[LCR]

Сообщение от Vladimir

The man with the position. Brave enough, perfectly predicting the reaction to its findings and, nevertheless, do not abandon them. I, in addition to several other conclusions, like in this publication very definite answers, specifics. Many people in similar circumstances would have appeared temptation pouvilivat to show diplomacy, all with one hand ... on the other hand ... " A Tar answered very specifically, radical, burning bridges for the discrepancies.

I was something just struck a certain naivete, "homespun" her discourse. I do not know whether a more convincing argument of art critics in the West (I tried to give you the opportunity to judge regularly posting here articles and interviews), but it is undeniable that it sounds wrong in pioneer.
Especially touching reference this nisprovergatelnitsy canons of authority ( "professional community", etc.) - Ms. Tar first man clan.

Сообщение от Vladimir

So do not necessarily share the views, but to listen useful. Although it is much more complicated than "keep order" type of art was used in the search for beauty, and now the devil knows what.

So in fact the situation comedy in the fact that both sides say the same thing, namely, that "before the art was in search of beauty, and now the devil knows what" nothing but praise is "the devil knows what, while others betray him his anathema.

I want to clarify that I can not associate with any of the parties to the dispute about the high art: the artist's shit "in my view, remains in skatologii and is no aesthetical analysis, and some other, for example, bacteriological. At the same time, and Shishkin, Aivazovsky, or what? or Vasnetsov? are indeed from my point of view of mediocre artists