"Artist's shit" from the Tar Catherine

[Vladimir]

Without a doubt. For very many sincere lovers of art, brought up on visual outstanding creators 19-20 century, its conclusions are too radical - this is understandable. And for her already and posmodernizm - passed stage. Woman is at the forefront in the information field: a lot of reads, analyzes and makes such a way for us a lot of work. So do not necessarily share the views, but to listen useful. Although it is much more complicated than "keep order" type of art was used in the search for beauty, and now the devil knows what.

PS: she speaks in public, stunningly captures the essence of the "murky" issues and quickly oriented. But read her theoretical work, the same book on the art of XX century IMHO is very difficult. But it saves the selection of illustrations

[LCR]

Сообщение от Vladimir

The man with the position. Brave enough, perfectly predicting the reaction to its findings and, nevertheless, do not abandon them. I, in addition to several other conclusions, like in this publication very definite answers, specifics. Many people in similar circumstances would have appeared temptation pouvilivat to show diplomacy, all with one hand ... on the other hand ... " A Tar answered very specifically, radical, burning bridges for the discrepancies.

I was something just struck a certain naivete, "homespun" her discourse. I do not know whether a more convincing argument of art critics in the West (I tried to give you the opportunity to judge regularly posting here articles and interviews), but it is undeniable that it sounds wrong in pioneer.
Especially touching reference this nisprovergatelnitsy canons of authority ( "professional community", etc.) - Ms. Tar first man clan.

Сообщение от Vladimir

So do not necessarily share the views, but to listen useful. Although it is much more complicated than "keep order" type of art was used in the search for beauty, and now the devil knows what.

So in fact the situation comedy in the fact that both sides say the same thing, namely, that "before the art was in search of beauty, and now the devil knows what" nothing but praise is "the devil knows what, while others betray him his anathema.

I want to clarify that I can not associate with any of the parties to the dispute about the high art: the artist's shit "in my view, remains in skatologii and is no aesthetical analysis, and some other, for example, bacteriological. At the same time, and Shishkin, Aivazovsky, or what? or Vasnetsov? are indeed from my point of view of mediocre artists

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от LCR

At the same time, Aivazovsky and Shishkin, or what? or Vasnetsov? are indeed from my point of view of mediocre artists

Very serious issue. (seriously, because it is you put it and not Tar). And thus, requires a detailed answer. I'll try to return later to this subject (now I'm a little tired).

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

Сообщение от LCR

I read all these questions /answers on tapes and remember the context.
I do not accept the approval of ED that "dx" may refer to works of art "because it implies that the only criterion for membership of the art is the intention.
I strongly disagree with this. For me, the only criterion is the talent (yes, I know, this category is much more vague and subjective, but I was happy with it, but in fairness I do not pretend).

  Well said!
  I will go and drink vodka!

[Жар-птица]

No self-respecting art historian or art dealer has no right to criticize, just criticize the paintings of famous artists. Not to my taste, yes, it is permissible, but not more. And then, if his opinion was asked. Admire, admire more
For the biologist does not favor one or another animal. The family cat, bad smells, flies-nonsense, but the snail's something that must be!: Eek:

  A good or bad writing Vasnetsov and Shishkin (it is his schedule, interesting looking), all the world is appreciated. And I think many people would want something from Vasnetsov in his collection.

And the name (pseudonym) Katya Tar remarkable. : DOchen recalls the late singer chanson Katya Ogonek.

[Yaya]

Firebird,
"No self-respecting art historian or art dealer has no right to criticize, just criticize the paintings of famous artists."

is why?


A good or bad writing Vasnetsov and Shishkin (it is his schedule, interesting looking), all the world is appreciated.

thought Mrs. Tar these respected painters not give novelty. I do not quite understand why they are all so excited.


"And the name (pseudonym) Katya Tar remarkable. It resembles the late singer chanson Katya Ogonyok.
Bravo. ry nice: mad:

strange that no one was surprised that there is no God (according to Tar). but it somehow, by his own admission, is thinking about the moral and spiritual role of art. interesting as it does?

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Firebird

No self-respecting art historian or art dealer has no right to criticize, just criticize the paintings of famous artists.

This is where are these "rights" art and art-dealers registered?
Tell me.
Maybe I missed something important?

[color="# 666686"]Added after 8 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Firebird

just to criticize the paintings of famous artists.

A Glazunov, Shilov, Safronov-famous artists? Their paintings, too, criticize the "do not have the right"?

Сообщение от Firebird

marvel, admire more

Picture of these "famous" artists "to admire" already own ...

[Art-lover]

Сообщение от LCR

I read all these questions /answers on tapes and remember the context.
I do not accept the approval of ED that "dx" may refer to works of art "because it implies that the only criterion for membership of the art is the intention.
I strongly disagree with this. For me, the only criterion is the talent (yes, I know, this category is much more vague and subjective, but I was happy with it, but in fairness I do not pretend).

I have almost the same view on these things.

But it is clear that many participants in this discussion, little attention has been given a semitone. Nobody, for example, paid no attention to that ED eliminated from personal assessment artistic level exhibit Manzoni and stresses that does not consider himself bankusdermom work of art. However, explains in this connection that the coordinate system of contemporary artistic process is mainly based on the conventional approach to art, ie that any real or virtual object (or its lack) can be roughly defined as an object of art (with a small letter !!!) simply by putting in this system of coordinates.

Unlike ED, I am not an adherent of this approach, but that is another question.

[Жар-птица]

Cyril, See carefully above, p. 4, today at 12-13 Moscow time.
You know, as a criticism addressed to me from your dear lips to me is painful and extremely unpleasant.: Shy:

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Firebird

See carefully above, p. 4, today at 12-13 Moscow time.

  Two questions for you. (Without an answer, by the way.)
And one wish ...

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

pictures of these "famous" artists "to admire" too yourself ...

Сообщение от Firebird

criticism addressed to me from your dear lips

Where's the criticism?

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от Firebird

A good or bad writing Vasnetsov and Shishkin (it is his schedule, interesting looking), all the world is appreciated

With all due respect, the world of these artists IMHO not noticed. That artists of national significance and the roads mostly Russians, brought up at the Tretyakov Gallery, Soviet and Russian books, cartoons, candy. About Shishkina world learned with interest, when in reports Bloomberg reads on the phenomenal results of Russian Trade, where for his work to pay millions. Or gloating over Shishkin-kukkuka. Or even wondered why the German landscape painters - sovermenniki Shishkina are 10-100 times cheaper Shishkina, but it has so clearly amenable perelitsovke. Commonplace things I say, but the world except our vanguard of the first quarter and part of the icon that is interesting enough.