[Тютчев]

Сообщение от fabosch

Let me cite several reasons for this.
First. If you open any dictionary, you'll see that many words and expressions shall have more than one meaning. If you bear in mind the subject area of ​​art history, the interpretations, for example, the words "vanguard", "modernism" you will find not one. For one, the vanguard is everything that is not realistic. For another, the avant-garde - it is quite certain directions in art, starting with the 1910-ies, and the term "Russian avant-garde" in general include, as a rule, only the direction of cubo-futurist and constructivist nature, etc., etc. And say the term "abstraction" are in relation to abstract painting ¸ and the direction in art, and in the process of abstraction in general and to the result of this abstraction, and in the process of visual abstraction, ie, away from realistic images to the side, for example, geometric or some other stylized image thereof. And all this understanding shall have the right to exist.

To begin, I want to remind you:

«term (from Lat. Terminus - the limit, border) - a word or phrase, precisely and unambiguously designational concept and its relation to other concepts within special sphere. The terms are specialized to the restrictive notation specific to this area of ​​objects, phenomena, their properties and relationships. In contrast to the words of general vocabulary, which are often ambiguous and are emotional, the terms within the scope of the unequivocal and lack of expression )».
 
It is clear that this definition seeks any term.
  
 It must be borne in mind to understand that the term "avant-garde" (in art) has a unique and long lasting value that is usually attributed to the vanguard of innovative trends in art (the term came into circulation since the beginning of last century). Another thing is that sometimes there are debates as to whether the authority to refer an artist (group), or even the whole direction of the avant-garde. But such disputes can not "dilute" the value of this term. As a rule, attempts to expand the list of avant-garde is the desire to give weight to a particular phenomenon in the art due to the "liquidity" concept "avant-garde, and are usually exposed by professionals. True, these "revelations" do not always reach the mass art lover, but that's another matter.
 
Following the same logic, it becomes clear that those your considerations that relate to the term "abstraction" can not also be of interest for appearing in this topic of discussion. We are not a lot of the meaning of "abstraction", belonging to different spheres of human activity, and only in art criticism. I'm sure everything will fall into place as soon as we confine ourselves to this framework (defining the boundaries of a special sphere) and escape of the superficial understanding, which is usually characterized by amateurs.
 
So, the term "abstract" is used in art criticism to describe works of abstract art. "Abstract" - a term that refers to one of the directions (flows) in the art that emerged in the early 20 th century. And the term "abstract" (denoting a process) does not mean the same thing as the term "abstraction" (indicating a work of abstract art), by itself, of course, if you consider them in the framework of art history.
 
The issue of terminology in the science (art studies not quite science, but it is precisely because of this makes some sense (meaning) the term has a special role (due to lack of "experimental" component), it would be based as all art studies), one of the principal to determine the scientific nature of the or other areas of intellectual activity. In other words, the existence of a unique terminology - is a necessary sign of scientism. You completely ignore it. Bring down all in one pile in their attempts to prove something that vaguely aware of themselves (at least so it appears). Here you write: "And let's say the term" abstraction "are in relation to abstract painting ¸ and the direction in art, and in the process of abstraction in general and to the result of this abstraction, and in the process of visual abstraction, ie, away from realistic depiction of side, for example, geometric or any other styling images thereof. And all this understanding shall have the right to exist. " If you understand what you wrote is not only messy, but, in fact, true (in Art). I have already quoted statement Lessing, that abstraction is «property of all art". This means that any repeat, any person engaged in the art (not only), are involved in this mental process. You see, this is a property of the human psyche in general and not about something that is peculiar only to those involved in it abstract art. We are also the author of this theme suggests, the term "abstraction" used in the sense (meaning) that this method of creating abstract works that, in fact, easier and even obessmyslivaet abstract art (reducing it to a formal understanding) and therefore can not be accepted as such (more on this below). That is the essence of the debate.

You see, "a departure from realistic images to the side, for example, geometric or any other styling thereof images" can not be called an abstraction. Of course, this will be done as part of a process of abstraction, but despite this, we can not call it abstract art. It's all different things! I'll admit that "all these understanding are viable, but not in the field of art criticism. In the field of art history, as a special area, they are divided on the meaning (value).
I believe a "geometric or any other styling thereof images" you mean the ornament. So, if we compare the pattern and abstraction, it is important to understand that between them there is one very significant difference: the ornament has a service function, ie associated with the object, an ornament for which is always valuable in itself but an abstraction, ie, has value as an independent work. And it at least!

Сообщение от fabosch

second. Interpretation of words and terms in a particular language change over time. Language lives and changes to reflect changes in the realities of life, changes in consciousness and society (ie people). What is meant by the term "abstract art" in times of Kandinsky and Malevich are not identical to what is meant by this in our time.

The term "abstract art" resist not immediately. On his part claimed by others, such as "real", "concrete", "absolute", "pure", "pointless", "architectural art", etc. This uncertainty resulted from the complexity of the phenomenon and the duration of the process of its formation. From the beginning of its inception and throughout the 20 th century among artists and critics waged debate, fueled by the offering of new visual solutions and ideas. In general, an inevitable extension of the concept of "abstract art" was due to the dynamic development of art of the 20 th century. There were new things and events designated as abstract art, and reflect them and between them, the concept changed in this case its content. New objects and phenomena have such properties that have common features with those resulting from the differences on which it became possible emergence of abstract art. In other words, the notion of "abstract art" was a cycle of formation, from the birth to death, t . e. through expansion, loss of meaning and the acquisition of it (sense) again. Now, when we look at the "corpse" (in the sense that we add to this the direction that something significant will be very difficult (I will be glad if I'm wrong)), I mean abstract art without emotion, we can more clearly understand its essence.

Posted 8 hours 26 minutes

Сообщение от GalARTA

Seriy, that's true. Our project is dedicated to the 100 th of abstract art, but it is absolutely impossible without talking about Kandinsky, his work, methods and ways. What he has done over 15 years, we're trying to do for 15 days - he was an innovator, we are doing some version of reflection in relation to his discovery, but the author's reflection, passed through the creativity of all group members. It's not as easy as it might seem at first. The group's work was interesting, but very difficult.

GalARTA, what is common in your project with creativity, by and by "Kandinsky?

Posted 9 hours 6 minutes

Сообщение от SHCH

music is not always reproduce the sounds of the real world, with
striking impact on listeners, awakens emotions and associations. well and good abstract painting influences the viewer prepared.
Or it will be "dead" circles, squares, spots.

To be precise, the music is not used sounds from the real world. The exception is the music played by a human voice, using speech. Is precisely because the music was originally created as an abstract work, ie striving for harmony with no inherent value whatsoever ties with reality. Music - an example of absolute abstraction. And even where there is a text (narrative, the libretto), but this is real music - is always self-sufficient product.