"Artist's shit" from the Tar Catherine

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

Yes it is simply the village. Well! I'm shocked!

Colleagues, I understand that the material you are shocked, but it is not necessary to cross the correct emotion. 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.

[gans]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

Yes it is simply the village. Well!

This is certainly not the case.

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by gans

This is not exactly so.

gans, you are a gentleman.

[Vladimir]

Without a doubt. For very many sincere lovers of art, brought up on visual outstanding creators 19-20 century, its conclusions are too radical - this is understandable. And for her already and posmodernizm - passed stage. Woman is at the forefront in the information field: a lot of reads, analyzes and makes such a way for us a lot of work. 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.

PS: she speaks in public, stunningly captures the essence of the "murky" issues and quickly oriented. But read her theoretical work, the same book on the art of XX century IMHO is very difficult. But it saves the selection of illustrations

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

A Tar answered very specifically, radical, burning bridges for the discrepancies.

That's got very specific and radical reactions. What else? Think it is necessary ...

[color="# 666686"]Added after 4 minutes[/color]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

PS: she speaks in public, stunningly captures the essence of the "murky" issues and quickly orintiruetsya. But read her theoretical work, the same book on the art of XX century IMHO is very difficult. But it saves the selection of illustrations

     Hitler also spoke well and agreed! : D

[K-Maler]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

It is incidentally expressed so clearly, just on the forum discussing the relevance iskusstvo.Vot that it has made, it is their program. She's one of those M. Gelman included "in the number 50" (to be typed or 666?).

[LCR]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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

[Art-lover]

Not speaking here in defense of modern art, would, however, defend the principle of fair quoting.

Hi, Catherine!
Last time, seeing another "contemporary art" arises gag reflex. I understand that art is subjective, but all have the same limit. You look at any installation and think, why dormant punitive psychiatry.
Now the question is: Do not you think it's time to somehow separate the art from the freedom of expression? And then I, as a taxpayer has paid this "heppining" extremely indignant when I see in museums and exhibitions all nonsense.
PS Once heard one "artist" rolled up his feces in canning jars. Do you consider it art?

Answer:
In general, contemporary art, as well as an academic discipline - a complex area that requires education, and I would not advise him to judge those who, even with the Russian language there are certain problems. In addition, the fact that exhibited in galleries (and, say, a premium Kandinsky), you as the taxpayer does not pay as well as private enterprises. Gallery - this is generally a private shop, and it is intended, strictly speaking, only for those who want there to buy something.

Regarding the last question: Yes, the work of Piero Manzoni, Artist's shit "at the Art Museum and, therefore, is an art, not art, since that word - is not praise, but simply a statement of fact, to what type of things, this thing is (to works of art, rather than canned or not to souvenirs, for example). "Artist's shit" is a work of art, not the artist's shit, because it invested considerable intellectual force of the author and those of hundreds of art historians and philosophers who have written about this and write. Do not read this, understand this work (as well as contemporary art in general) is impossible.

Agree that the full context of meaning other than in a curtailed.

[LCR]

Originally Posted by Art-lover

not speaking here in defense of modern art, I would, however, protect the principle of fair quoting.

Agree that the full context of meaning other than in a curtailed.

I read all of these questions /answers on tapes and remember the context.
I do not accept the approval of ED that "dx" may refer to works of art "because it implies that the only criterion for membership of the art is the intention.
I strongly disagree with this. For me, the only criterion is the talent (yes, I know, this category is much more vague and subjective, but I was happy with it, but in fairness I do not pretend).

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by LCR

At the same time, Aivazovsky and Shishkin, or what? or Vasnetsov? are indeed from my point of view of mediocre artists

Very serious issue. (seriously, because it is you put it and not Tar). And thus, requires a detailed answer. I'll try to return later to this subject (now I'm a little tired).

[color="# 666686"]Added after 3 minutes[/color]

Originally Posted by LCR

I read all these questions /answers on tapes and remember the context.
I do not accept the approval of ED that "dx" may refer to works of art "because it implies that the only criterion for membership of the art is the intention.
I strongly disagree with this. For me, the only criterion is the talent (yes, I know, this category is much more vague and subjective, but I was happy with it, but in fairness I do not pretend).

  Well said!
  I will go and drink vodka!