Abstract forever

[Станиславский]

Сообщение от Samvel

Why only abstraknomu art?
The work of art, no matter how much has been invested there high emotions, intellect, can not be so without passing the test of aesthetics.

Samvel, what if you think that the main criteria for the value of works of art?

[Самвел]

Сообщение от Stanislavsky, 1527423

Samvel, what if you think that the main criteria for the value of works of art?

I am very difficult to clearly answer this question. The only important thing that is a work of art and quite unimportant, consciously or instinctively. Product, it is his creator, his voice, his H. If from the pen of a true artist, came out, the results through its own nature, have received the stamp of his personality, who can say that this is not a work of art?

[Станиславский]

Сообщение от Samvel

I'm very difficult to clearly answer this question. The only important thing that is a work of art and quite unimportant, consciously or instinctively. Product, it is his creator, his voice, his Ya

Samvel, but agree that your post is not clear aesthetic criteria. Then, to paraphrase Dostoyevsky, in the evaluation of art "everything is permitted"?

[fabosch]

Сообщение от Stanislavski

fabosch, all right. But the question is, which I announced: What are the criteria (aesthetic), we come to abstract art? Would it be the same criteria that we normally are guided toward figurative art?

I think that the criteria that makes the viewer to a picture, basically, should not be changed during the transition from figurative to abstract images. Reservation "basically refers to the moment the present situation, in figurative images except formal pictorial criteria we consider and analyze and properly substantive side of the image (the plot, the relationship of subjects, including cultural and contextual allusions, etc., which is rejected some purists, but it certainly is an integral part of any figurative images). And the rest is the same - composition, the overall color palette, pictorial and plastic solutions, textural moments, fine quality, etc. and all these purely formal, it would seem, aspects, too, often bear some burden, referring to the different cultural contexts. This may be the context of not only paintings, but also music, poetry, etc. And this load, I believe, makes the picture more to it than just an image, makes speak our mind, feelings, if you want, and soul. Then we say that this is art, not a "picture of the furniture store," as expressed in iside.
Incidentally, the same Ingarden, writes on the example of Picasso, that combine abstraction with figurative "inserts" creates a special aesthetic quality that combines the advantages of abstraction and figuration, that is, the image fills the additional context.

Added after 6 minutes

Сообщение от Peter

In other words, all attempts to split the nucleus of an atom with a hammer are doomed to failure, but immediately upon impact could such a powerful wave of sound vibrations, which adversely affects the psyche of the inflicting the blow, and causes him to retreat in panic. (In style by art-lover )

Well you, Peter, and turned, I speculated that could mean your message. Several interpretations, but some of them are true, do not even know

[Станиславский]

Сообщение от fabosch

I think the criteria that makes the viewer to a picture, basically, should not be changed during the transition from figurative to abstract images. Reservation "basically refers to the moment the present situation, in figurative images except formal pictorial criteria we consider and analyze and properly substantive side of the image (the plot, the relationship of subjects, including cultural and contextual allusions, etc., which is rejected some purists, but it certainly is an integral part of any figurative images). And the rest is the same - composition, the overall color palette, pictorial and plastic solutions, textural moments, fine quality, etc. and all these purely formal, it would seem, aspects, too, often bear some burden, referring to the different cultural contexts. This may be the context of not only paintings, but also music, poetry, etc. And this load, I believe, makes the picture more to it than just an image, makes speak our mind, feelings, if you want, and soul. Then we say that this is art, not a "picture of the furniture store," as expressed in iside.

All true. But with what tools we evaluate all these components of art works and make judgments about what is good and what is not? Simply put: where is our value-"standard"? Where is this logorifmicheskaya line? I do this to the fact that abstract art is beyond our aesthetic tools.

[fabosch]

Сообщение от Stanislavski

That's right. But with what tools we evaluate all these components of art works and make judgments about what is good and what is not? Simply put: where is our value-"standard"? Where is this logorifmicheskaya line? I do this to the fact that abstract art is beyond our aesthetic tools.

