и предложил этим заняться. А то всё нет времени, сейчас не время - принцип действия кидал возле обменных пунктов, подсовывающих тебе второпях куклу вместо настоящих дензнаков.
• chahal· 2009-10-28 14:13:52
Я, например, считаю, что целью (осознанной или подсознательной) Ерофеева и Самодурова является не обозначение проблемы, а создание этой проблемы. До выставки «осторожно, религия» со времён перестройки, я не сталкивался с проблемой цензуры. Вообще. В 2002 году я преспокойно выставил в ЦДХ на Мастерских Москвы проект «Хор», в котором впервые открыто заявил о христианской тематике в своём творчестве. Никаких цензурных проблем выставка не имела. Наоборот, вызвала лишь позитивную прессу. А после скандала с выставкой «Осторожно, религия» у меня начались цензурные проблемы. Сначала завуалированные: ну ты понимаешь, сейчас не лучшее время для выставок на христианскую тематику, сделай что-нибудь другое, пожалуйста. А после выставки «Запретное искусство» цензура перешла в открытую форму.
Так кто вызывает эту цензуру?
• chahal· 2009-11-01 10:31:37
А с другой стороны, хочется спросить и граждан, ведущихся на подобные провокации или использующих их как повод для привлечения внимания к своей общественной организации: в какой книге впервые Христос подвергался не только критике со стороны неверующих в Него, но и был ошельмован, поруган, оплёван, подвергся жесточайшим истязаниям, пыткам, был казнён самым унизительным способом?
Правильный ответ: Книга эта называется «Святое Евангелие». Так вот, вам никогда не приходило в голову подать в суд на издателей этой книги за разжигание религиозной розни и оскорбление христианских святынь? Я не верю, что искренно верующего христианина, может задевать то, как и в какой форме о его вере и святынях высказываются неверующие в Христа. (Я не имею ввиду конечно физическое оскорбление святынь, как например, рубку икон, что совершенно недопустимо). То есть, если в кощунственных «произведениях искусства» христианские святыни не используются непосредственно (как реди-мейд), такие «произведения» не могут задевать чувства верующих.
http://www.openspace.ru/art/projects/132/details/13101/page3/?view_comments=all
Link to original
Всего комментариев 0
