Market confusion

[gans]

Interesting thoughts Grigory Revzin .

cattle, money, and modern art

If you accidentally, from time to time, starting somewhere in the depths of the soul to worry that you do not understand modern art (which, for example, tend to me), then do not worry. The fact that you do not understand, just is an indication that you understand it, and the opposite is true. If you understand it, it means that it is not the original artist, in fact, largely repeating your personality, and therefore of little value. It is possible to understand what the artist says, is to disqualify him sign.


Generally there are two main thoughts on the subject of how to understand art. The first - the idea of embodiment. The fact that the artist represents the product of Genesis material, including here not only to space, time, event outline and its root causes, but also understanding and experience of all this. In principle, this idea is linked to the concept of artistic form, which arises as a product of anthropological, psychological and personality characteristics of the artist, but in principle it is possible and without form, and yet in many ways, which, however, still are a continuation of the author. Understanding this embodiment of the audience is achieved under two conditions: firstly, you are an artist should be included in a more or less the same matter of Genesis, including understand and experience it must somehow it seems, and secondly, your personal characteristics must somehow also be the same with him. There is some theoretical difficulty, since the ideal of understanding you have to be identical to the artist, and then what, actually, to watch his work, when you already know all about him. But the ideal of identity does not happen, but if your with small differences, then you can think out, as it were, or felt for those areas where you are with him are not, so really understand until the end and imbibe his personal experience. Hence, for the artist followed by two nice things: he first, as it gives people their identity, secondly, in part reformats these people under him. But here it is important that those who give, it was necessary and they seemed to agree to reformat.

Second - is the idea of symbolization. It assumes that the direct embodiment of a matter of Genesis does not work and the artist uses indirect symbols. They can be arbitrary (and not very cultural coding system) and involuntary (metaphorical, analogical, psychological). The viewer performs some work on deciphering the contents of the artistic message, and sometimes finds: that he was not considered a symbol, just them and is open symbolic archetypes in themselves and in the universe, and all somehow expands your horizons. This is important and nice, but basically works when some basic similarities in the systems of symbolism between artist and audience is present from the outset.

In this and in another case, the similarity between artist and audience, or psychophysical, or because of the unity of cultural codes. Simply put, as in any work of deciphering to understand, you need to know in advance what to say. Probably, in relation to some time, say, Christian art, or earlier, it was not even make much sense. And the artists and audiences, for example, were Christians, or even something in common between them. But today is not so. Today, the only value expressions of the artist and the sole criterion of quality is the originality and uniqueness, nonidentity with anyone at all and, of course, with any audience. That is the purpose statement is not that someone understood something, but on the contrary, that no one understood anything.

Читать дальше... 

Well, this is a purely semantic matter. But the artist is included in the exchange relations, symbolic or even cash. And that's the question: what it sells, if understand what he says, not what is impossible, but would be very bad for the utterance, since substantially reduces its value. This seems inexplicable thing, a kind of manifestation of the mystical essence of art as a market asset.

The mystical essence of art is also reflected in the fact that it is contagious. Especially for the architecture. Then there are the same processes in a simplified and therefore more easily understood form. Nikolai Malinin recently in connection with the exhibition "Russian Utopia" held a "garage" round table "dedicated to the conservation problems of Soviet architecture 60-70-ies. She has a rather unpleasant fate: its mass demolition, but in contrast to the monuments of earlier ages it does not cause any negative human emotions - there she and the road. Opinion architects about the indifference to the heritage sotsmodernizma clearly expressed famous curator Elena Gonzalez. "In my opinion, - she said - those who do not understand the value of this architecture - it's just redneck. And we will not focus on the opinions of cattle! "Agree, an excellent avant-garde position, even in something, and desperate, because the preservation of monuments of architecture - an expensive process, which should be done by just" cattle ". In a recent review of the exhibition Catherine Bustamante Tar defined the "essence of the avant-garde abstraction, including Malevich:" There is no life, you despicable tradesmen from me will not get you shish ". In my opinion, it seems.

British sociologists of the firm YouGov last year published the results of the survey, of which it turns out that 77%of the population do not like modern architecture and prefer houses in traditional styles. That is to say redneck - fairly representative of the population. 77%- it's too much and does not reflect the real situation on the market, where new buildings in historical styles do not even appear in inverse proportion 23:77, and even more rarely. This is an amazing situation, because we face the market ruled by supply and demand, nevertheless, architects can impose their position. This occurs over many decades, a large market, it's not a one-time event, where else can someone mislead the brains, but recurring transactions in which the "cattle" to sell something that he dislikes and incomprehensible. And it buys!

I think this is reason to think about the nature of the sale of artistic expression. I will cite another example, just from a distant, seemingly area. Nikita Mikhalkov, has released its twice Burnt by the Sun and in this regard is now massively distributed interview. Among other things: "In recent years absolutely agree with Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov, who wrote that" a man without faith I am not interested at all. Amazing thing! A remarkable man can be - itself a virtue. But if you understand that this man has no faith in him not to talk about. " Nikita Khrushchev - not avant-garde, but quite the opposite, yet he is broadcasting the same position as I understand it, the rights of the artist. This product advertising to the mass of the buyer, and in the context of this action to buyers say: "If you do not believe in God, come here and go away". Imagine advertising washing powder - not for atheists, Jews and gays! ". Once it is exotic.

I think that we, art historians, it is necessary to adjust the position on the subject of that art produces a new understanding of the world, a new look, and this valuable. The situation is exactly the opposite. The art of producing a new misunderstanding of the world, a new waiver to look at him and join with anyone to communicate on this. The most valuable is saying: "Come on you ..." and it is a new articulation of this position is an art event. Moreover, it is absorbed from art related fields - architecture, or, say, movies.

Of course, this question - how can you sell misunderstanding? But basically it's even easy. Do something you do not understand, but bought it, and it is already yours. Money can not overcome the misunderstandings that make it possible to understand, and that can assign incomprehensible. Here, say, modernist architecture can not like, but if it's yours, it is quite another matter. I bought it - and that you have something of their own do not understand. Well then will deal. General lack of understanding of something in itself - it is a normal human condition, even the creative and generous. Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Samos Sr. put it this way: "Maybe he and son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch". That is the moment of assignment took questions misunderstanding. This may be a universal formula of the artist's position in the market. How would he be son of a bitch, but make it his own, and all questions they withdraw.

http://www.artchronika.ru/item.asp?id=1980