Here I you something I do not understand. The only measure of any unbiased viewer is its audience experience and cultural loading, that is, knowledge of the appropriate contexts, the ability to use their rules, the ability to apply them in relation to a particular image. No universal slide rule does not exist. It is at everyone. Of course in each community can select a group of people with similar slide rules, but there will be a lot of different groups. In every historical period in a particular society, perhaps we could identify their "reference group" with a close slide rules, we can distinguish, for example, a group of "advanced" part of society, their slide rules determines the taste of, say, the professional community, in one way or another influence on the trends in art, the formation of the vectors in the development of aesthetic prepochteny majority, etc. etc. But we are already going away somewhere in the direction of sociological mechanisms Art
And why do you think, "abstract art is beyond our aesthetic tools"? I do not understand, explain, if possible.

[SAH]

Сообщение от "fabosch

Why do you think," abstract art is beyond our aesthetic tools "?
I do not understand, explain, if possible.

Subscribe to the issue.

[Станиславский]

Сообщение от fabosch

Why do you think, "abstract art is beyond our aesthetic tools"? I do not understand, explain, if possible.

Try. To do this, use the analogy with music, art, the most "abstract" available to our perception. Than we do measure our "dignity of a musical work? Those criteria that are developed tradition: the musical form, the wealth of topics and depth of its development, sound and coloring, etc. That is all that dwells in the space of a certain modal-sound context. But the famous concert of Cage, which has not played a single note, it turns out that context. Does this mean that the product Keyzhda is not music, but shioe - art? It seems to me. that the creation of Cage - an extreme degree of abstraction in art, going beyond the limits of our assessment tools. And to appreciate it, you need to "measure" entirely different yardstick.
By the way, did not meet you fully educated and experienced in painting people, "the cognitive field, which was limited to figurative painting, and if it comes to abstraction, they immediately lose the fulcrum?

[Самвел]

Сообщение от Stanislavsky; 1527443"

What tools we appreciate

Сообщение от Stanislavsky, 1527503

well-educated and experienced in painting people

words we, or the educated and sophisticated people, in this case I think is inappropriate. I wrote in another topic that a work of art, whether music, literature, of art, etc., should speak with the listeners, readers, viewers one by one, without any intermediaries. Another thing Artinvestment, then mediators can not do without.

[Art-lover]

Stanislavsky, I see that late in replying, but do not disappear as good.

Сообщение от Stanislavsky, 1526973

Freud postulated the existence of a great man trudnopostizhimoy for the study areas - the unconscious. It is to her, in my opinion, in the first place and appeals abstract (or non-figurative) art. In contrast to figurative art, which is primarily addressed to our conscious field with preconceived notions out there about the form, composition, structure, space, etc. Our conscious installation in a sense, prevented deeper penetration into the unconscious message of the artist. Abstract art as remove all barriers to such penetration, and directly appeal to our psychological depth.

I have with the word "psychoanalysis" of the quagmire subconscious pops the word "surreal." ) That's quite a figurative way (with some patches of abstract) most flirted with the Freudian and develop the most sophisticated technology actualization of unconscious impulses artist and subliminal viewers.
Therefore, the thesis about the superiority of abstraction above figurativom in "breaking" the unconscious is not obvious.
Truth is, perhaps, in the middle: in the abstract surrealism. This is an interesting direction after a short way - in the early 1940's - has been supplanted by abstract expressionism. In my opinion, because American artists have not been able to pull (a pity. Somehow I'll return to this issue).

Сообщение от Stanislavsky; 1526973"

And here the question arises: whether to apply to the assessment of abstract (non-figurative) art of the same criteria as for figurative art, given the fact that they are addressed to different spheres of human consciousness?

Сообщение от Stanislavsky; 1527283"

But the question is, which I announced: What are the criteria (aesthetic), we come to abstract art? Would it be the same criteria that we normally are guided toward figurative art?

Treatment to different areas - invalid argument (as described above). With regard to similarities and differences in criteria, this theme is well developed in the same phenomenology of Ingarden in the theory of "layering" pattern: there is a general criteria, and there are specific, depending on the type of picture. However, fabosch concisely and clearly highlighted this aspect, so that you can not go on a visit to Ingardenu. )