If you accidentally, from time to time, starting somewhere in the depths of the soul to worry that you do not understand modern art (which, for example, tend to me), then do not worry. The fact that you do not understand, just is an indication that you understand it, and the opposite is true. If you understand it, it means that it is not the original artist, in fact, largely repeating your personality, and therefore of little value. It is possible to understand what the artist says, is to disqualify him sign.
Generally there are two main thoughts on the subject of how to understand art. The first - the idea of embodiment. The fact that the artist represents the product of Genesis material, including here not only to space, time, event outline and its root causes, but also understanding and experience of all this. In principle, this idea is linked to the concept of artistic form, which arises as a product of anthropological, psychological and personality characteristics of the artist, but in principle it is possible and without form, and yet in many ways, which, however, still are a continuation of the author. Understanding this embodiment of the audience is achieved under two conditions: firstly, you are an artist should be included in a more or less the same matter of Genesis, including understand and experience it must somehow it seems, and secondly, your personal characteristics must somehow also be the same with him. There is some theoretical difficulty, since the ideal of understanding you have to be identical to the artist, and then what, actually, to watch his work, when you already know all about him. But the ideal of identity does not happen, but if your with small differences, then you can think out, as it were, or felt for those areas where you are with him are not, so really understand until the end and imbibe his personal experience. Hence, for the artist followed by two nice things: he first, as it gives people their identity, secondly, in part reformats these people under him. But here it is important that those who give, it was necessary and they seemed to agree to reformat.
Second - is the idea of symbolization. It assumes that the direct embodiment of a matter of Genesis does not work and the artist uses indirect symbols. They can be arbitrary (and not very cultural coding system) and involuntary (metaphorical, analogical, psychological). The viewer performs some work on deciphering the contents of the artistic message, and sometimes finds: that he was not considered a symbol, just them and is open symbolic archetypes in themselves and in the universe, and all somehow expands your horizons. This is important and nice, but basically works when some basic similarities in the systems of symbolism between artist and audience is present from the outset.
In this and in another case, the similarity between artist and audience, or psychophysical, or because of the unity of cultural codes. Simply put, as in any work of deciphering to understand, you need to know in advance what to say. Probably, in relation to some time, say, Christian art, or earlier, it was not even make much sense. And the artists and audiences, for example, were Christians, or even something in common between them. But today is not so. Today, the only value expressions of the artist and the sole criterion of quality is the originality and uniqueness, nonidentity with anyone at all and, of course, with any audience. That is the purpose statement is not that someone understood something, but on the contrary, that no one understood anything.
Читать дальше...
Well, this is a purely semantic matter. But the artist is included in the exchange relations, symbolic or even cash. And that's the question: what it sells, if understand what he says, not what is impossible, but would be very bad for the utterance, since substantially reduces its value. This seems inexplicable thing, a kind of manifestation of the mystical essence of art as a market asset.
The mystical essence of art is also reflected in the fact that it is contagious. Especially for the architecture. Then there are the same processes in a simplified and therefore more easily understood form. Nikolai Malinin recently in connection with the exhibition "Russian Utopia" held a "garage" round table "dedicated to the conservation problems of Soviet architecture 60-70-ies. She has a rather unpleasant fate: its mass demolition, but in contrast to the monuments of earlier ages it does not cause any negative human emotions - there she and the road. Opinion architects about the indifference to the heritage sotsmodernizma clearly expressed famous curator Elena Gonzalez. "In my opinion, - she said - those who do not understand the value of this architecture - it's just redneck. And we will not focus on the opinions of cattle! "Agree, an excellent avant-garde position, even in something, and desperate, because the preservation of monuments of architecture - an expensive process, which should be done by just" cattle ". In a recent review of the exhibition Catherine Bustamante Tar defined the "essence of the avant-garde abstraction, including Malevich:" There is no life, you despicable tradesmen from me will not get you shish ". In my opinion, it seems.
British sociologists of the firm YouGov last year published the results of the survey, of which it turns out that 77%of the population do not like modern architecture and prefer houses in traditional styles. That is to say redneck - fairly representative of the population. 77%- it's too much and does not reflect the real situation on the market, where new buildings in historical styles do not even appear in inverse proportion 23:77, and even more rarely. This is an amazing situation, because we face the market ruled by supply and demand, nevertheless, architects can impose their position. This occurs over many decades, a large market, it's not a one-time event, where else can someone mislead the brains, but recurring transactions in which the "cattle" to sell something that he dislikes and incomprehensible. And it buys!
