Orthodox realism (or the ability to write, draw)

[Маруся]

A very strange title theme.
For maximum "realistic" Renaissance artists sought more. Do not Leonardo first began dissecting corpses to understand how the human anatomy is arranged - to maximize the "realistic" it show?
Then what are ortodoksalnst? In the sense of Russianness?
You please somehow decide you want to put the issue of Russian artists or Socialist realism? Or the contemporary Russian artists?
"Draw" could or could not all in different ways: Kandinsky, Malevich, for example, could not quite - academic drawing - this is not about them. But this did not prevent them from becoming great artists.
On the other hand - a huge mass of Socialist realism, the owner of a brilliant academic drawing techniques, but is so impersonal that it is impossible to distinguish one from another.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Maroussia

Then what are ortodoksalnst? Do you mean "Russian character"?

Orthodoxy means: "sure foundation"
Obviously, preventing firmly rooted in the domestic mass consciousness associations the word "orthodox" with religion.
Spravtes themselves in the dictionary (for interest)

Сообщение от Maroussia

You put the question of Russian artists or Socialist realism? Or the contemporary Russian artists?

Сообщение от Marusya

"draw" could or could not, all in different ways:

Сообщение от Maroussia

On the other hand - a huge mass of Socialist realism - brilliantly holding academic drawing techniques - but impersonal so that it is impossible to distinguish one from another (with rare exceptions).

 

Maroussia, thanks for the note. All right! Too many different realizmovi be out as a feature.

Not having to get a clear and precise terminology of the school of fine crafts in pintsipe now faces rudiment.
I focus here exclusively on the notion of ability to write, draw, realism, and realistic interpretations.
About the "great" and "hurry" (any kind) is no sideways and even we are not talking and not even mention.
Apparently, we must once again obratotat (adapted) text, that all too clear there.

Shl saw your post number 3 (this is probably the reverse translation from the English version. Where I adjusted)

But as he dolzhenbyt: I am very close to saying art critic Catherine tar in one of her interviews about that in today's world painting ceased to exist.
(Try to quote verbatim as soon as possible)

[Маруся]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

Apparently, we must once again obratotat (adapted) text, that all too clear there.

Good luck!

[KaterinaMN]

NATA NOVA,
I completely agree with what you write here.
I do not like and I do not understand something, when denial of the foundations of painting, drawing is for the sake of denial. When ignorance - flaunt. I'm not very fond of that aspect of contemporary art, when evaluated by the concept, but the work itself is useless artifact. Anyway - contemporary art and painting - are two big differences.
But this is true, as remarked Maroussia: "Draw" could or could not, all in different ways: Kandinsky, Malevich, for example, could not "draw" academic drawing. But this did not prevent them from becoming great artists. On the other hand, - huge mass of Socialist realism - brilliantly holding techniques of academic drawing - but faceless so that it is impossible to distinguish one from another (with rare exceptions). "

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от KaterinaMN

On the other hand - a huge mass of Socialist realism - brilliantly holding academic drawing techniques - but impersonal so that it is impossible to distinguish one from another (with rare exceptions). "

I began to think that the main cause of "faceless" (as a very precise representation of Maroussia) was a survival instinct, at the terrifying totalitarian times, when any sign of individuality could be (and was) fatal consequences. (Will there be a drab and faceless during hruschovskoy "thaw"? Let's search!)

Added after 1 minute

Сообщение от Artem

Well, of course. It is impossible to distinguish from Lomykina Lopukhova or Stozharau from Gritsaya. And much of Nyssa Mylnikova well or how not to be distinguished. Examples! I did not understand. Who you can not discern?

I perfectly understand that there has since Maroussia (it just proves once again that visual arguments are often simply essential that)

[Артём]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

that the main cause of "faceless"

NATA NOVA, faceless the artist who is faceless. One can cite as an example 100 faceless Socialist realism, but also can show 100 faceless avant-garde. And this direction?

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Artem

And here the direction?

This Marusin theme (it's better to it)

[Артём]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

is Marusin topic

I thought your!

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Artem

Quote:
Message from NATA NOVA
This topic Marusin

I thought your!

(Hee-hee) my theme, melody (about impersonality-Marusin )

Featureless and the truth was a lot (you called it the Titans ..)

[Pavel]

There is no realism. It is idle imagination. There is a realistic method that covers all the arts of all time. Courbet was a realist, which is in opposition to a bourgeois nymphs began to draw the workers and ordinary people that is truth of life. Zytem were the Impressionists and Van Gog.Obuchenie art of painting includes the ability to draw and there is no better way to learn how to copy the samples, along with work from life on the principle of simple to complex. That does not mean that later life should be to repeat these lessons, but instead pushing them to find their own way, original style and direction. Continue forward talent, and if it does not go run the compilation and so you know tricks.
Big mistake to consider that if you make abstraction immediately becomes an original, but in this way is even harder to be original and an example of what Hurst and three other four names. Others simply suite emphasizing "greatness" of these "peaks".

Added after 8 minutes

Сообщение от KaterinaMN

Artem, then after a few of the other conversation going. Originally it was a question that contemporary art, unfortunately, almost forgotten technique of drawing and painting, in favor of "expression" of authors. Moreover - contemporary art in the West (and may be our already) his understanding - and painting - are often diametrically opposite positions.

You just do not know very well that "Western art". It is not self-expression are ordinary weak, and in search of its original path. This is well written by Matisse.