[Art-lover]

Сообщение от Konstantin

Yes it is. Just do not understand why the artist was upset not understanding other people?

If, for Freud, the assessment of colleagues in the shop translated into an active phase in the shower Frenhofera smoldering conflict between the ego and superego. )

----------------------------------------------- ---------------------

The following text - from the book "On the structure of the painting" Roman Igardena (1893-1970), famous Polish philosopher of phenomenology and aesthetics, one of the favorite students and closest collaborators Husserl.

Wade through this text is not as easy as a previous one - but where we did not disappear . But you know that in every figurative painting lies abstract - it is something often is the main. And a lot of interesting things - an abstraction in the interior of Picasso and so on, but I will not sing Caruso.
I note only that the author uses some familiar words ("kind", "canvas-image", "painting", etc.) in specific values, an explanation which would require tripling the amount of text. Rely in complex cases on their intuition.
Small font denotes footnote. Some of the places I've allowed myself to distinguish colors and bold.

About neizobrazhayuschih paintings (abstract »)

We now turn to the pictures, which are devoid of any clear data for the viewer images of objects. Do not forget that the image of the object in the above meaning of the term - is, first of all, some blocks are placed, I pictured the space and, therefore, beyond the plane of the canvas-image to be removed, and generally becomes as it were transparent, and only then becomes in the plane, which we see. It seems that the removal of boulders from the picture shown is primarily the disappearance of three-dimensional space and reduces the painting to a work in two dimensions, placed in the plane of the picture, respective images of the paintings. Secondly, it seems that the image of an object only because disappear from the picture that it is not reconstructed species. But if not images of objects, it can not be, of course, no images of people or their mental states, expressed in these or other properties of the body and can not be shown any life situation and, finally, some playback features of real objects (models ). Thus, the multi-layer structure pattern disappears. The question is: are we in such a case dealing with a "pattern" in the sense defined above, and opposed to the canvas-image? For what's different is not representing anything from painting canvases images? What remains of the paintings, but some colored spots, one way or another distributed on the surface of leaf images? But if only as a result of all this, only leaf-image, whether we then have to deal with something that is a work of art of painting? Or, maybe you should take the view that the theory of pattern does not cover all the works of painting as a certain kind of art? What would "abstractionists" the past few decades?

Читать дальше... 

But let's not rush to address these issues. Sure, we got to the border that divides art from neiskusstva. However, this does not mean that this border must be the product of the second grade, having a minimum value, or deprived of it altogether. Just when we move away from the "image" of painting that dominates the history of world art, and thus defines a region of research subjects, the paintings, devoid of the depicted objects are structurally border phenomenon in the sense that we now try to establish here.
This boundary is not clear, then there are works of various types, more or less deviate from the patterns of the above types.
Let's start with the case of really extreme, which in the full sense of no image of the object (things and people). If, as seems at first glance, neizobrazhayuschey and in this sense "abstract" painting, we deal only with some system of colored spots on the plane, then do not go outside if we separate the field paintings, the world of color creations, which, if they are one reason or another, and somehow find aesthetically valuable qualities and therefore can be enrolled in a number of works of art, are only some components of works of art of some other type, and the component that performs there some utility function? I have in mind here the works of architecture, which in fact are not devoid of color and can not be denied and in which the system of color patches, for example on the walls, ceiling, marble tiling, etc., not only just posted, but, moreover, often play quite an important role: they are a decorative element. Imagine a large conference room where all the walls, arches and ceiling, and also all the furniture would have been quite the same color, eg white or yellow. This monotony of color would be unbearable, moreover, would interfere with the selection of the elements themselves of the masses or the interior (Before our eyes, done a remarkable turn in the field of architecture: after a period of domination monotony of external walls of the building we are currently experiencing a phase of operating different, even fairly saturated colors, though used not only to emphasize the shapes of individual architectural elements, but also to get the kind of colors. However, they are subject to compositional principle of the most architectonic mass)

