What distinguishes the true artist from not present?

[LCR]

Сообщение от Berth

These attempts were so long ago. In another life. In another coordinate system.
It was the world progressism.
And then the art world for a long time the rules of the criterion of novelty. Very long. He is still trying to defend (and wonderful when it at least for small sites can).
So now the novelty is impossible to surprise the viewer. Still less is it that the novelty of it can be frightening. His view of himself eagerly peering into the picture with a vain hope to be surprised, amazed, frightened. He is too inexperienced eye /information society is-se /and full of the flow of visual information (since there picture, television, advertising, and generally fuck up the whole does not allow a person to obtain a sensory deficiency, by the way necessary to some extent for the perception of fine art in general , any art bad-good if there).

Therefore, with the Impressionists is not correct.
Moreover I have heard them milen times and always on the subject .

The Impressionists were a long time. Let us this.
Soutine was a little later, agree?
A de Stael even later - so that the scheme operates all
But it does not matter.

Truth in your message is.

Center problem - decide who is to say, and who have nothing to say, who knows how to say it, but who knows.
That is, I want to say that you are substituting one insoluble problem to others.

Consider just a recent example - an example of my husband, Mikhail Roginsky, and simply browsing the titles of articles written about him and not very steep, steep (but mostly still the most cool) art critics in a relatively short period of time. What do we see?

• Michael Roginskii - invaluable classic 60-ies
• The heroic pessimism Mikhail Roginsky
• Great scoop. Mikhail Roginsky in the Tretyakov Gallery
• The artist with plenty of classicality
• Gray memories
• Master, drew eternity
• Noctuidae with a Parisian garret
• Russian Soviet
• Color at the end of the tunnel, its other Mikhail Roginsky
• Russian Basquiat, Michael Roginsky

Well, enough, probably. So, the color at the end of the tunnel or gray memories? Russian or Soviet? Master, drew eternity, or scoop with a Parisian attic? As you can see, the specialists' opinions differ radically.

You can, of course, to declare those who wrote about the gray cutworm, incompetent - I do it with great regulyarnstyu and a lot of pleasure, and orally and in writing.

But it can be declared incompetent and others, those who speak of eternity and of the classics, is not it?

So it turns out that my acceptance (and I am not ashamed to do it), that a good artist - a painter, whom I love, the less absurd than it might seem.

P.S. Of course, the flavor develops. The more one looks at the painting, reading and thinking about it, the more likely that he will like not pissing boys from the area of Montmartre and the dense and stinking Soviet lilac 1940-1950 gg. But something more personal, suffered and artistic.

P.P.S. Several members of this forum have told me that what they liked 2 or 3 years ago, now they are not interested, but the fact of the existence of which until recently they suspected them very much. One of them even bought a painting of the artist, which he discovered here - for my cue, which I am proud of many