Photo: Exhibition of nominees "Kandinsky Prize-2008"

[LCR]

Сообщение от fross

is not an art critic, and absolutely no objection to me, "preached." So please explain to me that is is relevant, and it can not be modern. A combined contemporary relevance is the emphasis on modern, as is modern and irrelevant?

Generally these terms are not quite simple, at least for me.

In principle, "Contemporary Art" really often referred to as part of contemporary art, with certain characteristics, of which home in my opinion - this is intentional (or presented as such) the lack of aesthetic criteria. To clarify: Hirst, Koons, Cattelan - the actual art, and say, Freud, Hockney and Richter - just modern. That is modern really is irrelevant, but the actual unmodern seemingly no
The confusion I think contributes to the fact that the Russian language is difficult to translate the French term "art moderne" (not to be confused with modernism or - it's me on purpose to amuse you, Ilona - "Art Nouveau"!), Which can also be translated as "contemporary art" and which is used to denote the art between the two warrior, somewhere before the 50-ies.