Сообщение от gans
Today there are many diverse opinions heard in the address Pinchuk Art Center, exhibition policy is becoming more specific. How do you feel about this institution, you're standing at the very beginning of its creation ... All I get, as intended, and if not, why not?
Somehow, I always tried to correctly pronounce on the Pinchuk Art Centre, on the assumption that addiction Victor Pinchuk - this is his personal business and his private law, since the center private. If he wanted the money to open a center to train pigs to play the piano, he would have had this right. But more and more the center moves away from those expectations, which I personally with him. Therefore, again, my personal claims may be illegal, but I also have a right to them, like Mr. Pinchuk in his position. I still think that the mission to which we originally called Pinchuk-assemble, akademizirovat, muzeefitsirovat, or, as would Groys, "valorizirovat" Ukrainian art of the past 20-25 years, this task is more urgent and more pressing for Ukrainian art today, I do not see. It is not just failed, but goes farther and farther to marginez. And when this was discussed at all required sum sootnocimaya to the one in which the cost this barn with zaspirtovanny-mi predators of the underwater world in the courtyard of the Arena. Invested so much money in bubbles such as Hirst. Yes, it is emblematic artist of the late 20-early 21 th century, but this does not exclude the fact that he is a bubble, like a pyramid Meydoffa. And do not invest even a 5-10 per cent of that to a disorganized, demoralized the artistic process of Ukraine to establish systematic, documented, meaningful and appreciated world-wide phenomenon - it is, on the wording of the Criminal Code, "gross negligence". By the way, maybe my words offended by Alexander Soloviev, but ever since he started working at the Pinchuk Art Centre, the Ukrainian art as a process as a kind of wholeness, which is permanently looking in the mirror successive large-scale projects, and in this format developed - poduvyalo. Yes, Solovyov, finally got a decent job, but it was in bondage. And the alternative to this person, even with some of its shortcomings, I do not see. Although, if only because only he could write a competent history of modern Ukrainian art.
But why is it not Solovyov wrote?
Several years ago one of the visiting curators Pinchuk Art Centre presented Solovyov claim: "You want to write its own history of art." But unlike France, whence came this man, in Ukraine there is no written history of modern art. Contemporary art in our country there is in the format of the oral tradition. Like Akhmatova said, "we live in doguttenbergovskuyu era. And so, even if Soloviev and did not want to write its own history of modern Ukrainian art, it is "before God and history" is simply obliged to do so. It is his duty. Like, perhaps, the duty Pinchuk - provide Solovyov this possibility, although
Of course, Victor M. - a man of some other world, and may not understand. What Soloviev put in such condition that it can not now exercise their right and duty to write this story - minus the center Pinchuk.
I think that if today someone suggested minimum organizational and material conditions, and said: Write the story, it would have been. Looks like no one ever need.
|