You are asked the question - what is art, what constitutes a painting, and so on. And if we try to deal with them, you run the risk of being taken prisoner various logical "snags". A case in point is the very possibility of the existence of the artistic image. This issue permeates all contemporary art - the image of the painting and the question that she asked the audience. For example, the installation of Joseph Kossuth "chair" in 1965. We see a chair, a chair photograph and an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica "chair. Confounded embodiment "stulnosti!" That's all I wanted to tell the author.

«The manufacturing process for the art object becomes more important than the result»
Interesting internal patterns that occur throughout the twentieth century in art. Continuing arose weight remarkable intersections. Take the French cubist works of Marcel Duchamp and compare them with the Russian Cubists. They did not know each other until at least 1910. A product created alike. Once this is obtained is not clear.

The other hand, there was a desire to make art-object as possible present. There is such a work - "hanger". Before us tab in the form of a girl and this girl was real. It turned out that in its quest to surrealism artists absolutely intuitively invented new art forms.

In 1959, the Soviet Union happened American exhibition. And people were just shocked by the fact that there is also an art. Just imagine what it means for the Soviet people to see the work of, say, Jackson Pollock! This is a strong impression! And once appeared followers. The experience began to migrate transferred. True, we have used a more cleaner, but not the fire, as our artists instead of a workshop on the crowded kitchen.

Since Pollock, the process of the art object becomes significantly more important than the result. In fact, the very result of Pollock rejected, but picked up his technology, his gesture.


In this vein, interested in the history of Russian suprematists. To a large exhibition in 1972, they remained unknown world - their paintings were known only to a small magazine illustrations. And then, based on the work of Malevich and others, and have come up with a minimalist style. Just have agreed that art should be absolutely banal and completely empty, devoid of any kind was poetry. And when in 1972 they saw an exhibition of Russian avant-garde, they came from him in horror. The paintings were, in their opinion, rude, brutal, slovenly, curves and diagonal. That is absolutely nothing like the minimalism.

History is very fond of such tricks. Similarly, when the Russian started rock, our musicians, based on photographs taken static postures - one, then another, until I saw that one also has to drive at the same show.

An interesting figure of Alexander Rodchenko, who decided to create the most non-artistic work. He took a very ugly greenish intake paint, drew on this background to a ticker line. But the result was beautiful. Here again, a joke of history: despite all the efforts of Rodchenko, cross and jump out of the traditional image of the artist - did not work!

Significant place in art is objectified dream of utopian future. This is especially seen in the USSR during the creation of a new life. That is, are certain objects that are not aimed at transforming the art, and the transformation of everyday life, people's lives. But this transformation is an artistic nature. Appear and purely secondary works - for example, draw on the black square of Malevich by a dollar sign, and thereby explain that the work is valued only in money.
Well, or drawing on "Mona Lisa" by Marcel Duchamp. What is it - an act of vandalism? For modern art - no. It's just a story about that girl and not at all depicted in the painting of the great Leonardo da Vinci, and the boy. Or another famous boy by the name of Dali inscribes itself in the "Mona Lisa". To a certain extent avtosharzh. And the "Mona Lisa" was such a cross-cutting art of the whole motive of the twentieth century. Moreover, some art objects, despite their apparent simplicity, have several levels, such as packed magazine Der Spiegel, on the cover of which the work of Dali, which brings us back to Marcel Duchamp and, consequently, further, to ancient times.

«If you remove the wig, it will not quite Warhol»
Nevertheless, most still shocked the public. The artist begins to play with their own way. It becomes very essential and fundamental part of the artistic project. Take the same Andy Warhol. It was a simple boy from the working area, gantelki raised. We know quite a different Warhol - in a wig, because anything can do that, for the sake of art. Whatever it was, Warhol - is not only a picture, but still wig. If you remove the wig, it will not quite Warhol.

It is in the modern art there, I'm sorry, "mere appearances" paintings. Take the Socialist Realism. The painting "Stalin and Voroshilov in the Kremlin. This painting really existed only in an unreal space: millions of reproductions, printed in hard copy. And its physical existence is reduced just to the one million illustrations, reprinted everywhere.

There is a reproduction of the image, and the mechanism is the same as with Warhol's wig. Such art lives by rastirazhirovannosti image. Source object can not exist without this one million copies. Same with Dali. A work of art becomes a mustache! Well, here competent work with mass media. Although it is not always helpful. For example, Marcel Duchamp did not work with the media, but is considered much more "main" Dali. This technique works by artists on his way was as a result, embodied in modern art, so much so that it became depressing.
In the end, it turns out that art as an art form dies. And, nevertheless, important for me and art is the result of history.