I think this is reason to think about the nature of the sale of artistic expression. I will cite another example, just from a distant, seemingly area. Nikita Mikhalkov, has released its twice Burnt by the Sun and in this regard is now massively distributed interview. Among other things: "In recent years absolutely agree with Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov, who wrote that" a man without faith I am not interested at all. Amazing thing! A remarkable man can be - itself a virtue. But if you understand that this man has no faith in him not to talk about. " Nikita Khrushchev - not avant-garde, but quite the opposite, yet he is broadcasting the same position as I understand it, the rights of the artist. This product advertising to the mass of the buyer, and in the context of this action to buyers say: "If you do not believe in God, come here and go away". Imagine advertising washing powder - not for atheists, Jews and gays! ". Once it is exotic.
I think that we, art historians, it is necessary to adjust the position on the subject of that art produces a new understanding of the world, a new look, and this valuable. The situation is exactly the opposite. The art of producing a new misunderstanding of the world, a new waiver to look at him and join with anyone to communicate on this. The most valuable is saying: "Come on you ..." and it is a new articulation of this position is an art event. Moreover, it is absorbed from art related fields - architecture, or, say, movies.
Of course, this question - how can you sell misunderstanding? But basically it's even easy. Do something you do not understand, but bought it, and it is already yours. Money can not overcome the misunderstandings that make it possible to understand, and that can assign incomprehensible. Here, say, modernist architecture can not like, but if it's yours, it is quite another matter. I bought it - and that you have something of their own do not understand. Well then will deal. General lack of understanding of something in itself - it is a normal human condition, even the creative and generous. Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Samos Sr. put it this way: "Maybe he and son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch". That is the moment of assignment took questions misunderstanding. This may be a universal formula of the artist's position in the market. How would he be son of a bitch, but make it his own, and all questions they withdraw.
Interesting thoughts Gregory Revzin .<!--~ one ~ ->
If you accidentally, from time to time, starting somewhere in the depths of the soul to worry that you do not understand modern art (which, for example, tend to me), then do not worry. The fact that you do not understand, just is an indication that you understand it, and the opposite is true. If you understand it, it means that it is not the original artist, in fact, largely repeating your personality, and therefore of little value. It is possible to understand what the artist says, is to disqualify him sign.
Читать дальше...
...
Second - is the idea of symbolization. It assumes that the direct embodiment of a matter of Genesis does not work and the artist uses indirect symbols. They can be arbitrary (and not very cultural coding system) and involuntary (metaphorical, analogical, psychological). The viewer performs some work on deciphering the contents of the artistic message, and sometimes finds: that he was not considered a symbol, just them and is open symbolic archetypes in themselves and in the universe, and all somehow expands your horizons. This is important and nice, but basically works when some basic similarities in the systems of symbolism between artist and audience is present from the outset.
....
That is the purpose statement is not that someone understood something, but on the contrary, that no one understood anything.
....
I think that we, art historians, it is necessary to adjust the position on the subject of that art produces a new understanding of the world, a new look, and this valuable. The situation is exactly the opposite. The art of producing a new misunderstanding of the world, a new waiver to look at him and join with anyone to communicate on this. The most valuable is saying: "Come on you ..." and it is a new articulation of this position is an art event. Moreover, it is absorbed from art related fields - architecture, or, say, movies.
Of course, this question - how can you sell misunderstanding? But basically it's even easy. Do something you do not understand, but bought it, and it is already yours. Money can not overcome the misunderstandings that make it possible to understand, and that can assign incomprehensible. Here, say, modernist architecture can not like it, but if it's yours, it is quite another matter. I bought it - and that you have something of their own do not understand. Well then will deal. General lack of understanding of something in itself - it is a normal human condition, even the creative and generous. Franklin Roosevelt about Samos senior put it this way: "Maybe he and son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch". That is the moment of assignment took questions misunderstanding. This may be a universal formula of the artist's position in the market. How would he be son of a bitch, but make it his own, and all questions they withdraw.