The different colors are applied, even on a modest scale, animate the masses, emphasize their shape, allowing the eye to dwell on some details. The appearance of colored spots, somehow organized, such as creating a kind of rhythm as a "geometric" friezes "happy" eyes, adding to the pure form something new, something that complements it, to "decorate". Placement of frescoes on the walls of the interior Renaissance palace, most "allegorical", introduces a system of colored spots, which eliminates the monotony of monochrome planes, however, often do it so that smeared almost entirely original form of the interior or the mass of the building, often creates new space and new architectural interiors and filled characters and genre scenes. So understood, factor in the architectural art of painting (we often see it) not only "decorate" the interior, but also changed its character, introduced nearhitektonicheskie elements in works of architecture, and often misrepresented its most absurd manner (cf. the well-known Raphael "Loggia", which the paintings themselves extraordinarily valuable, but as an element of architectural works, in which they are included, not in the picture with the most obvious way). But imagine that the walls of a room located just "pictures" abstract neizobrazhayuschie, moreover, such that, included in this architectural whole and not distorting it, enrich it just somehow necessary in this place the color complex. Would not that be an adequate role neizobrazhayuschey "pictures"? Is not satisfied if he in this whole architectural feature decorative element, being subject to the laws of the whole composition, but also useful to complement its elements of mass, and pure color, "beautiful"? True, and it is not any form is eliminated, because there are still two-dimensional shape of color patches on the plane wall, but this form is secondary, as it were, respective utility with respect to color properties, and is the only organizing factor. In this case, on its own "picture" was not an aesthetic whole, but only some additions to the whole, and not just higher, but, moreover, a different type - namely, the architectural work.
However, the "pattern" would not represent something separated from its surroundings, regardless of whether it is something real or not (It depends on the solution to the question of what character is being-architectural work). However, not only the existence of a certain part of the architectural work would be determined by this work, but also the way to its existence would depend on the whole, in which it is included. There is no doubt that the color formation of this type exist, and they will be in the above sense of "beautiful". But when we compare them with pictures that had previously been the subject of our discussion, we see that we are on some kind of boundary points of painting, in fact, we have already crossed the border between painting and architecture and decorative details are engaged in architectural works in order only that in these items the most important role is played not by geometric shapes, and colors, respective set of flowers placed on a plane defined product architecture and included in the selection of its points.
But this does not imply that in this way should be resolved the problem of abstract painting. As you can tell, there neizobrazhayuschie "pictures" are not operating ornamental performance against other artistic creation function, and their adequate perception involves a selection from the environment in which they are needed. This requires the viewer to it, focusing on the content of the picture, while not paying attention to his surroundings - or "abstracted" from him, or did not notice. Of course, this is possible only when something makes the viewer to engage only the picture itself, when, consequently, no part of the picture does not show the audience for the picture. This happens when the picture is "attracted" the attention of the viewer that provides a single, completed in his aesthetic whole. This is a whole should be a consequence of the elements of the painting. But its elements, because it is neizobrazhayuschim product, there can be nothing more than to color stains, well-organized, single set, from which no constituent part can not be fixed and to which nothing can be added without having to this integrity was not destroyed as a result of imbalance prevailing in the picture. This complex can not be anything other than the basis of some "image" or, in other words, the harmonic quality (Vladislav Vitvitskiy once spoke of "the system is well contained." To some extent this is true, if I pay attention mainly to mnogokachestvennoe base "image" and not to forget the image itself, which in itself is no longer a "system" of many elements, but with something so that the system will be relatively new, more precise, simple, and makes some in the eye. I think that because Vitvitskiy introduced the concept of "well-closed system" in order not to be forced to acknowledge the existence of an "image", which shortly before the First World War, drew the attention of the then psychologists' image »(Gestalt). Vitvitskiy, like many his contemporaries, was raised on the psychology of the elements that make up the complexes by means of "associative" mechanism, and therefore more inclined to deny that something like "image».).
Needless to say, that nothing here can not be resolved, particularly the question of whether using color patches, different qualities of hue, saturation and shape, in some way placed beside each other, to create a whole of a particular type or not. Incidentally, this question is a certain artistic experiment that put artists. In the history of European painting, especially of the XX century, such an experiment was carried out repeatedly and gave a positive result. ( Who was present, for example, at the "Juvenile in 1956 in Venice, could be seen (especially in the department of Italian painting) a series of such purely" abstract ", neizobrazhayuschih paintings, each of which is a whole : pure cascade of colors, so to speak, and avoid the impression that these colors are "paint surface" some portrayed things. Unfortunately, I can not give the names of these artists (not recorded and do not have a catalog, as well as reproductions these pictures). It is a pity, because the neizobrazhayuschaya painting is probably one of the most difficult kinds of art and many creative efforts in this area do not lead to satisfactory results. The vast majority of "abstract" paintings are neither neizobrazhayuschimi paintings in the strict sense of the word, not the pictures that have some aesthetic value - it is simply spotting.)

In light of this experiment answer the doubts caused by neizobrazhayuschimi pictures, maybe one, namely: they do not necessarily have to be works of decorative art in the service of architecture. They may be independent works of art. Of course, use them in any architecture can, as in the case of any other paintings lead to the phenomenon of harmony or disharmony between the picture and the environment (why in modern museums and try to exhibit the paintings as possible neutral environment that is against this background without interference reveal all their qualities. Sometimes the mere exposure of too close a picture next to another affects the aesthetic effects of painting on the viewer.) and even do a decorative painting architectonic point of the whole. But this does not affect the very composition of the picture and does not address the question whether this picture is an independent work of art or not.

