[fabosch]

The genius of Freud Do? I do not know. I am inclined, rather, in some respects agree with the statements of Comrade. Guriev. Namely, in the sense that he does not stand out in any special way to their professional qualities, scenic artistry, virtuosity painter. His paintings are rather crude and sometimes naivety, the figure is the same sophistication, and in general is absolutely no maestro. Most of his works is feeling heavy, exhausting work, searching almost blindly, at random, but the search due to a very consistent and totally ruthless and implacable force, force, almost devoid of that in the traditional sense is associated with humanistic values. And I think that it is the totality of the sequence and a certain anonymity that power, perceived in his work sometimes almost physically cause the reaction, which demonstrates to us Comrade. Guriev, arguing it, however, some minor, unimportant arguments. And this is the property of Freud's painting makes it in fact does no longer painting (in which again agree with Comrade. Guriev), but practically this conceptual art. Just a conceptual art does not use the cards, no lists, no objects, not ideas, not the human body, and a canvas and paints. And why not? Why, in fact, a canvas and paint should be removed from the arsenal of conceptual art? And in this sense, article Cantor (a long-standing and consistent criticism aktualschikov and kontseptmeykerov) turns into its opposite, only confirming the inclusion of Freud in this field.
Of course, just say, that use the term "conceptualism", "conceptual art" in its broadest sense, not in the sense of historically specific directions in sovriske. And I know that supporters of terminological clarity primenut not me "bite."
They reflect whether Freud himself in that direction. This is a question for me. It seems to me that the original of his artistic aspirations had no such intention. Simply, he is the type of artist (by the way, say not so rare), slowly and consistently moving in one direction no matter what. Here we must agree with the comparison of it with Cézanne (in terms of facial features precisely and artistic temperament.) And his slow, persistent and progressive work coexisted with the emergence and spread of Conceptualism and other intentions, require for their adequate perception of immersion in a certain artistic and vnehudozhestvenny context. And the hallmark of these phenomena is that without this context, they simply do not read, that is, without that context, they are simply not in the field of art. And with some of the time, this principle began to spread on the work of Freud. That is, without context, they are still in the field of art, but in a rather trivial to the area. While this was not, well, he worked himself a man, attracting the attention even of its dehumanization of the human body (this is just what has always lacked and lacks), but rather a compound of this with a certain archaism of his position. It is no accident that "moved" it in the last 10-15 years.