Art between the provocation, and cynicism

[SAH]

Here are reflections on the theme "Modern art." E. Goloubovsky: I think the current avant-garde art casts a fine art in literature. It is all purely literary, philosophical, theatrical. This symbiosis theater and literature. Previously art struggled against literariness ... - Yes, strangely enough ... I have just come to mind an episode of Chaplinsky film. I think it is something that explains in what you said. In Chaplinsky, the movie, as always, the chase. Of course, Chaplin escapes, and police chased after him. In the heat of this mess, he jumps on any rides, spinning in a circle. Naturally, the range makes him frantically run towards traffic circle. Naturally, dazed police also jump on this circle. And so they run for some time. Then Chaplin, to check the balance of power, turns around and sees in horror that the police are about to grab him by the collar. He is ADD, and - on the strange! - A paradoxical situation: the police had already run away, as Chaplin pursues them.
Here is what you just said. The situation is quite paradoxical. That is what was considered a terrible vice, in any case, in a certain environment of good artists, and particularly violate the principles of socialist realism, and so forth, it was suddenly so good! This time. And secondly, what I began to speak. When the exhibition of paintings you suddenly see priknoplennye or glued pieces of typewritten text - to the board or even to something - but I did not feel surprised. Moreover, if it remained a surprise - it is still all right, but has a wild bore. And I afford to bring in this plan is one example. For example, a very famous artist Kabakov. With my light hand we had a slight controversy, instigated by the Union of Artists. It was a question about these very dangerous pirouette, which instigate young artists - of course, very advanced. So I asked them very simple. I will not mention names. I say: "Well, you certainly know this artist, avant-garde artist, who recently in America get some very large prestigious award. I'll call you to two of his works. One gray boards, which usually enlistment any chart hung or relating to the recruitment office attributes to such a board is nailed or, excuse me, prisobachena shovel. And the text: "Who is the shovel?". Left the text with the question, right answer: "Ivan Petrovich such a shovel. Well and other works. The situation - almost the same thing, only instead of shovels circle, but instead the question - again, the question "Who is the mug?" And - "Bertha Moiseyevna circle. So I ask them the question is entirely appropriate. This one of a series won an outstanding artist, very famous, indeed, the world has known. Of course, that two of his works must be very expensive. I will, so to speak, ideally give a million dollars and ask - but the conditions of iron - you should buy only one work of these two. What you take? Simple question. Alas, they all sat in galoshes. Because justify why he would take in one case, a mug, and in another case, a shovel, it is impossible. You understand. Here and there the answer to the question. Because after all, when we define and separate the art from the usual other areas, which is not art, still one of the attributes of this is preference. ))) Full version-EM Goloubovsky conversation with the artist Yuri Yegorov: http://www.slav-nonart.com/articles.php?page=18