Art-lover, I also have a question for you: if you call the date of the first abstract work in 1832 (which, to the WMD did not survived), does this mean that between 1830 and 1910 mi-mi for years no one has created a single another abstract work?

Then how about Kandinsky and abstract art theorist Michel Seyform, who argues that it all started with Kandinsky: "the artist entered the darkened shop and saw indescribable beauty, which was his own picture, seen through different eyes. From this point on Kandinsky has gained complete freedom from imitation. Kandinsky passed cubism - rarely the case. Freedom of lines, colorful symphony of his works was inspired by Russian folklore, which Kandinsky and his contemporaries as Larionov and Malevich, are well known and studied. "

And then, in addition to Kandinsky, to speak about Rayonism Larionov and Malevich's Suprematism?

artcol, Are you serious about less ideological conditionality "objective art" of Gurdjieff (which you cite below
)?
If the reduction of art to the service functions - not the apotheosis of pure ideology, what is it then? Hood. ideal of George Ivanovitch - sphinx and statues of deities, postrennye on esoteric scheme, and so that this scheme is to "read" the book is dedicated. All random, personal, "unconscious" of the paintings and sculptures should be expelled. What do you mean "I vote", which searches for the artist, when everything has already been found and only a subjective hindrance. And as art, distorts the shape or pointless - it is not art. Analogies with the cultural line in the USSR and the Third Reich did not occur?
When the "dominant paradigm", diffusely poured into the public consciousness, the "marginal" artists have a chance to shake her, and eventually transform it. But when, God forbid, "objective" paradigm coined in a totalitarian concept - the art of Khan.
 
Theosophy - is not top of the spiritual development of mankind and not all qualify for such a golden age of abstraction. (Crisis Theosophy graphically represented figure Krishnamurti, whom Theosophists believed enlightened they are prepared for the role of the icon of Theosophy, and who, having reached maturity, he sent them away.)
The creators of abstract art and its branches were set up in most mystical, but not all theosophical; program they were different - some inspired by Theosophy, the other having no relationship to.

Tyutchev Maroussia, the post of "The unknown masterpiece" - a joke. Take it easy - do not judge her too harshly :)
So if you dig, the Balzacian his study examined the gap between the artist's intent and objective outcome of his efforts, as well as the issues raised in the transcendence of art (in conjunction with the tasks of translating the absolute), and depending on perception of cognitive systems. ) Jokes, jokes, and these issues are cross-cutting for the abstract movements of the 20 th century.

The other questions I will answer later. I apologize - not physically have time.

Adoption is very controversial. According to Bernson, Florentine School vsegdv tended to develop problems drawing, perspective, composition at the expense of coloristic developments. In this sense, Leonardo was her true son, and nowhere is not distracting.
Kloristicheskie delights were the prerogative of the Venetian school.

And this statement somehow does not seem convincing. Probably too extreme point of priority of color should be called, for example, Klein, Rothko or his famous blue. And as a black square, as I wrote above, it seems to me the product, primarily conceptual, enshrining minority of concepts such as composition, color, texture, metal, plastic, this is largely an artistic gesture (like Duchamp urinals) than the support of color or plastic values.

From this thesis, I somehow implicitly read in what you think is the abstraction of being on pole, in color and realistic painting - on the pole shape. Is that so?

Posted 7 minutes
Thesis, of course, spectacular, but not undisputed, if I understand you correctly (why am I so blunt, for the umpteenth time I can not overpower the depth of your calculations? :)).
What do you mean by "make" an abstraction you know? Such as Kandinsky bauhauzovskogo period, Mondrian, huh?

 Well this is just almost a solipsism :)

Posted 11 minutes
True, it's true written Peter is not only a spectator, but also in the head, muscles, nerves, and where there still any good artist. Some have "on the machine, almost unconsciously, others do it by trial and error, others still somehow, etc.

I have quoted Peter a, but the issue would like to ask all participants.
Ie if indeed there are criteria for evaluation of abstract painting, then everything becomes very simple.
For example, if I, as a man who owns these criteria, which is attached here or a job or even a series of works by one artist, without specifying its name, then I can get a professional opinion, how much good work and whether they were work of genius or a scribble from someone who decided to become an artist?
Because I have a suspicion that the opinions will differ, and even very likely that will not coincide with the opinions of eminent critics. :)

Why am I all that? I really like to read theoretical arguments about abstraction, but I've said many times to persuade and not by the example of abstract paintings that every man has his opinion, especially when it comes to fresh pictures and new names, but not even very new.

All will be very simple, if you do the very difficult conditions - to teach these criteria. And it's not simply because they do not always and not all are formalized, but also because learning it can serve as a foundation for learning, personal experience, without which formal methods are dead.

