Цитата:
|
Сообщение от DSF; 1540581"
the task of the artist is not part of the study and the processes of perception or reconstruction of the universal dynamic archetype, is the task of the researcher. The artist is not a scientist, he was not interested in the nature of "universal dynamic model of the Force." The artist only uses the available tools at its disposal "to create expressive images." He operates with the very "certain" incentives "perception" that can be measured and they are "always specific
|
If I understand correctly, you believe that an artist in the "scientists" are important studies are practically applicable conclusions, regardless of the methodology for their preparation and their theoretical interpretation. You will, but the risk of borrowing too poorly informed of the provisions of yours. (As an example - an abstract convergence lines and spots, leading to indistinction nature drawing and painting).
In fact, many practitioners in the art, well, without costing speculative constructs. All the "dynamic force model" and so on. - More zamorochki spectators, eager to pick up the master key to the understanding of creativity is very, very dissimilar artists: good thoughts theorists often helps the viewer to not less than avtokommentarii artists.
At the expense of what the theorist may be useful artist, I know of no better explanation than that given Florensky autumn of 1921 in the introduction to a lecture at the Higher State Art Studios in Moscow:
Цитата:
Speak with the greatest embarrassment in front of you, suschimi or wanting to be artists. And this confusion is enhanced by my own theoretical views on the artist and art. After all, the artist has a clean, simple (Gospel) eye, looking at the world of pure eye of mankind, which it contemplates the reality. And, seeing the clean lines of reality, the artist shows them to us, and only then did we begin to see them. After all, our vision of something depends on whether it's drawn our attention to something or not. Has not yet been addressed, we do not see, and when we pointed out, it began to see. And in the natural sciences. We are surrounded by well-known phenomenon, we are confronted with it thousands of times, but did not see it. And when someone was able to show it to us by selecting the laboratory or by submitting a pure experiment, or we ourselves have noticed him, then we begin to see at every step, and rarely done hitherto almost intrusive. The artist is such an experimenter. How did teach him to look - for this is, in looking, the essence of art - rather than learn from it? Thus, the idea to teach advocates how to rage.
But the audacity to relax in your eyes, if we continue our likening the artist's eye. No nurse can not make a child seeing, nor a doctor. But depends on it to look behind the eyes of their pet that they were not dust, dirt, so that nothing alien is not frozen in sight and did not spoil the eye. She must wash her eyes. With respect to our comparison we can say that neither I nor anyone else can make you sighted. But maybe it should take care that the artistic sensibility was not contaminated with the trend, false views, theories that are metabolized by both consciously and unconsciously or half consciously - from the environment, because the theory floating about in the air and we are imbued with a poison them, often in order not notice and not knowing. Warn of such hazards may be my duty, and it is - a desire not to teach, and to protect, defend philosophically the artist - not so daring.
|
On the lines and spots, as he is not indifferent to understand the abstract works, will be discussed in the next post.