"Russia's modern abstraction of secondary importance to define"

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Maroussia

To be fair to say that this is not Frosina logic. This conclusion is in the 1960's came Camilla Gray. This is in the book "The Great Experiment» (The Great Experiment: Russian Art 1863 - 1922) wrote that turns all the modern (s) to the Western variety of abstraction were invented by Russian in 20-ies.

Maroussia, if you carefully read my text, you must have to understand that I am writing about that art criticism is unacceptable in the application of the term "secondary" in chronological context. Camilla Gray rightly argues that all the varieties of abstraction were invented by Russian in the 20's, but that does not mean that all the world abstract art is secondary to the Russian avant-garde. Russian "invented", but this does not mean that they thus on the abstract art of all subsequent time stamped again.

Likely fross had in mind exactly what you say, that is, that the Russian were the first in a chronological context, but the word "secondary" in art criticism, has a definite value! By the word "secondary" are mixed with the meaning of the word "epigone", which literally means "(Greek epigonos - born after) (knizhn.). Follower of Mr.. artistic, literary, scientific or other areas, devoid of creative independence. "That's about it, and only this I am writing in his post! I write about the incorrectness of the term "secondary":

Сообщение от Tjutchev

If we follow your logic, then the whole world is secondary Russian abstract art abstract art! It seems to me to talk about the secondary, guided by the chronology in the art sense, well, at least not productive! Main, in my opinion, should be the very quality of works, but when they do not matter! This is not a sport! Secondary one who is less interesting, less deep, and so etc. Recall the same old masters for each of the great, who then had an influence, but from our understanding of this, have not ceased to be greater for those who have had this effect. Innovation is not a guarantee of significance in the art. While this in itself remarkable ...

I felt it necessary to clarify this issue. Agree that the terminology is important! Moreover, the term "secondary" is the key in this topic!

Maroussia, I do not pretend to have all your attention (only modestly), but if you still decide to comment on my text, which I am very happy, please read it carefully. This will make our communication more productive. Thanks ...


Posted by 32 minutes

Сообщение от Maroussia

Unfortunately, this monograph has never been translated into Russian. But precisely because of this book, stop talking about the "secondary" of Russian art in comparison with western Europe. But write her English scholar (herself - a very interesting character), for which a low bow to her.

Maroussia, I do not know what kind of "conversations" you say, but this is Camille Gray and her books, I am sure that being a serious scientist, she could not say it that Russian Art second, except for the avant-garde. Serious scientist can not speak about what has no idea! Admit that this conclusion is yours, but not Camilla Gray. But what if it were her! I still think that Russian art of the 19 th early 20 th century is not known in Europe and America! Do not know! We have something to learn it really only in the 70 - 80-ies! Serious books on many aspects of Russian art does not exist yet! Until now! Where, say, in the west may know, our art, if it is still unknown to ourselves? There was, and no books! No, and no show! There was, and is not in Russia! I'm not talking about Europe and America! Tell me, how?