Modern Painting and the problem of attribution of paintings

[Маруся]

Сообщение от Yurko

I want to know that the most attractive (realism or simulation, or a picture ekskrementalnoy theme?)

Yurko!
You also Hans already said: the most attractive in the arts - is a talent!
And in what direction, in any manner and in what category this talent manifests itself - for the second time. (Copyists and "excrement" - do not count).
Personally, I still appreciate the novelty (independence, individuality, - call it what you want) - that the artist was able to find in themselves and to express as well as media, that "feature" by which his or anyone else can not be confused.

[Conditor]

Inserted and I have my five cents ... In modern art the notion of talent has become a purely opportunistic and slave market. Once the art has become a huge market, the same market and faced with an acute problem of shortage of quality "goods". This is, in general, should not be surprising - almost all "classical" art hangs in museums ("bargains" only 3-5%), and a new, adequate second half of 20th century which in general was stingy on the talents, could not give . Therefore, business leaders this shortcoming (the market - is, of art - no) offset is simple - they formed a new concept of talent, did not primarily the creation itself, and the dubious identity of the creator (well, I can not understand why all the already hackneyed "Black Square" by Malevich - this is an outstanding and valuable work, and the "Battle of negroes in a cave at dead of night" Alphonse Allais, written decades earlier, and please mark having at least a far more interesting name - no), and dulled the aesthetic sense of consumers, thereby having matched by public opinion an existing third-best product. After a while ... and everything is now possible to give the market and Pollock, and Rothko and passing them for talent, the universal scale, and those who do not find in their works nothing but a set of swabs to call people without taste. Unfortunately, this market has identified all the major artistic processes that occurred in the twentieth century, which led to the appearance in the mass quite ugly and tasteless modern art. Where there is a market, art is not enough. Therefore, the question "why are drawn poorly and is considered a masterpiece?" I would give the following answer: "draw really bad .. And please vnimenie who is considered a masterpiece.".

[Posav]

[Кирилл Сызранский]

[Conditor]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzranskiy

What about Netherlandish painting XVI-XVII centuries., For example? And the market was, as art was a lot. No?
And if you do look at the Renaissance XIV-XVI centuries. " Where market relations in the arts into all went, nobody orders a gift, even fathers are not fulfilled. All through the money. <!--~ A ~-->

You're right, of course, but then the money was backed by gold ...
UPD: But seriously, I think, the current main problem is that highly speculative market promotes extremely dubious talents.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Conditor

then the money was backed by gold ...

And me and "unsupported" like, not like their absence.

Added after 24 minutes

Сообщение от Conditor

But seriously, I think, the current main problem is that highly speculative market promotes an extremely dubious talents.

But seriously, the market is than the seller-"prodvigatelya" also from the buyer. He was just something difficult Provisional Government: same-market competition, etc. Or you assume that rich buyers so easily foist products "dubious talents"?

[Fed]

Cyril Syzranskiy: "Either you believe that wealthy buyers so easily foist products" dubious talent? "

"It is known that the Impressionists, too, did not immediately accept the criticism, colleagues and the public.
 Henry Bacon, a friend of Cassatt said that "the Impressionists were so radical that, apparently, they have an unknown disease of the eye."

Incidentally, in the magazine Itogi in 2003, was promulgated the theory Australian neurosurgeon Noel Dan about the origin of Impressionism.
In his view, the emergence of this movement in painting was associated with myopia artists. In varying degrees, according to Dan, short-sighted were Monet, Renoir, Degas, Cézanne and Pissarro. That vision problems, explain the reason for frequent use of these local artists bright colors, soft drawing of lines and the lack of fine details in the paintings of the landscape. An interesting convergence of views over many years!
 In 1877, Mary Cassatt paintings were rejected, and the first time in seven years, she had no work in the Salon. "ZHZL
  This is despite the fact that, "The newspaper« Revue des Deux »even wrote:" E. Degas and Cassatt Mademoiselle, however, the only artists that are different from the others and offer their works in some attractive against the background of pretentious display of window dressing and infantile blur. "Her work did not fell like the paintings of Monet, whose situation was most desperate of all exhibitors. "
   Incredibly dedicated - and foisted on the full program. It would be someone to breed with the money.

[Fed]

I brought work Cassat order to be able to assess its level and the level of artists offering their works now, or promoted by galleries.
   I agree that the art market are trying to satisfy consumer goods. In keeping with the manner of corporations in other areas of the economy. Analogy advertising such as cheese, representing in fact not a product, unhealthy advertising pleasing children, but a mixture of soy foods and taste enhancers, ie, really-harm in the package. Apparently, "sold out" cheese "excellent.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от Yurko

I decided to engage the topic in which I hope to enlighten me the best minds gathered here on the forum.
WHY BAD Draw A Considered MASTERPIECES?

Because the artist was able to express a certain idea, which in itself is not the last ten ... (And not just painted objects or tree, etc.).