Modern art is intended only to ensure that plunge the viewer into shock

[Meister]

Originally Posted by LCR

Well, firstly, because for me, and not only for me, almost half of these names should be disposed

and you? )) So who is to throw away?

And yes, I'm serious. I work of artists from the early 20 century, impressed much stronger than the masters 15-17.

[LCR]

Originally Posted by Meister

are you? )) So who is to throw away?

And yes, I'm serious. I work of artists from the early 20 century, impressed much stronger than the masters 15-17.

The fact that it appeals to you more, I was not particularly surprising. I think that you and you know it much better.

Let us continue with the lists, and then quarrel. You do know very well who should be thrown out.
At least, Dali in this list has no place and can not be, but it is not the only vykinshteyn

On the other hand, your list does not really great artists of the 20 th century (yes, there were such), but in general I do not love lists: the artists - it is you do not compete at the contest "on all those who ... well, let's say, spit

[Meister]

Originally Posted by LCR

The fact that it appeals to you more, I was not particularly surprising. I think that you and you know it much better.

Let us continue with the lists, and then quarrel. You do know very well who should be thrown out.
At least, Dali in this list has no place and can not be, but it is not the only vykinshteyn

On the other hand, your list does not really great artists of the 20 th century (yes, there were such), but in general I do not love lists: the artists - it is you do not compete at the contest "on all those who ... well, let's say, spit "

I'm always for your friendship, this is you, the first accused me of incompetence, which I could not move and began to defend.

We're not talking about the lists, but simply list the important personalities in the arts. You are on your mind, I'm on your own. It is clear that among the above no many. but whoever it is you added?

[Самвел]

Originally Posted by Meister

I'm always for your friendship, this is you, the first accused me of incompetence, which I could not move and began to defend.

I always thought that you are a woman, but it turned out that you muzhschina.

[Art-lover]

Agree with LCR, there is no progress in art, but it comes from the illusion arising in the course of history gaps between discourses (types of cultural sensitivity).
But Meister right in saying that some times there is a greater flowering of the arts in their respective regions. Passionary wave? Can be assumed, and such. In any case, it would be good to distinguish between progress and increase diversity.
For example, our era, including age 20y, despite the great variety of artist. directions, the complete liberation of art techniques and ideologies, can not think of a time of great upsurge of art: the number is not passed to the quality. Virtuosity, the tumult of imagination, the variety of ideas, freedom of the materials and techniques - all empty for art, if not the depth of spirit. Our time is too vain and noisy for the appearance of great things. I like something that Dali, Picasso, but now look at some old Rembrandt - and the titans 20veka impaired to the size of gnomes.

[Meister]

Originally Posted by Art-lover

but then you look at some old Rembrandt - and the titans 20veka impaired to the size of gnomes.

I've really surprised. You want to say that Filonov weaker Rembrandt?? Gauguin or Munch or less significant?? Are you really, truly think so?

Originally Posted by Art-lover

I can not call a time of great upsurge of art: the number was not transferred to the quality

ie Suprematism of Malevich, Kandinsky's abstraction, but in the end all the vanguard of the early 20 - it is not money?? This is certainly not custom-made Rembrandt or Velasquez, there is a depth of spirit far more.

[Art-lover]

Originally Posted by Meister

I've been really surprised. You want to say that Filonov weaker Rembrandt?? Gauguin or Munch or less significant?? What, though, so sincerely think?

Yes, now for me is obvious. But I had to go some way towards such an understanding. So I understand your sincere astonishment.

Originally Posted by Meister

ie Suprematism of Malevich, Kandinsky's abstraction, but in the end all the vanguard of the early 20 - it is not money?? This is certainly not custom-made Rembrandt or Velasquez, there is a depth of spirit far more.

Vanguard saw their mission in the radical smashing of the bourgeois reality and build a new society. Avant-garde artists, enthusiastic fervor implementation of these utopias, wanted to create art, revolutionizing consciousness and modeling contours of future peace. The role of art in such a way extolled to the skies, but the art itself relegated to official functions.
Utopianism of the avant-garde goals compensated heat of the revolutionary spirit. Innovation, enthusiasm of the pioneers - demiurges new universes, the attempts of creativity, based on the belief in direct occult mission of art - this is what is interesting and significant avant-garde. But the tension of spirit and a brave experiment are not equivalent to a depth of spirit. Alas. : o

[LCR]

Originally Posted by Meister

I've been really surprised. You want to say that Filonov weaker Rembrandt?? Gauguin or Munch or less significant?? Are you really, truly think so?

ie Suprematism of Malevich, Kandinsky's abstraction, but in the end all the vanguard of the early 20 - it is not money?? This is certainly not custom-made Rembrandt or Velasquez, there is a depth of spirit far more.

Fully share the opinion of the AL - he was indeed a lover, but many professionals in the belt will shut up

Of course, Filonov - (incidentally, in my opinion, not the most dazzling genius 20 at.) Weaker than the Rembrandt.

Suprematism of Malevich, Kandinsky's abstraction and avant-garde in the early 20. - This, indisputably, the quality, but compare them to Rembrandt and Velasquez too humiliating for the avant-garde, as Rembrandt and Velasquez (and others), it is second - first and foremost on the quality of painting, but also the strength of spirit, too. You should have compared them with Dali: p

[Pavel]

Rembrandt did not have a lot of custom work, and he suffered because he did not want to work on the rules. This all lies. All ustakanivaetsya, everybody knows how right and wrong, begin to develop something that everybody thinks is right and suddenly finds some sort of eccentric like Cezanne or Monet, and start doing is not according to the rules at random and all of them start to boo. Time passes and they see everything (first course young artists), what makes these beautiful compared to what is right and boring.
I have already said, we must look for these by comparing all.
Velasquez also did not work to order, he was court painter and the paint was his job, for which he received a salary.

[qwerty]

Originally Posted by LCR

Of course, Filonov - (incidentally, in my opinion, not the most dazzling genius 20 at.) Weaker than the Rembrandt.

Suprematism of Malevich, Kandinsky's abstraction and avant-garde in the early 20. - This, indisputably, the quality, but compare them to Rembrandt and Velasquez too humiliating for the avant-garde, as Rembrandt and Velasquez (and others), it is second - first and foremost on the quality of painting, but also the strength of spirit, too. You should have compared them with Dali: p

In my opinion, this is too categorical statement, since the Wizards listed belong to disjoint sets, it's totally different, disparate material. Meister is absolutely right that the twentieth century has given so many new ideas, how many did not give the entire previous history. This is understandable: before the twentieth century was a mapping mission of the artist's reality, and a measure of skill of the artist was a "similarity", which is why many geniuses, departing from the accepted canon, and have not been too successful in life. In the twentieth century with the invention of non-figurative art and the slogan "art for art's sake" everything changed, and the first half-century gave rise to the Masters, making art is not for sale, which distinguishes them from all previous generations.

Originally Posted by Art-lover

Innovation, enthusiasm of the pioneers - demiurges new universes, the attempts of creativity, based on the belief in direct occult mission of art - this is what is interesting and significant avant-garde. But the tension of spirit and a brave experiment are not equivalent to a depth of spirit. Alas.

Here is a good idea to define the term "depth of spirit." Known history, when the exams VGIK Tarkovsky and Shukshin was asked the same question: "How do you feel about" War and Peace "Tolstoy?". One replied that it was - the top of the literature, the second said that for him this novel is comparable with brick, only the latter is more useful on the farm. And who are more spiritual?
I have this so that everyone their world: to me Filonov, of course, higher the Rembrandt, but I totally understand the position of those who believe the contrary, it depends on the internal tuning fork, at which wave it is configured.