"Black Square" by Malevich: who feels that, looking at this picture

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Posav

But with the orthodox version of the forum:

.... but whether to take on faith, an atheist or a Jew and an Orthodox? Chet You went too I think.
And I do not know what you've read about it in Malevich's Black Square, but the most reasonable interpretation of this work - nevybeleny piece of wall - a square in the elbow, as a traditional reminder perpetrated by Jews in their homes as a reminder of the destruction of the Temple.
When the work was exhibited for the first time, it caused a great wave is its scandalous religious context - as opposed to the Icon and Russian fine arts in general.

The fact that this text is written in, as you say, the Orthodox Forum, does not mean that this view has anything to do with Orthodoxy. Even if the person who wrote it, considers himself an Orthodox Christian, it does not mean that it is - a kind of orthodox version of the interpretation of "Black Square". In fact, this lack of talent nonsense! And to be precise, it is a summary of the more delusional article of a James Ushakov, "The Mystery of the Black square". This article has nothing to do with a serious artistic studies. Convince yourself:

THE MYSTERY OF THE BLACK SQUARE

Jacob Ushakov

Guess, dear reader, that before you? Wait! Do not hurry to answer. Some of you thought it was a geometrical figure in black, you can even say precisely, the square black. Take a closer look. Did not see anything else? Very strange. In this case, you are completely uneducated man, the enemy of art, an obscurantist, reactionary and, ultimately, the enemy of democracy. How can I look at this box and see nothing? Take a closer look. Can not you see that before you not just a black square, and Black Square by Malevich - the mystical secrets of the Russian (!) Avant-garde. " The mystery, which, according to many critics, "has not been disclosed until now." So why did it took to draw a square (or draw), so even this "mysterious"? We might help to understand this art critics and readers. True, I think, the mystery of this "product" must be sought not in the arts, and in the region kabbalistiki.
I must say that the "great" Malevich's no art education did not receive a rose in the south of Ukraine in a small-town family and by his own admission: "No talking about the art was not. I soon learned that there is art ... and that there are artists. " That's it. Roth and his people did not know that artists do exist. Then suddenly found out and immediately decided this artist to become, and became. In fact, daub Malevich so-so, not for everybody. And people very often, were dark in the art know nothing about and could not appreciate it "works", except, of course, the progressive intellectuals. To stir up the dark minds, the artist and his associates not only took up his brush, but a pen, in order to write an explanation to his own, so to speak, linens. From under the brush "art" grew artistic styles. One another wiser - Rayonism, Suprematism, analytical skill. After all, their "art" required justification. But it is very difficult to justify the fact that, in principle, and he can not articulate. Only one solution - with even greater energy powdered brains, like so: "the highest and complex construction can be considered a product, which in his body does not have any form of existing (Malevich). Got it? Not really? I told you that you are uneducated and obscurantist cleric.

 

Читать дальше... 

In normal human consciousness is enlightened, and enlightened, they are starting to realize quite clearly that to them is not just a black square and the square, which, by definition, art Sarabyanova, "focuses, in an infinite world space is in itself an expression of "everything" in the universe. Concentrating it "all" in the impersonal geometric forms and an impenetrable black surface. "

After these revelations from the square just can not tear his eyes, do you agree? No? Well, then I do not know. You probably peddler anthrax and deputy of Yasser Arafat.

Normal people should feel the same about the same as that experienced some Mrs. Savina. Listen to her experience: "Black Square ... captures, absorbs and worries, and gives a sense of progress. Although, of course, keep in suspense. Picture of the totality of Malevich, not dissected, projecting a spectator, leaving him at the same time absolutely free of reflection. Therefore, reflection can go in a most unexpected way. And it will be determined purely individual viewer. And on the question of what "Black Square", you can get is probably just biased answer. "

I do not know where to start can be a reflection, which is an unexpected way, but it seems to be already in the field of medicine. Generally, all the grimaces and jumping around the black square reminiscent of a mass psychosis in which people not to seem ignorant, come up with a lot of all sorts of beautiful words, so that no one doubted that they understand something: this picture is a true masterpiece. Remember GH Andersen and his "Dress King.

By the way, the market value of the square, a recognized "monument of national importance can »(!?), experts estimate as high as twenty million dollars. Truly a mystery. But this puzzle we are try to solve.

Chapter 121, "Remember the destruction of the Temple.

1. After the destruction of the Second Temple Torah Sages decided that, even in the most joyful moments of his life a Jew is obliged in any way to express that nothing can make us forget about this terrible catastrophe. It says in Tehillim (137: 5,6): "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! Let my tongue cleave to the sky, if I do not remember you if you do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy! "

2. The establishment of Zion should be left on the wall opposite the entrance door plastered square of the elbow on the elbow (48x48 cm) - that every time he saw him, remember the destruction of the Temple. "" Kitsur Shulchan Aruch "

So, it turns out, what's wrong. It turns out that the real problem was put on public display ritual Jewish symbol. A dark box on a light background, therefore, not so meaningless. Now I understand why the whole world so reverently refers to this masterpiece? For the uninitiated, can invent a lot of beautiful words, symbols, to write more than a dozen science-like theses. And they will look with admiring wonder at the black spot, like sheep to the new gate, unaware of the real meaning of "art".

The black square was first exhibited at an exhibition in the corner, the place where they could settle the icon. It was a challenge. Calling anti-Christian forces. And it felt very good Benois: "Black Square", is the "icon", which the Lord futurists offer instead a "Madonna and the shameless Venus." "Black Square" in white frame - this is not a simple thing, not an easy call, not a random little epizodik that occurred in a house on the Campus Martius, and this is one of the acts of self-affirmation of the principle which has its own name and the abomination of desolation which end by it is through pride, through arrogance, a violation of all the love and tender, will lead all to ruin. "

Comparison with the icon here seems quite appropriate, or more precisely - is antiikona, "icon" of satanic forces, a ritual Jewish sign, so clearly manifested on the eve of the revolution in the early 20 th century. "Concentrate" new universe "- Malevich said about his" masterpiece. " What did the builders of a new universe with Russia, we all know.

Now, of course, say that we are people malokulturnye and do not understand anything in the arts. Well, that is our share. And those who are afraid of being branded ignorant and stare in awe at the "bare king", even more enthusiastic shake their heads, share experiences, write abstruse thesis ...

Сообщение от Posav

When the work was exhibited for the first time, it caused a great wave is its scandalous religious context - as opposed to the Icon and the Russian fine art in general.

Malevich never contrasted himself only "the Russian fine art in general." He was a futurist, and saw himself in a number of others like it, nisprovergateley outdated (as he believed) art forms. He considered himself a colleague of Van Gogh, Cezanne, Picasso, Marinetti. He saw himself as part of the of the global process of updating the arts, the discoverer of new horizons. It is strange that the author of this text tries to oppose it Malevich Russian fine art and even in the whole of which he is. There is a clear semantic substitution. I wonder why? Why was it necessary to "pull" from the context of Russian Malevich's art?