Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaya
(Post 482486)
art, which are the key, always expresses some idea, for example, the idea of beauty. even Soviet realism was what? ideological, party, popular.
|
Yaya, in my view, socialist realism in this case a bad example. Socialist realism - the art, originally limited to very rigid framework. The fact that some artists have learned to circumvent these excellent framework - that is another story.
As for the idea - do not agree. To express the idea on the canvas, for example, it must be at least aware of and to themselves, however stated. Imagine an author who stands before his easel with palette in hand, determined to express the idea of beauty ... Ridiculous! And what, for example, the idea of "fugue" by Kandinsky, bottled de Stael? So why are they, unprincipled, cause such a storm of emotions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaya
(Post 482486)
the importance of the verbalization of ideas does not lead to the domination of the mind.
|
Then object. If a work of fine art (ie, literary) verbalization of the currency, hence, its purpose is still to reach the mind, to explain the viewer (which is their reason in a position to perceive), what is he sees before him. Perhaps, then, when the audience will understand and if it proymet, then there will an emotional response, feeling. And if the words that accompany, for example, the installation does not appeal to reason, then why are they for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaya
(Post 482486)
not all communication is reasonable
|
The title theme is the word "explanation".
|