The most significant artists of the twentieth century
 

yesterday watched the transfer of about Marc Chagall, and I thought, this man has done so much for the arts on an international scale, his art was so distinctive and unusual)), can it be called the most significant artists of the twentieth century, or is it Picasso? or may be someone else?

The twentieth century gave the world a lot of interesting artists. Naturally, someone more obviously, someone mnee clearly influenced world art. Among the outstanding artists are the lucky ones who have been given a talent and long life. They had much to do, write - Chagall, Picasso, Dali. Each of them gave the world something new. There are artists who are called man-style. That is, they created their own, unique style that made their work unique. So were the Chagall and Dali.
Picasso is not only gave the world cubism. It is a unique example of how a lifelong artist passes different stages, mastering different styles, different style, but always remains unique.
And there were Soutine, Modigliani, Duchamp.
Warhol with Marilyn Monroe, Liz and soup - whatever was without Pop-art ...?
And, of course, Cezanne and Matisse, without which it is difficult to imagine the development of Russian art.

Artists, without which I personally would be bored (the last third of the 19 th century and the first third of the 20 th century):
Of Russian Artists - Mikhail Vrubel and Vasily Kandinsky
Of foreign - Cezanne, Van Gogh, Modigliani

Here a question arises ... but based on what parameters one treats for themselves the significance of artists? So I think that for most originality and innovation talent, I do not say significant, was Filonov ... possible for the of art of the twentieth century among the first that Picasso, Malevich, Chagall, and a little running back Gauguin ...

I think that the rational explanation here can not be. Like "formula of love". There are no criteria, only the inner feeling. You can not explain what an art different from the weak. Just cheovek able to see it. Or learn to see.

Vladimir, is a placebo, you can convince yourself anything ....

Well then, I persuaded myself that the most znachtelny Russian artist - this Vrubel:) Who will propose other candidates? Better with agrumentatsiey.

visiting the exhibition of the Golden Fleece (in the Tretyakov Gallery on the Crimean shaft) is hard to deny the power and significance Vrubel ... Look at the picture of the swan 1901 !!!!!! , and understand that here it is the vanguard in its full manifestation ... here you have the makings of non-objective painting ...

I would have nominated Filonova ... it was so distinctive and anyone not like he was so at odds with the trends of the time and so have seen a new meaning and essence of art that, for me it is without doubt one of the most major Russian artists ...

It's a pity to die of hunger, these innovators. Filonov, although in besieged Leningrad, but even without the war did not fatten much.

Well, not all)) Filonov was just such a person, who refused to sell their work ... that's why and in poverty, although there were many interested persons, especially foreigners to buy a large sum of money his paintings ...
the same innovators who agreed, very, very good live))) for example, Chagall, Warhol, Picasso, Dali ...

Meister,
what you mean by the concept of "Significant"? if the criterion of the artist - the novelty of utterances, it is one thing. And if the artistic quality - both.
Because if in terms of novelty, here is easier to search the most significant work, but not very significant artist. And then it clearly - "Black Square" by Malevich, no matter how banal. And then in the conditional category "Paintings century. Because "art objects" - is "Fountain" Duchamp putting a urinal exhibit. Malevich makes the point in painting and Duchamp, opens a new era in completely different forms of artistic creativity.

artemirra, the question correctly ... but let's still be judged on originality, the innovation, because from an artistic point of view it was a lot of good artists, but many of them were just followers and imitators. However he did not spread to all art, because there are many other areas ...

If we talk about art, then, in my opinion, Malevich is certainly the most significant artist of the twentieth century. Impressionism, cubism, expressionism, surrealism - the development of academic ideas, change the view of the image of reality. Malevich also launched a whole painting on a fundamentally new way, way irrelevance. All modern art in varying degrees based on the ideas of Malevich.

I really like Duchamp, but it is not art - the art of shocking.

qwerty,
I, on the contrary, I do not like Duchamp, but I think that what he had to flip the view of the entire artistic process. It was after it emerged an idea of what is important is not itself a work of art, and the context in which it places the artist in which he treats the audience. He is the founder of conceptualism, if you like. A lot of the latest relevant for - there. Another thing is that yes - this is not art and not art, even in its classical sense ...

Then get whatever you can cram in conceptualism and call it art. Look what you excuse the expression, half-wit in Germany wants to make the exhibition a dying man (as has been the dog. Let me remind you, then this is an "artist" tied the dog in some sort of exhibition hall and all went and watched it die without water and food). And by the way, what is the Academy of Arts is supported. So conceptualism conceptualism, and all the better to retain the same common sense and do not call everything art.