The Second Russian Avant-Garde "

[Евгений]

Andrey Kovalev.
--------------------------------------
"These are good artists, and lists were almost the only form of self-epoch"
--------------------------------------
Frankly - I have an extremely painful feeling when you start to think about the history of our art, especially when it comes to events fifties and sixties.
Particularly painful feelings arise in my case, when the fall into a serious reflection on the fact that the heroes of those glorious times were in the strange position of some kind of half-poluzabveniya.
They had long since time to soar in the crystal celestial expanses, looking down upon the petty vanity of sinful earth. But the situation is so that older people have earned and again and again to prove its right to exist.
The situation, alas, is too similar to the situation in which it turned out, by and large, all the older generation of Soviet people.
List Grobman »- (http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showpo...p;postcount=18)
  39 key, in his view, the names that should be attributed to the so-called "second Russian avant-garde.

Читать дальше... 

In principle, ready to sign at the bottom, although a couple of names I somehow not very well recognized. And some of my esteemed artists just do not, for example, Francisco Infante. And almost everything that says this distinguished artist, I also generally willing to accept on faith.

So far it would be better to talk not about payroll, but the very principle of the List.

Compiling the list "is a matter of quite ordinary. In all members of the artistic process that list is - and critique, and a gallery owner, and a museum curator and a collector.
Even a simple spectator, going to exhibitions, such a listing is. There is also criticism of Kovalev such list exists. It is better to tell about it.
"These are good artists, and lists were almost the only form of self-epoch"

The critic, he is like that of the Chukchi politically correct joke: "I ride the forest, the forest sing. Going field - Paul sing.

Read my directory structure is simple - just to collect all references in the order of whom I ever wrote. Of course, there's all sorts of accidents. About someone Kovalev wrote - and the artist took and somewhere vanished. Someone Kovalev never mentioned his divine pen. Could not find the information occasion - or simply were somehow too busy.

But I certainly have no intention of himself that the inventory be made public. By and large the world, each such list, if it is announced publicly, there is a certain curiosity.

These and looked promulgated in 1995 "List Gelman. All then decided that Marat has the intention to monopolize all of our art, although he wanted a good and high.

"The project organization of the market of contemporary art" was another frantic attempt to bring our art from a marginal state. Unfortunately, the list that I was not able to find, but I'm almost sure that he has now almost entirely "approved" in the highest state and public bodies and legitimize in the public consciousness.
Curieuse consisted in the fact that such things require a public consensus, and Gelman spoke on his own behalf.
«List Grobman, of course, has some other origin.

And back to the days when almost the only spectators and buyers were foreigners, imposed upon a list of secret rendezvous and addresses, which without fail to visit.

Nothing in this crushing mode of communication is not - in the end, and I myself, if you ask me, they are as foreign comrades heels galleries, which should in any case to go.
Here I am, finally, and got to the most difficult and confusing part of my reasoning. Historical circumstances are such that these lists were good artists, and almost the only form of self-epoch.
I have a whole shelf filled with memoirs and memories of the fifties and the seventies figures. But no more or less informed research. And we are very much aware of who was friends with someone when those who hated anyone.
As a result, we have no history and no, there are only a lot of stories about friendship. There is almost no reliable information coming from the horse's mouth, about what has been the aesthetic aspirations of the individual artists.
As expressed by the antagonisms between the various trends and directions.
To understand this situation can be. In the heat of battle with officialdom was no time and effort to have the will to history, we have to explain everything that happens to future generations. This is strange, in that circle was a lot of intelligent and educated people.
And the fact that the interpretation of art is not a matter of the artist - this is pure delusion: the first two stories of Russian art were written just artists Alexander Benois and Igor Grabar.
Here and must demonstrate worthy public hefty log in your own eye. I admit and own guilt, and guilt of his generation in that battle fields eighties and nineties as we left unstripped.

That is, again, showed care attitude to their descendants, who wonder what really happened. But in our case, a historian at least something can be learned from inflammatory utterances hudkritikov, the same Kovaleva, for example.


But the sixties - a true nightmare for the historian.

Variety of news quite a lot, but suffers, as lawyers say, the evidence base.