In the U.S., underneath all the questions sovr.iskusstva was drawn serious theoretical basis (my italics).
Цитата:
"pertseptualizm>" (from the Latin. Percepcio - perception) was created by us, by analogy with conceptualism. <Pertseptualizm> is the successor of surrealism, and at the same time, based on modern philosophy, "adjusted" under the theory of relativity and agrees that, very often the universe ruled by a small, discreet case at the time, as statistics is losing its rights.
Despite the fact that <pertseptualizm> is still in its infancy, it is possible to identify some key points that are its hallmarks. Perceptual art and literature from surrealism took primacy of personal perceptions and based on these associations of the artist, but from the post-modern philosophy - the realization of reality escapes from attempts to clothe it in the rigid frame, given once and for all. Such organic synthesis provides a large field of fantasy, without tying it to nabivshim nauseam cliche images, characters and plots. I want to emphasize that pertseptualist differs from surrealist primarily to the fact that bases its artistic world of real objects, not the fantasies of the subconscious. Subconscious is the only link between reality and fantasy. That is, the subconscious is a thread that leads from one area to another. But it should be emphasized that the mentioned synthesis of reality and fiction is not created with the help of the subconscious, and conscious work with the help of the artist over the product.
Читать дальше...
Pertseptualisty see the world as a metaphor, splitting into countless other metaphors. Naturally, in this case, each object can be understood and to transfer millions of different ways.
From the title of direction can be seen that it is the perception of the writer, artist, in a word, the creator, is the root of perceptual understanding of art and literature. That is, immediate perception, but not an idea, image, idea, meaning or morality seems to us that rock on which we must build the artwork. therefore primarily <pertseptualizm> involves the creation of images that are generally a microcosm of a sufficiently autonomous, but did not prevent the perception of other ideas.
As is known, the perception of ideas there are exactly the same as the perception of objects. Of course, most people do not create the ideas themselves, and use ready-thought-cliché. Thus, in works of art are displayed not so much the idea, as, again, the perception artists of these ideas. Honest creators should go to the end and admit to yourself that it does not work in a small degree of perceptual, he wants to or not. Our task in this regard amounts to getting <pertseptualizma> to its logical conclusion: the adoption of the thesis on the primacy of perception of ideas to the very idea of .
Of course, <pertseptualizm would not have been primarily a literary movement, if kept solely on perceptions. Of course, no matter how valuable not seem to us of perception, they find the imagery only when they process the brain and will be built a chain of associations, obeying their inner meaning. Perception, therefore, constitute the raw material and at the same time are the primary about everything that one can be created by the artist.
Of course, no matter how valuable does not seem to us the perception, they find the imagery only when they process the brain and will build a chain of associations, obeying their inner meaning. Perception, therefore, constitute the raw material and at the same time are the primary about everything that one can be created by the artist.
Gaze detail. Much attention is focused on perception.
artcol
19.05.2010 00:27
Цитата:
Сообщение от SAH
(Сообщение 1109272)
gaze detail. Much attention is focused on perception.
Yes, actually this and says Revzin, translating it all into a market-valuation area:
Цитата:
Today, the only value expressions of the artist and the sole criterion of quality is the originality and uniqueness, nonidentity with anyone at all and, of course, with any audience. That is the purpose statement is not that someone understood something, but on the contrary, so that no one understood anything.
Only in the situation no one knew anything possible privatization sovr.proizvedeniya art, to-e is based on senses, ie
Цитата:
the adoption of the thesis of the primacy of perception of the idea before the idea
In general, if translated into Russian: no longer need to learn and be able to draw (sculpt, carve, etc.). Just do something no one clear (this is the main criterion, Revzin clearly put it on hold), call it proizv.iskusstva - and art lover will do the rest work for you: fill its meaning. In short: I have an idea? There IKEA! :D
Shl What I like merkantsy - is the lack of any complex human culture and all the kitchen reflection! Done! He tore the same palm of the hands of the inhabitants of RI!