There remains, however, another question, namely: whether neizobrazhayuschaya picture is a separate piece of art with a specific artistic qualities, something different from the canvas-image or not? Criterion for multi-layer, which served us to distinguish patterns of leaf images, now seems less and less distinction, one might think, is erased. However, before we came to the conclusion that the painting, the image is one of many items, more accurately - a physical thing. If we create ten completely identical paintings-images (Of course, the same only in those terms that are relevant for the constitution of the picture. When modern technology is easy to get a very similar leaf images.), then because of this we do not obtain ten paintings, but only "reproduction" of one picture. One and the same essential relationship between color and layering qualities that shaped them as speakers in various instances of paintings, images, and reveals to us the same choice of aesthetically valuable qualities. So, all the qualities and relations between them determine the "face" of the picture and her personality. Will they (as in depicting scenes) distributed to the various layers or act as a single layer product, which is neizobrazhayuschaya picture - it has no value for the identity of the artwork, though not indifferent to the wealth of complexes of qualities and values that have opposed there are two types of paintings: representing and neizobrazhayuschie. Indication of the layering in the imaging film was only a convenient technique for the distinction between painting and canvas-image, but not necessary condition for the emergence of this distinction, for any aesthetically valuable painting depicting present similar complexes, or systems , color qualities and their mutual relationship necessary and, finally, reflected on their base constructed image, as in every grade from an artistic neizobrazhayuschey picture. The only difference is that in depicting the scenes also contain other elements of the painting are very different context, between them, and there are new art functions, such as "play" some vnehudozhestvennoy reality. But these are different from components neizobrazhayuschey picture elements of the painting depicting the innocent do not violate themselves between the quality of color patches. Moreover, in artistic terms, these links and they impose a complete picture of the value will be at least as important (and perhaps most important, in its purely pictorial specificity) as the value entered into the whole picture through the species and images of objects or Finally, through a literary theme. We can say that if a picture depicting a subject for its fiber, and especially literary theme enters into the picture is very significant, and aesthetically valuable qualities of a quality, valuable to any other party, it does not work, if we talk about the values that enter into the picture of color patches, and if the picture is not up to the organic unity of quality systems and self-constitution of the visual image, valuable artistically, that from an artistic point of view (and it is in the arts of painting a critical point of view), the picture is bad, devoid of values and no, the most high it will not save the topic. Therefore, modern abstractionists say that you can sacrifice all the other qualities and values that follow from the multi-layer products (particularly from the image layers of objects and situations in life), and try to build a picture of just the game of color patches and then the scenic effect can act in its pure form and We do not need to appear before rescue poorly linked to form an artistic paintings by vnezhivopisnyh values (or even vnehudozhestvennyh) entered into the picture layer of images of objects. They say that in a purely abstract painting in what can sfalshivit: if the picture is badly composed in pure color relations, unless it forms a solid complex, necessarily rise to the highest, quality imagery, it immediately ceases to be a work of art, and any way be "faked" her property. Who's bad draws, say abstractionists usually tries to escape "literature", a sublime and affecting the feelings of the audience, but this picture is not getting better because of higher literary value, such vnehudozhestvennye religious values expressed by the vulgar with the artistic side, lead to bad careless different hypocrites. True, the extreme abstractionists go much further, and it seems that they are inclined to assert that any values entered by a layer of images of objects and even by the very fiber of their characteristic features of visual showing of items that are not only unnecessary, but, moreover, they are for pictures of harmful impurities, alien specifically scenic values, and constraints on their freedom of expression. These values are considered only those that may occur in neizobrazhayuschih paintings. At the same time, substantive or types of values sometimes zamutnyayut original system combined into a single unit of color patches. Their presence in the picture also allows the viewer to focus on the fact that, according to the abstract, that's important in a picture - a system of colored spots.

