Modern art is intended only to ensure that plunge the viewer into shock

[Art-lover]

Сообщение от Meister

I've been really surprised. You want to say that Filonov weaker Rembrandt?? Gauguin or Munch or less significant?? What, though, so sincerely think?

Yes, now for me is obvious. But I had to go some way towards such an understanding. So I understand your sincere astonishment.

Сообщение от Meister

ie Suprematism of Malevich, Kandinsky's abstraction, but in the end all the vanguard of the early 20 - it is not money?? This is certainly not custom-made Rembrandt or Velasquez, there is a depth of spirit far more.

Vanguard saw their mission in the radical smashing of the bourgeois reality and build a new society. Avant-garde artists, enthusiastic fervor implementation of these utopias, wanted to create art, revolutionizing consciousness and modeling contours of future peace. The role of art in such a way extolled to the skies, but the art itself relegated to official functions.
Utopianism of the avant-garde goals compensated heat of the revolutionary spirit. Innovation, enthusiasm of the pioneers - demiurges new universes, the attempts of creativity, based on the belief in direct occult mission of art - this is what is interesting and significant avant-garde. But the tension of spirit and a brave experiment are not equivalent to a depth of spirit. Alas. : o