Especially when they say that N - «outstanding artist the international level".

Even the term sustainability has not been worked out - the concept of "unofficial art", "other art", "non-conformism" in no way be regarded as a category of aesthetic and reflect only the social positioning.

Who now remembers about that "semi-official"?

Even the proposed Grobmanom term "second Russian avant-garde" I also do not really like. For the same reason. Moreover, the circle of artists, referred to, was moving in the direction of a purely retrograde.
In a word, I was no specific negative rhetoric not entered, but it was difficult to be called the real avant-garde company of people who so diligently and eagerly devoured a treasure of world culture.
Maybe someday I or someone younger zasyadem, finally, to write a majestic history of Russian art. Nowhere to go, so can not live. We must all spread out on shelves.
But the ugly truth is that while no one can answer, at which point there will be an extremely decent person and a good artist Mikhail Grobman.
I'm just not ready to answer.
http://www.vz.ru/columns/2008/4/8/158062.print.html

[Mihail]

Are you kidding? Only Kosolapova (Nalbandian like only one, your "Caravan" - a brilliant work.)
__________________
Eugene
Last edited by Eugene; 30.09.2008 at 06:09.

Eugene, Kosolapov, though not on my topic, I am a realist, but the surprising thing is that you do not see the most usual, and stupid conjunctures in his works.
  But Nalbandian also not as simple as that, Caravan had poor work on painting and composition, in general, his work is so is not exactly that for him to be cautious about, the artists he is not popular and there are objective reasons for the weak --- painting on a large paintings and almost primitive composition, another thing he can meet the work is not written in large format from nature, they can withstand the high, already recognized worldwide level of 20 in the Russian realists.

[artcol]

Сообщение от Mihail

The caravan had poor work on painting and composition, in general, his work is so is not exactly that for him to be cautious about, with artists he is not popular and there are objective reasons --- Weak painting in large paintings and almost primitive track, another thing he can meet the work is not written in large format from nature, they can withstand the high, already recognized worldwide level of 20 in the Russian realists.

Are you laughing at? He Academician?

[Mihail]

Are you laughing at? He Academician?
__________________
I am close to all extremes.

  and you think Academics have no bad work?? Oh, how it is!

[Евгений]

Сообщение от Mihail

The caravan had poor work on painting and composition

One of his best works, it is not just my opinion, it is much more interesting live than on the photo.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 1 minute[/color]

Сообщение от Mihail

and you think Academics have no bad work?? Oh, how it is!

Let's work (ktoroy are located in the collections of the forum) to discuss a positive ..

[SergeiSK]

Сообщение от Mihail

and you think Academics have no bad work?? Oh, how it is!

Correct! But academics do not have them even more!

[color="# 666686"]Added after 3 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Eugene

Let's work (ktoroy are located in the collections of the forum) to discuss a positive ..

Positive negative, too, welcome

[Евгений]

SergeiSK, Mihail, Dear Friends, here the theme "The second Russian avant-garde" about Nalbandian could open a new and discuss it.

[Mihail]

Correct! But academics do not have them even more!

  I agree, but it happens that in a different way!

[Евгений]

Сообщение от Mihail

Eugene, Kosolapov, though not on my topic, I am a realist

I am also a realist ...
--------------------
Product classics Sots Art Kosolapova: "The revolutionary porcelain. Here he docked two classical avant-garde object - dyushanovskie urinals with malevichevskimi painted porcelain cups, which he took up after the "finished painting" Black Square ".
--------------------
A good book, a lot of interesting things: ( "Life, Fate and contemporary art "...)http://www.guelman.ru/avdei/

[Mihail]

I am also a realist ...
--------------------
Product classics Sots Art Kosolapova: "The revolutionary porcelain. Here he docked two classical avant-garde object - dyushanovskie urinals with malevichevskimi painted porcelain cups, which he took up after the "finished painting" Black Square ".
Miniatures
Click image for larger version Name: kosolap.jpg Views: 0 Size: 12.9 KB ID: 80155
__________________
Eugene

  With realistic realistic talk)) Yes, here I will not argue, not my topic .....