[Игорь Гурьев]

«Great stupor" in 1910
(From the treatise A. Kopeikin "Dry Dock")

When F. Basile, and E. Manet departed slightly from the scrupulous realism, and C. Monet, Pissarro, Sisley and more, and Cezanne, Van Gogh and Gauguin (and their northern colleagues Munch and Borisov-Musatov) continued to move away from it again and again and in the early twentieth century, new young flow (Fauvism, Expressionism, "Bridge", cubism, "Blue Rose", futurism, sezannizm "Jack of Diamonds") has deepened it, it is clear that this is not just about some unsystematic indentation (as there are indentations on the path in the woods, when you walk on it, wastes, to disrupt the berries, and then returned).

No, it was, as we now see the movement with very specific vector. And this vector may be, it would be difficult to determine if the first decade of the twentieth century did not end the invention of abstract art. He put an end to formal quest that began in the era of Impressionism, ie brought the expression to the principle of in-plane limit, the principle of abstraction to the absurd, and the principle of self-affirmation unbanal to the idea of ​​an obsessive delusion.
All was well until the painting is not completely severed ties with nature. She gradually removed from the transfer of all the visible details of the surrounding world to the expression, symbolism, etc., but when she really broke ties with this kind, there came an end to the movement, which originated in the 50-ies of the XIX century, that is with impressionism.

Note that in the literature in the early 10-ies, too, appeared his "abstract", ie zaum, the holes were schul "twisted, but that he actually came to an end - syuzhetika also remained in the literature.
Not that has happened in painting. Mr Kandinsky and Malevich tried to convince the public that, they begin a new phase of painting - abstraktivizm, "abstract art".

They can be understood: the train has already left, and the passion to stand out as hoped. Therefore, it was invented difficulty understanding now is a combination of: non-figurative art.
But abstract art is not like there is no aimless conversation. (If someone said that he invented the "pointless conversation, hardly anyone took it seriously, because in order to explain the principles of aimless conversation, just want a substantive discussion. Not by accident, when somebody comes into the conversation dead end, then, to change the subject, saying: this conversation is pointless, we pass on a certain topic).

The combination of "abstract art" anyone for some reason was not surprised.
Now this is just the most amazing - why is it then no one was surprised. For art, like any other human activity (and this kind of human activity), has a subject.

Broad unsophisticated audience okolohudozhestvennuyu surprisingly quickly convinced that the so-called abstract combinations of colors and surfaces can also work as a traditional painting, is even better.

Over time, a simple set of abstract techniques spread to the design, and here is the thoughts about bespredmetnichestva flowed a broad stream.
Poor Kandinsky and Malevich, they thought that open up new worlds, but in fact they are the first pictures of their set point in a certain period of art, and these first two pictures they would restrict ...
It often occurs with the view that in itself a combination of colors can be spectacular. Yes. Maybe. But let's see what it can to impress and most importantly - for what?

When I see a plate painted by Suprematist motifs, a dish I will not throw out because it is well decorated.
When I see a table cloth, painted on the principles of Mondrian, is, I can tell, the good tablecloth.

When I see the wallpaper with an abstract pattern, it too can be a good idea.
When I see even a book cover with abstract motifs, it is also primarily a thing with its concrete surface.

The whole point is that the abstract combination can not "play" and be effective and self-sufficient on an abstract surface, which, generally speaking, is the painting surface. They have a right to exist only on a concrete surface - on crockery, wallpaper, furniture, tablecloths, etc.

For when we see a picture of the figurative (ie normal, the only possible), then we abstract from the surface on which it is applied. For us, in principle anyway, that there - oil on canvas, cardboard, cardboard, plywood, canvas or coarse-grained or, for example, wood or copper. This gives their textural effects, but only in connection with an image of something. Abstract combination on an abstract surface do not live there they are unnatural.

A similar, note what happened with music. Modernist atonal and parts with melodic music also can not hold in the abstract space of the conservatory or concert hall (and no one will deny that the acoustic space of the concert hall, too abstract). Acoustic space movie space (market or during the festival), dance halls, discotheques, theater - specifically, and what of the modernist "abstract" music could exist. In the abstract space of the concert hall - for anything. This is a misunderstanding, though not the most tragic in the twentieth century.

1996