[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от fross

And again we return to the main question of what artists do gallery, especially if you plan overseas exhibitions.
Do we have the seeds of something new that could develop into a new direction, if not entirely different from the international, but at least it for in-equal?

Here's an interesting thought as well. Erofeev on this topic:
A. EROFEEV: Yes, not only in the restructuring, too, we had such a short time when power in the order of remorse for its past cultural policy was to support the actual artists. Well, now it's all over again. Ie We had several such short periods, when really in the era's thaw was a short period to 62 years, until the defeat of the exhibition at the Manege also supported. Hence, there is one Russian art, is art, which is accepted in the world, but who does not like Russia. Is the second Russian art, which is loved in Russia, but which absolutely ignores the international community. Because it is such characters as, who is stilted romantic Aivazovsky. How Shishkin, naturalist. Oh I'm not talking about the entire socialist realism, about the entire academic school, which we support here, does collect, and the West just is not art, it's just a nonsense. This is something of a commonplace.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I think that we are too fixated on these national and zest need to move on to another roll, this time without zest. Simply, in my opinion, we must return to the understanding that art, above all, this is a common human activity and discusses the problems she is not a national identity, and some deeper problems. Of course, this does not exclude any specific national. But this is not the main thing in art. And we now believe that as an athlete in sport represents the country, as well as an artist necessarily represent the country. In this sense, of course, we have a problem. Ie our art is becoming more and more regionally focused. It is less and less responsible for that general perspective, which is discussed in the world. This ecological disaster, for example, or any man-made challenges, dangers, or any totalitarian threats that exist, or terrorism, or disease. We did not find in our art today, even the very best. Because all tailored to the power of its discourse, its idiotic design, rhetorical art which begin to expose or ridicule, and to blunt our man in the street, our mass culture, ie our art is working, arguing and fighting with their own context ...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Because the 19 century - it's interesting, not interesting, but it is, in general, a local phenomenon. Our vanguard of the early 20 th century, which is the same as the icons, a recognized phenomenon, the world ...