SAH
19.05.2010 00:38
Цитата:
Сообщение от artcol
(Сообщение 1109362)
no longer need to learn and be able to draw (sculpt, cut, etc.). Just do something with anyone (this is the main criterion, Revzin clearly put it on hold), call it proizv.iskusstva
How do we get just make if we did not learn and do not know how to draw, sculpt, carve? Announce that we have stated, but a naked king of this will not be dressed up.
artcol
19.05.2010 00:48
Цитата:
Сообщение от SAH
(Сообщение 1109402)
How do we get just make if we did not learn and do not know how to draw, sculpt, carve? Announce that we have stated, but a naked king of this will not be dressed up.
The answer is simple: you have to learn not to paint, sculpt, cut , and to sell, spin up, etc. Actually debates on the topic "Who are the main: the curator (dealer, agent) or the artist?" maintained for a long time, but it is in a situation Sovrem. art under him would be to put a fat point: curator=artist. Exactly between the skills of a curator and artist the difference faded completely.
Lots of other examples: Kulick and Hurst, Gelman and Saatchi. And those and others need more to be able to work and media space than with paints, clay, consumers and critics. Looking for events, rather than the product with aesthetic properties.
SAH
19.05.2010 01:11
Цитата:
Сообщение от artcol
(Сообщение 1109422)
Looking for events, rather than the product with aesthetic properties.
In my humble opinion here, too, about this
Цитата:
Сообщение от Art-lover
(Сообщение 1094412)
If art entirely subjective, nothing prevents you catch the red-haired cockroach and declare it a work of art. Even before this does not necessarily paint it and dress the pink cobweb - enough vision and creative will of the artist. (But if your artistic temperament would still require to cover the object with cobalt blue and call it "Blue Bird", the intrigue will only steeper.)
Of course, proponents of the objectivity of art jeopardize your masterpiece creations. Well, skeptics demonstrate objective artistic status beast will not be difficult: it is enough proeksponirovat it in the gallery. And it does lead the argument will be selling the insect as an art object. For the right objective judgments about artistic value now belongs only to the global art market: if your art cockroach left more shark Hirst or Dali paintings, your glorious name of diamonds lay out on the tablets of history of art. (You will not succeed this trick? "So you're mediocre, and in art you do nothing.)
Documentation of the circumstances of capture and genetic examination of your artifact will provide its unique and will protect against forgery. Of course, you have attached to the red-haired envoy Mesozoic concept is so complex, original and profound (and what you are actually worse than Maeterlinck's mysticism with its execution of the works of God's creatures such as termites, ants and bees?) That a) recognizes Vladimir Chernomashentsev that will never be able to create something similar, and b) would motivate other members of the Topeka to divine transcendence. And then everyone will have to admit: in front of us cockroach, subjective, objective, and any other artistic significance whose unshakable and undeniable.
And Lepo will - of harm productivity of future discussions on the essence of art - to take the infamous cockroach as a reference model, ideal representativeness desired substance. As well as a chorus to perform Spanish national anthem, this model glorifying - La Cucaracha (cockroach).
I understand, my question is how long-lasting, this situation
Цитата:
Сообщение от Art-lover
(Сообщение 1102192)
We find that our cockroach while firmly stands to museum cabinet, reflecting a mustache collective attack. Is there a terminator?
Let me suggest a can Terminator this time?
artcol
19.05.2010 01:37
Цитата:
Сообщение от SAH
(Сообщение 1109442)
In my humble opinion here, too, about
I understand, my question is how long-lasting, this situation will allow myself to assume a can Terminator this time?
Yes, Art Lover all cool and very vividly described! :D
As for the Terminator's hard to say ... While the question was Art Lover you can see the answer.
Its the same answer to this question (or rather not answer, but the position or understanding of the situation for taking this issue), I found a Marshall McLuhan, Canadian philosopher (to him, in fact, refer http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan ). Actually, my opinion in the end is this: in these phenomena are different ontological foundations, and what they are denoted by one word (art, art) - a source of confusion. The fundamental reason (indication) for the classification McLuhan defines a property of media, ie suitability for mass media to interact with them. If the mind to distinguish between these two arts, all ustakanivaetsya. one write, two in my mind :)
K-Maler
19.05.2010 21:42
Цитата:
Сообщение от artcol
(Сообщение 1109182)
That is, immediate perception, but not an idea, image, idea, meaning or morality seems to us that rock on which we must build the artwork. So first of all <
Flowers fits that program, however the story today is neglect on the part of "advanced" connoisseurs to koim authors of the above text itself ranked ...