Even if you collect a sufficient number of "eminent critics," and then vypoluchite discordance, but still, I think a trend is noticeable. And at the forum, you think all ravnoimenity and all are equally owned by the criteria? Forums - it's quite a motley community, although, of course, higher level than simple random sampling.

That's exactly

fabosch, not the fact that the trend will be noticeable. Different critics and specialize in different just because of personal tastes, ie, Of course they know the story of the same, namely to work kontemporarnyh someone reviews only video art, one painting in one or another style, etc. I know this from experience, unfortunately, life and work, this fact does not simplify.
I agree, although this impression tends to be scattered at a closer look at some of the participants. Nevertheless, the conversations that take place here, the depth and quality of the arguments I have never met in an English speaking area, which has long been all write only for money.

Gentlemen, we have finally left? Study, study and study again, but in the end the art before us or not, everyone decides for himself. How to say LCR: is not art, because I said so or is a genius because I said so , sorry for the fact that do not have the exact phrase. :)

Explain. There is populyapnaya "abstraktsionistskaya" branch under the graceful name of "plein air for the abstract" (http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showthread.php?t=106821). So, there is an attempt to create svogo roda forge layered abstract, which means "abstractive series" (it should be the same!) Come to the same "correct" result in the creation of abstraction. If we leave aside the undoubted commercial merits of the project, as well as many undeniably talented works, then the net balance is obtained by naked simulyakr such technology is currently sculpting abstract paintings. Then let zaprogrammiruem computer to create a "series of abstracts," and he displays a sterile formula for creating an abstraction without any "plein air". Of course, this example is extreme, but it is very telling in terms of how you can "make" an abstraction, emptied of its main element - an attempt to direct and unmediated expression on the canvas is not measurable protorealnosti unconscious.

Well, and why it causes such a doubt?
Here for example mesh work, and absolutely can not imagine that someone could call it "normal and oil, from someone who decided to become an artist." Even my venerable years and is very conservative father, who admits only to the Wanderers and the Jack of Diamonds is considered normal and dry, recognizes that this is a very high level of painting, though she does not like him at all.

God knows, I do not understand how "an attempt to direct and unmediated expression on the canvas is not measurable unconscious protorealnosti" depends on whether the artist was standing in front of this open air? You want to say that anyone who reaches the "direct and unmediated expression on the canvas is not measurable protorealnosti unconscious, does not live on earth, closes his eyes before and during work, and empties into nirvana? I think you are a prisoner of beautiful words. Of course a lot of artists, all different, all have different ways of working. There are those who are in the process of work feels like a medium. But here again we find ourselves in a nice trap. Do you think gets (sorry, I have to repeat part of his address Tiutchev), we can judge whether the work of "abstraction", unless we know that the artist when it was created have been in contact with no measurable unconscious protorealnosti? do not be offended, but I think you too much to burden. By virtue of whether it is man? :)
But seriously, it seems to me that you're really narrow down the scope of what is meant by abstract art. Although, of course, in this region there are ranges that are closer to what you're talking about

So.
Yes, you are right in art history is a point of view. It is not entirely true, in my view pure practice. Giotto - pure colorist, Taddeo Gaddi - surprisingly harmonious, and Masaccio, Botticelli, Lippi, Fra Angelico ... I still can not forget those of harmony, where everything is subordinated to bloom. Yes, they worked on a drawing, perspective, composition. But all of this - not at the expense of color, and it is amazing! How they managed to combine everything into a coherent whole? It is very difficult. Venetian school more inclined to form, whatever the historians wrote.
Let me explain. Black square - is one tsvetoforma. One simple shape - square, and one color - black (conventionally black, it is rather dark gray). Just as, for example, the red dot - it will also be a simple tsvetoforma. Rothko, still, uses several tsvetoform on canvas. Therefore, his work, I can not say very much at the point, although very close to it. But Klein - yes, I agree.

About abstract art written many texts. This is due to the fact that people still want to understand and realize what they are seeing. But what can you write about a certain combination of color spots? Only one - the mystic, the unconscious, the deep intention, etc. Initially, the artists are not very pleasant, but he threw good "bone", they were told - you're visionaries, mediums, the researchers of the new realities, innovators and geniuses. And the artists included in this game. Since then, as Renoir said: ".. Artists see themselves as exceptional beings, imagine that, putting the blue paint instead of black, they change the world. " Time will pass, will come new generation of artists, will replace the blue paint in black and once again "turn the world." :)

Thank you for your kind words, dear iside! :) "I write here often, because I have really very little free time.
Responding to your question is - can not. Painting, based on a harmony of color, very difficult, almost impossible to evaluate the monitor, we can not see the "quality" of the original color and its scale. You need to look original. On the internet you can more or less to evaluate only the form of: proportions, angles, volumes, etc. All this is a totally objective criteria. With color - more difficult.