We have not taught in the institutes to write or talk about his work. We were taught to paint, sculpt, paint. But to speak or write opus no. You have to be a novelist to write applications to work.

Two main functions of modern art - communication and adaptability (aesthetic, which was dominant until the postmodern in contemporary art is secondary). So, of course, the author should be able to clearly articulate their thoughts, and not, in the words of Tar, moo with delight. If he is unable to explain anything, communication will not

Ability to explain their own thoughts, it is important for the artist and the public then it should add a requirement to be charismatic. Probably to avoid embarrassment if the living contact the artist can not play "their thoughts", or what kind they are at this moment to change and will not match what is already published?
Poor artists, nobody likes to deal with them while they are alive, and if alive, should be once and for all prescribed way - charming, shocking, and regularly produces a successful product.: D

What nonsense ... There are good artists, that two words can not bind, or stutter, or even a speech impediment ... or a very closed, which in general is difficult to communicate with people ... but the beautiful graphics, painters.

This is an actual artists? Included in the active exhibition process? So you want to say that people create a concept, develop some samomostoyatelnuyu idea, but it can not explain it in words or at worst "to blow the fog? I do not believe ... With such reticence is a very high risk to stay away from the artistic process. In modern art the role of communication, messages, alerts, messages are very important.

Jasmin, I talked about contemporary art, as the direction of art. Naturally, the artist who draws a lilac in the banks do not necessarily know how to talk. but his works can be attributed to contemporary art only for the period (not in meaning, spirit and other characteristics)


fross, all very successful people (including artists) charismatic. although I know several people who have achieved great results with no charisma, only through hard work. but this exclusion

strong work independently engaged in dialogue with the audience ... but there is nothing wrong in that the author adds to this dialogue other artistic languages .... like the music or the visuals complement the light installations, lasers, etc. ... joining of art and text, and logical .. . the main thing that it was expressive ....

Personally, I do with fashionable conceptual artist was not able to communicate ... more with those who draw if not a lilac, a vase exactly, or houses, or vasche any fruit or aunts naked ... in short, all nonsense .. .:)

[color="# 666686"]Added after 4 minutes[/color]
I did not mean fashion-relevant, but those who know.::: Confused:

It turns out that the verbalization of the author's ideas in today's (actual), the art becomes almost a permanent feature of the works of art, and thus, it appears that the current (actual) art does not appeal to the senses and to reason.

In my opinion, this does not mean that this art is better or worse than all that was before - it's just different. And has the right to exist as an independent art form.

Only under the same umbrella is too often hiding absolute powerlessness, when the author tuzhitsya-pyzhitsya in an attempt to express yourself and to express something completely nothing.

And yet, forgive me Vladimir, in my view, should prevail in the art of feeling and intellect - it is from some other area.

Blin! Well, very consistent, go institu quotations.