Цитата:
Сообщение от Seriy
all that way and no one denies. Just as I understand it, is the goal of this artist to move to a higher level, with the "sensitive artist with the exact taste, color and his face" on, say, - "bright, unique, opening new horizons."
Is this possible?
|
You know, I think that this artist does not need to "promote", it should just show. Objective curator - not to invent any scenarios, the legend, "Lives," etc., and to choose the right conditions for display, keeping the bar high. When it's success - is another thing: sometimes it comes too late for the artist, and the worse for the artist, but for pictures it's like.
Of course, there is still underappreciated artists - Monticelli, for example (how glad I am that Sinichka bought it myself!), Or even de Stael (in monetary terms is quite disparate things, but this is not me), but I'm sure and then things gradually get up to his place.
I know it can, I think, say, from the inside: the work of my husband, Mikhail Roginsky, no one has never had worked (now I do), no art strategies or tactics it has not been used, no legends no he did not invent, he absolutely do not hang out - and yet, now, no exhibition, no book on Russian art of the second half of the twentieth century can not afford to ignore it a name (just literally 5 minutes ago, I saw a review of the opus N. Sinelnikovo: You can complain and the fact that in extremely heavy volume, there was no place for the story of the bar Nonconformist artists. Where is the brilliant Michael Roginskii? ").
In what terms will be characterized by the artist, "sensitive" or "bright"? I am quite indifferent to the epithets of art publications, the main thing - it is a picture (it's quite funny, considering that I myself in art education), it is important that they lied to as little as possible in color, as can be reproduced more faithfully the original.
Цитата:
Сообщение от Seriy
As for the work will find admirers, and on the order of the worst works find its buyer.
|
You're right, but here the time puts everything into place: the museums are rarely seen chippie (monstrously undervalued in money for the artist, as I told you about above - Adolphe Monticelli, who adored Van Gogh, to cite only one example - was present in all more or less significant museums of painting XIX century.).
Here, perhaps, all the above somewhat muddled and not take into account the latest art-technology, but that is my understanding of the gallerist, the work very difficult.