[Евгений]

Elena Fanailova: Let's talk in earnest about where it in fact is a watershed. Because, really, zhiznepodobiya very much. Realism can be called anything, we have listed themselves - the magical realism, socialist realism, critical realism. We want the truth from art or do we want "us to elevate deception" and then we no realism at all, then do not need, or for some reason we still need the realism in the paintings, we have to learn something? What?
First Lady Tar: Realism - it is the only direction that, in addition to that it is a historical style, and even philosophical problems.

Читать дальше... 

We can not say nothing about the Baroque, nor about the Renaissance, nor there, about the modernist style, nor about anything else. Here Malevich wanted to Suprematism came down to this path. For him, this sense of realism was a model, because the realism, if we look in the dictionary or the Internet got, we will find a lot of philosophical texts, which since at least medieval theology, examined this problem, the problem of reality in principle. So we are infinitely encounter this one question: is there truth in art? The question is how to understand it. If you understand how a certain image sufficiently precise, say, a person's appearance ... Everything is somehow like to criticize the Soviet art, because there is a portrait of Stalin painted unfair to, because in fact Stalin was a short, ugly, pock-marked man, but on Portrait of Isaac Izrailevych Brodsky drawn in such a handsome Georgian. And such revelations. Especially in an era of perestroika have written that this is not real art, because it is not realistic. This, of course, a funny conversation, because such tasks at the beginning, perhaps, the art of ancient Greece were set to draw a bunch of grapes so that the birds flocked and started to bite. But then the philosophical tension of such an image as a somewhat weakened, and in the twentieth century, such a task before him is not an artist creates. The notion of truth, of course, goes beyond how something outwardly similar. Again, not described in all categories - true or false. Art in general is in some other plane, where these things are not so primitive solved.

   Matthew Bown: Techniques realistic at all, is the common heritage, common language. But when we look back, say, the Renaissance, we come to the conclusion that Michelangelo - not a realist, and Caravaggio - a realist. We look at the Dutch art, we come to the conclusion that in fact Rembrandt - a realist. Somewhere there in our simple understanding of the realism of this one thing that you said - the truth about life. It was very important, of course, in all these debates about Soviet realism. You can argue how the artists achieved the Soviet to the truth, that she could be in the twentieth century, but in the end, we all come back again and again to this simple concept of realism.
http://www.svobodanews.ru/articlete....70318120057160