Art between the provocation, and cynicism

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от heir

So the most amusing in this situation themselves.

Yeah, yeah, with fat beshaschiesya and totally incapable zvdumatsya in our cultural and historical archive and what their (artistic), echoes the word "...

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

If an artist is offended you - let zdachi ...

To teach, how ...

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от heir

Tjutchev, I'm not a snob, but Petrosian interesting. These guys chip and Maine, I suppose, think of all the Russian hire. Therefore, the most amusing in this situation themselves.

      Mr. Saatchi for some reason believes that snobbery and aestheticism is the same thing. However, these terms have different meanings. snobbery - is the manner of human behavior, a claim to elitism. Snob value items for their first class, but not for their quality. Aestheticism emphasizes the predominance of aesthetic values of ethical and over social issues.
      Saatchi as it equates them. Why? Perhaps, then, to have more freedom and not be limited to the principles of aesthetes who believe the beauty of the main factor in the art. Indeed, why limit yourself? Moreover, the beauty of this thing at all capricious and unreliable. Invest in some ephemeral as something silly for a businessman. On the beauty of money will not do! Now if we could set itself is beautiful, and what is not. What is important and what is not. Wow! However, what about the other stubborn notion - "the creative process, how to manage it and its only member - the artist? We're rightly believe that the artist - the main subject of art. Saatchi believes much the same but with a small caveat: the artist - the main character, but only in his performance, where he is, a gallery owner, is a director. So, it was he introduces new characters and adjusts the game actors. This is quite typical of America, where, for example, instead of author's cinema film producer, dominates. In the art business is the same: it is the gallery set the tone, they make choices and elevate artists to the heights of success.
                   All would be good, if not a paradox that arises in connection with the foregoing. Saatchi, laughing at the snobbery of "those who think that art is only available starry-eyed, he himself had his work creates a new elitism, offering its first-class artists for all those same snobs who buy art, created by new artists - idols, which, in its turn, produce such as Saatchi. In this case, what I said Saatchi, can be rephrased, without loss of meaning, thus: "Those who see themselves as aesthetes, no not aesthetes and snobs! Aesthetics - it is generally a relative concept. And if so, then I, Saatchi, will tell you what art is and point you to what you want to buy. You may also call snobs and fools, but you know something that is not true. Because we agree with you that you are not snobs, and my clients. And I can not make mistakes, because I'm cool, successful guy and me in the newspapers and magazines, well and that I myself am ordering these items, it is a trifle, not worthy of your precious attention. Believe me! I-Saatchi! I! I! I am! "

http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showpo...5&postcount=11

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

to teach, like ...

As the soul desires. Example:

[наследник]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

We're rightly believe that the artist - the main subject of art. Saatchi believes much the same but with a small caveat: the artist - the main character, but only in his performance, where he is, a gallery owner, is a director. So, it was he introduces new characters and adjusts the game actors.

Finely observed and well said!

[AlexanderG]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

For the Planet, Kids (almost Porfiry Ivanov ...)

Kto takaia planeta? Est 'li u nee kakoe-to mnenie?

Kazdyi opredeliaet dlia sebia sam. Individualizm ne tak uz ploh.
Al'truizm, vo mnogih sluchaiah, vediot k uzasaiuschim posledstviiam.

[AlexanderG]

Сообщение от nikola

There is such a thing, to find a common language.

Chasche vsego eto vediot k kompromisam. Kompromis, eto ne vsegda horosho, t.k. vsio ravno udovletvoreniia ne dast ik soglasheniiu ne privediot.

Dumaiu, chto vazno prosto ne ubivat 'drug druga za inakomyslie, do teh por poka eto ne vediot k neposredstvennoi opasnosti dlia vashego suschestvovaniia.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от AlexanderG

Kto takaia planeta? Est 'li u nee kakoe-to mnenie?

Kazdyi opredeliaet dlia sebia sam. Individualizm ne tak uz ploh.
Al'truizm, vo mnogih sluchaiah, vediot k uzasaiuschim posledstviiam.

Well, yes. practically underneath all you can lead a "Base" ..
You may think its Latin "individualism" and for me, this is a manifestation of selfishness troechnika, of which all are forced to stumble ... You do not ever occur?
Many here have found out (just out of basic respect to the interlocutors). Or (according to you) this is also the case that "altruism leads to terrible consequences?

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от AlexanderG

Kto takaia planeta? Est 'li u nee kakoe-to mnenie?

And what is invisible "opinion of the Planet"?
Answers are not observed ???!!!

[наследник]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

Many here have found out (just out of basic respect for the interviewees).

AlexanderG, you have reached the level of "local", there is reason explains the aborigines in their dialect.