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.".
|