Modern Painting and the problem of attribution of paintings
 

Recently (on 40godov the last century to the present) in the history of painting was put enormous amount of material extracted with the help of stylistic kritiki.Zhivopisi so many that do not neatly ask what is notable for one or other manner of images, what is the originality of a style ( After all, look at the picture completely elementarnuyu .. and she is considered a masterpiece, not it possible that just because the artist decided to put the first such product
on display? a picture that looks completely drawn by a child with no talent .. best describes "as an artist (who in real images has never tried to draw something) - such a genius ... so I decided to engage the subject in which I hope to enlighten me the best minds gathered here on the forum.
WHY A BAD Draw Considered masterpiece?
Sincerely Yurko <!--~ a ~-->.

In the evaluation of works of art, regardless of the style and direction, the main criterion is talent.

For people immersed in the art, talent is absolutely objective and understandable at a glance the quality, this is the criterion by which to determine the "present-not present", and after that go all the other estimates. A poorly drawn and considered a masterpiece "-there is no such.

And the examples can show that you have in mind? Sometimes carelessly but deliberately drawn professionally, and looks to the layman as bad painting and etc. ..

"... In the fine arts events surrounding the life otobrazhayutsya with lines, tonal relationships, color combinations, three-dimensional shapes, vibrant rhythms. Art is divided into separate types, each of which has its own Special arrangements language ..." Visual Arts 5-6 klass.vstuplenie.M.G.Deyneko, VY Yelin, G. Korobov 1981
"Radyanska School

:D "what we have learned a long time ... a wide brush to paint a large canvas divorce .. and realism genre, specifically where every detail is drawn from ... for example .. why divorces where no paint and a hint of color harmony .. stands in the ratings in the first place .. not uzhto realistic art has lost its relevance ?:)

Добавлено через 6 минут
Well, that's more like ..?:)

Well, that's more like ..?:)

Just a good copy of nature (nature) and the repetition is not listed. In our dynamic world, the more valuable the original idea. Sometimes with a few abstract divorce paint expresses some concept. This is how scientists invent semiconductors, lasers, etc. .. It's like in science first appear ideas, discoveries, concepts. Say so. Someone knows how to masterfully weave baskets of twigs, but it's yesterday.

Hence the conclusion: the modern artist who draws from Balde (by Alexander Pushkin), depict the reality can not .. but such a concept, that any who can hold a pencil in his hand is able to create masterpieces? Or not just a pencil?
Admiration for the expression of thoughts and feelings :(

Yurko, this much has been written (sang, said. Cursing, whispering) .. that even the already awkward ..
Look at this (I hope he becomes a little clearer):
http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showth...B8%D0%B7%D0%BC
R "orthodox realism or the ability to write, draw"

I'm talking about fundamental attribution of Modern Art would like to know that the most attractive (realism or simulation, or a picture ekskrementalnoy theme?)

Select the last (and can not go wrong) ..

Added after 1 minute
This is the main direction of modern action Islands (experimental ekskrementalnoe)

Yurko!
You also Hans already said: the most attractive in the arts - is a talent!
And in what direction, in any manner and in what category this talent manifests itself - for the second time. (Copyists and "excrement" - do not count).
Personally, I still appreciate the novelty (independence, individuality, - call it what you want) - that the artist was able to find in themselves and to express as well as media, that "feature" by which his or anyone else can not be confused.

Inserted and I have my five cents ... In modern art the notion of talent has become a purely opportunistic and slave market. Once the art has become a huge market, the same market and faced with an acute problem of shortage of quality "goods". This is, in general, should not be surprising - almost all "classical" art hangs in museums ("bargains" only 3-5%), and a new, adequate second half of 20th century which in general was stingy on the talents, could not give . Therefore, business leaders this shortcoming (the market - is, of art - no) offset is simple - they formed a new concept of talent, did not primarily the creation itself, and the dubious identity of the creator (well, I can not understand why all the already hackneyed "Black Square" by Malevich - this is an outstanding and valuable work, and the "Battle of negroes in a cave at dead of night" Alphonse Allais, written decades earlier, and please mark having at least a far more interesting name - no), and dulled the aesthetic sense of consumers, thereby having matched by public opinion an existing third-best product. After a while ... and everything is now possible to give the market and Pollock, and Rothko and passing them for talent, the universal scale, and those who do not find in their works nothing but a set of swabs to call people without taste. Unfortunately, this market has identified all the major artistic processes that occurred in the twentieth century, which led to the appearance in the mass quite ugly and tasteless modern art. Where there is a market, art is not enough. Therefore, the question "why are drawn poorly and is considered a masterpiece?" I would give the following answer: "draw really bad .. And please vnimenie who is considered a masterpiece.".

You're right, of course, but then the money was backed by gold ...
UPD: But seriously, I think, the current main problem is that highly speculative market promotes extremely dubious talents.