I'm not going to decide whether we have this point of view, I just want to clarify its position as that in the structure of any paintings depicting as it contains some neizobrazhayuschaya pattern (Most often, however, it is subject to a different composition characteristics, adapted to what the objects they depict and how.) as its essential component and that the value of this component depends strongly on the aesthetic value of the whole picture. Seen this particular component in the overall picture and give yourself the power of a peculiar aesthetic values that the component enters - that's the main function of adequate perception of paintings as works of art - a function, without which, strictly speaking, no aesthetic perception of paintings. The fact that in certain patterns, namely, the paintings depict the aesthetic perception of the painting does not end there, no doubt, after an earlier analysis of multilayer patterns. There are pictures that his dual nature as abstract paintings and pictures depicting reveal particularly clearly: they can perceive, respective «read," two completely different ways, because they are not subjects of the image prevails over the complex components of a single whole patches of color. I remember here about the paintings of Jacques Villon, exhibited at the Juvenile in 1956 in Venice (in the department of French painting). Through a system of relatively large single-color stains, limited among straight lines (color), he gets on the one hand, a purely abstract, neizobrazhayuschuyu picture that can be "read" as a multi-colored planar product, leading to the creation of a specific, arose on the basis of the image. And in another mounting position taken by the viewer, the picture at some time finds that these color patches (polygons) are the shape and relative position of that amount as if the reconstruction of the form (as if one kind of cracked, like glass, many explicitly delimited from each other by plane), through which emerges to some extent illusory, some images are subject: the landscape, disappearing into the picture of old streets and etc. Both of these "people" paintings, in this case is admissible, and they both create an aesthetically valuable qualities, and the possibility of concentrating the viewer or in one or the other "face" of the picture reveals the richness of these special works of art. I should say that this perception of paintings by Jacques Villon (in any case, it seemed to me) that a uniform system of color spots emerges barely looming landscape (Prof. Tatarkevich with which we saw an exhibition in Venice in conversation with me about the paintings Villon noticed that they appear only a "suggestion" depicted the subject. In this view there is something close to the truth: This item is not imposed on us in his rough physicality, as occurs in the paintings of Rubens.), in no way depletes the whole of its values contained in the selection of colors. In other words, a well-known specification of abstract paintings by Jacques Villon not deprive them of their dignity as abstract paintings. Perhaps because of this whole complex structure of paintings of "abstract" side of its values prevail over "substantive" side. But even the "hint" to the image of the object in the product makes the product more crowded than a purely abstract paintings.
The Art of the XX century has put forward many different varieties of abstract painting and the different types of abstraction. I can not here to give them a lot of attention are limited, as before, only the fundamental questions of the structure pattern. But in general it would be interesting to analyze in detail "abstract" art of the XX century, based on the concepts and distinctions, received my research.

Will express here a few comments on that particular type of pictures that appeared in European painting by Picasso. Picasso paintings are of the type as an intermediate between the purely abstract painting, decorative painting, and finally imaging, multi-layered painting.
Namely, some elements of the painting will be exactly the same as in abstract painting, with particular emphasis decorative painting, while others are like fragments of images of objects (Such a fragmented image of the object is, in turn, some type of "abstract "Of course, in a completely different meaning than when the" abstract "is the absence of images of objects.), but do not manifest themselves with a particular kind of sense, which is released in the whole picture as a special factor," painted "as if" right "in its purely objective components (if at all possible) ([SIZE=1"]Such" direct "to draw some things in them some sort of purely substantive terms, with the smallest component of the facilitation of species seen in the pictures Taranchevskogo in which the emphasis lies on the harmony of colors and their mutual dynamics. Despite the fact that in his paintings as many subjects, the major compositional factor is, if I may say so, what is the essence of pure abstract art. This is especially noticeable when examined a series of several of his paintings with a very close subject-layers and with different color harmony, as it were sold in various colors. Unfortunately, monochrome prints do not give a clue about the real person, and specific values of painting Taranchevskogo.[/SIZE]). It's like a part of things, of course, necessarily brought before us in a simplified form, but that the perception of the viewer as though nothing remains of this species, but all his attention is directed to the very thing presented to us, however, only in some of its fragment. Species factor here is so dimmed that he, for example, often leads to the constitution of the depicted three-dimensional space in which these fragments were things. However, one can also say that they are in the plane of the picture, though, and lose much of its three-dimensionality. Due to its fragmentation, they encourage the viewer to imagine some thing (the whole), but it does not reach its vision in terms of visual (visual) perception by means of knowing some (reconstructed in the picture) species, as is the case in multi-scenes in which a layer of species is the primary vehicle of comprehension image of the object. Often in the film of this type serves many such subject fragments, pieces of some things, observed from different sides to encourage the viewer's imagination add up to one whole view of the same things in a way that we present it in conjunction with the various parties or in various phases of existence.

The viewer is not so much a spectator as a poet, creates itself in the imagination of some specific items, although it must be constantly at the same time look at the picture and see that it can be seen. In this case, will be patchy as an observer and the position of the perceived object - the painting. Here the picture takes place as if on the border between painting and literature, though very differently than in the case of paintings from a literary theme, which we analyzed earlier. For in such a picture it does not reach the display and "reification" of a life situation, and even before kvazichuvstvennogo presence of people and things involved in a constant situation. Despite this, the picture is by its very structure takes the viewer outside the picture itself, introducing it to the imaginary objects and giving them much greater freedom of imagination, than in the case of paintings with literary theme, which is after all the "distractions" from the audience it ultimately attracts its attention to themselves, and in particular to the situation presented in it. Picasso as a distraction from the viewer the picture itself is a new kind of "abstract" paintings, other than the above.