[fabosch]

Сообщение от DSF

Contemporaries also very skeptical of Leonardo as an artist, because in those days, the balance in the painting is clearly leaning toward colors and Leonardo knocked out of the total number.

Adoption is very controversial. According to Bernson, Florentine School vsegdv tended to develop problems drawing, perspective, composition at the expense of coloristic developments. In this sense, Leonardo was her true son, and nowhere is not distracting.
Kloristicheskie delights were the prerogative of the Venetian school.

Сообщение от DSF

"Black Square" - an example of an extreme point of priority of color.

And this statement somehow does not seem convincing. Probably too extreme point of priority of color should be called, for example, Klein, Rothko or his famous blue. And as a black square, as I wrote above, it seems to me the product, primarily conceptual, enshrining minority of concepts such as composition, color, texture, metal, plastic, this is largely an artistic gesture (like Duchamp urinals) than the support of color or plastic values.

Сообщение от DSF

All the space of painting lies between these extremes, as is said, to "slide rule". Each artist chooses his place on the closed interval. In this regard, the abstractionist painter does not differ from the artist's classicist, gently issuing the sepia fingers at the foot of Jupiter. They just have different priorities, but they are both in the space of painting. "So, for example, works by Rembrandt will be fine in a different way than the paintings of Raphael or Leonardo da Vinci. And almost impossible to say that the product of one higher than another, for example, self-portrait by Rembrandt in the fez beautiful a portrait of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, or his. "
Harmonious combination of form and color, in my opinion, the biggest challenge for the artist. It is only by great talent. Our century - the century of the weak, so we have to choose what to "kill" - the shape or color to make your life easier. Most choose the "death" form, it is easier, no need to spend years training.

From this thesis, I somehow implicitly read in what you think is the abstraction of being on pole, in color and realistic painting - on the pole shape. Is that so?

Posted 7 minutes

Сообщение от Stanislavski

Abstraction (in the extreme, the absolute, the totality of its form) as opposed to other "methods" do not shows, but only and exclusively is deep, unconscious intention of the human person. This is evidenced by Pollock: An artist from the "creator" voluntarily turns it into a weapon of unknown elements, giving themselves to their will in the name of "breakthrough" in reality, standing outside world, comprehended by our senses. Abstraction is "to do", a stylized, focused on our cultural paradigm that looks like a secondary and artificial.

Thesis, of course, spectacular, but not undisputed, if I understand you correctly (why am I so blunt, for the umpteenth time I can not overpower the depth of your calculations? ).
What do you mean by "make" an abstraction you know? Such as Kandinsky bauhauzovskogo period, Mondrian, huh?

Сообщение от Stanislavski

And the last. On the criteria. Total abstraction which annihilates whatever principles of interpretation, which means that all interpretations take on the same ontological status, that is, each of which will be valid and no less important than the interpretation of the artist.

 Well this is just almost a solipsism

Posted 11 minutes

Сообщение от Stanislavski

"harmonization" and "laws of composition, rhythm and cromatics" as you put it, happens in our head, not on the canvas. This is our interpretation, and this also is a great projective role of abstraction as a tool for our understanding of ourselves as individuals, as a species and as an idea.

True, it's true written Peter is not only a spectator, but also in the head, muscles, nerves, and where there still any good artist. Some have "on the machine, almost unconsciously, others do it by trial and error, others still somehow, etc.