Who are the critics?

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by nikolai nesterenko

in fact, the art of the sixties contributed to some "de-Stalinization" consciousness of society, unfortunately, very weak, since it does not correspond to the general ideological tenets of the ruling regime.

nikolai nesterenko, so that's about it and says Pavel:

Originally Posted by Pavel

... except the "vanguard of the 1960's, which is a political rather than artistic performensom, and was just blown art critic. The point here is rather watered orientation than in the art.

It turns out that you say the same about the same? That is the main policy, and the rest in the art of the sixties, is secondary? Or am I, why do not "catch up"?

[Pavel]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

nikolai nesterenko, so that's about it and says Pavel:



It turns out that you say the same about the same? That is the main policy, and the rest in the art of the sixties, is secondary? Or am I, what is not "catch up»?

I had in view that the "vanguard" had more political than artistic value. This is evidenced by a national basis group. It is difficult to talk about originality that was confirmed later, when they were all worthless. Example Shemyakin originally cost $ 10,000 and dropped to 3000. because almost all except those who had high prices prior to departure from the USSR. Those people who bought in the west do not know what to do with it yet "discovered" the market here, but it is doubtful that prices will rise everywhere and in the west. There, they simply got rid of from the hands seem unmarketable. These arguments, I came when I carefully examined the "Akun. this is my reasoning, I bet.