Цитата:
Сообщение от Art-lover
In art little put forward the idea, it is desirable to implement, so much so that the materialization of the idea had an equally persuasive force, as its wording. And then the seams: if you compare the substantive work of artists from 20c. and their theoretical manifestos, it is visible to the naked eye, large discrepancies.
|
I must you absolutely do not agree. You might think so because of their own worldview or internal tuning fork, as the qwerty, but you seriously underestimate the art of the 20 century. It is connected to your tastes or a small amount of time devoted to you 20 in the art. I do not know, but in my opinion, the statement about the weakness of the materialization of ideas can not be so peremptory.
I am fond of, the arts for over 10 years, and when I first started to study it, I was impressed with classical paintings, ranging from Old Masters and finishing Aivazovsky, Repin, Shishkin and Kuindzhi ... But it was only the first couple of years, then I do it seemed quite banal and boring ... I'll explain why: This section is meant by art is just an image of the plot, the mythological, biblical, historical, no matter what. This can be landscape, portrait, still life and this is not important. It is important that there is nothing more than to bring these works can not. Here the quality of the picture depends on the skill of the artist and his ability to draw people, animals, buildings and flowers. From this point of view, Rembrandt, Cranach, Breughel, of course, have no equal. But the idea of something in principle is always the same: the image situation. You can admire prorisovannostyu, skill transfer colors, images, etc., but more then nothing.
The Art of the 20 th century set a lot of new ideas and challenges, in particular the transfer of not only the situation, but also thoughts, emotions, philosophical reflection on human existence, his relationship with the world, the universe and the nature and essence of the universe as a whole. The translation of these ideas have been extremely difficult task, so someone turned out worse, someone better. But to compare the old masters and artists of the 20 th century wrong for many reasons: different personal tastes, different time, different ideas and challenges. For me, Filonov stronger Rembrandt: his work can I study for hours and find in them answers to my questions in person (someone from the forum participants and Shishkin can be much more interesting, he will enjoy the beauty of the landscape, but to me after reading his memoirs and study Filonova his analytical method, many times more interesting to explore the creativity of the latter). In order to understand the art of old masters, in principle, do not have anything to read and know, so everything is crystal clear, and with 20 in the art. The situation is dramatically reversed.
I suggest not to engage in a thankless task and no longer compare the art of 15-16 centuries and art of the 20 century. One opinion we still do not get it. How many people, so many views.