He died Lucien Freud

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от uriart

And in his pictures is what attracts your eye and not let go ....

This one is thick aunt what it takes?

And Yu Kugach attracts and does not let go, and not less than L. Freud.

And his aunt, maybe even lower cost.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от fabosch

Namely, in the sense that he does not stand out in any special way to their professional qualities, scenic artistry, virtuosity painter. His paintings are rather crude and sometimes naivety, the figure is the same sophistication, and in general is absolutely no maestro.

Whether it is possible to better understand your text, give the names of artists who, in your opinion, "stand out in any special way by their professional qualities, scenic artistry, virtuosity painter?" And the examples are not "rough" and not "rustic" painting, as well as "sophisticated image" and "Maestro" (show of these works for presentation).

Сообщение от fabosch

Most of his works is feeling heavy, exhausting work, searching almost blindly, at random, but the search due to a very consistent and totally ruthless and implacable force, force, almost devoid of that in the traditional sense is associated with humanistic values. And I think that it is the totality of the sequence and a certain anonymity that power, perceived in his work sometimes almost physically cause the reaction, which demonstrates to us Comrade. Guriev, arguing it, however, some minor, unimportant arguments.

What kind of "force" you write? What is this "force" that is "almost devoid of that in the traditional sense associated with the humanistic values"?

Сообщение от fabosch

And this is the property of Freud's painting makes it in fact does no longer painting (in which again agree with Comrade. Guriev), but practically this conceptual art.

I did not understand a bit about what the property in question? What do the painting of Freud's so-called "conceptual art"?

Сообщение от fabosch

It's just a concept art does not use the cards, no lists, no objects, not ideas, not the human body, and a canvas and paints. And why not? Why, in fact, a canvas and paint should be removed from the arsenal of conceptual art?

"And why not," you ask? Yes, because the paint and canvas, used for its intended purpose, are used to create art. Properties of paints and canvas are such that they are very handy for this. Painting is a painting and therefore that it is in her best manifested these properties. Canvas and paint, because excluded from the "arsenal of conceptual art," that these same properties (which are used in the painting), there is no demand. That is, to be precise, they claimed, of course, may be, but owing to its unique properties, but only because they were on hand at the conceptual. That is, they (the canvas and paint) can be safely replaced by anything. The main thing that was expressed in a guiding idea. This is the essence of the so-called "conceptualism."
And by the way, is whether the art of this so-called "conceptualism" is still very big question.

Сообщение от fabosch

And in this sense, the article Cantor (a long-standing and consistent criticism aktualschikov and kontseptmeykerov) turns into its opposite, only confirming the inclusion of Freud in this field.

This I do not understand. Explain.

Сообщение от fabosch

Of course, just say, that use the term "conceptualism", "conceptual art" in its broadest sense, not in the sense of historically specific directions in sovriske. And I know that supporters of terminological clarity primenut not me "bite».

In the "broad sense", this is what? It may be easier to find another term? And if not suitable, you can enter a new one. What's the problem? Introduce a new term in traffic - it's cool!

Сообщение от fabosch

They reflect whether Freud himself in that direction. This is a question for me. It seems to me that the original of his artistic aspirations had no such intention. Simply, he is the type of artist (by the way, say not so rare), slowly and consistently moving in one direction no matter what. Here we must agree with the comparison of it with Cézanne (in terms of facial features precisely and artistic temperament.) And his slow, persistent and progressive work coexisted with the emergence and spread of Conceptualism and other intentions, require for their adequate perception of immersion in a certain artistic and vnehudozhestvenny context. And the hallmark of these phenomena is that without this context, they simply do not read, that is, without that context, they are simply not in the field of art. And with some of the time, this principle began to spread on the work of Freud. That is, without context, they are still in the field of art, but in a rather trivial to the area.

fabosch, well, you and "wrapped"! You might not easier to explain? I really do not understand what kind of "events" you write? You want to say that for the painting of Freud, conceptualism and "other intentions» general is, "without that context, they simply do not read, that is, without the context in which they simply do not have in the field of art. And with some of the time, this principle began to spread on the work of Freud. That is, without context, they are still in the field of art, but in a rather trivial to the area? " That is, Freud's painting is interesting only because of some general idea, without which it ceases to be interesting? If so, what is this idea?

Сообщение от fabosch

While it was not, well, he worked himself a man, attracting the attention even of its dehumanization of the human body (this is just what has always lacked and lacks), but rather mix it with some archaism of his position. It is no accident that "moved" it in the last 10-15 years.

Please explain what the "dehumanization of the human body" (if possible with examples)? Especially that "this is just what has always lacked and lacks." And that means, "the combination of this with some of his archaic position"?

Сообщение от fabosch

It is no accident that "moved" he was in the last 10-15 years.

How do you link the fact that, in order that you wrote above, I also do not quite understand.

P.S. I will be grateful if you answer my questions.
Hopefully, I arose such a number, you will not istolkuete contempt of your understanding of art by Lucian Freud.

[Тютчев]

..................

[Игорь Гурьев]

I, Com.
Tiutchev, just do not understand all the questions that you ask, that is,
I realized that you do not understand in a very clear text, Comrade.
Fabosha ...

[Moriakoff]

Friends 'shared' portraits ...

Francis Bacon, "Three sketch a portrait of Freud, L.", 37mln.dol.

A. Freud, "Portrait of Francis Bacon" -9.4 million dollars.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

************* >

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Guriev , Igor

I , Com. Tiutchev, just do not understand all the questions that you ask , that is, I realized that you do not understand in a very clear text, Comrade . Fabosha ...

I am very happy for you! I am glad that you are " crystal clear " in the text fabosch as well. You are " crystal clear " and you are outraged that someone would be something unclear ? I understand ! .. You very much understand and sympathize ! That is, you consider the theory of fabosch and , to such theories, which do not cause problems? Do you think that made ​​it into the text of provisions that do not require proof or clarification ? Such texts are , no doubt. And you think that is one of these texts?

Добавлено через 2 часа 30 минут
.............................

[Тютчев]

.............................

[artcol]

Сообщение от fabosch

The genius of Freud Do? I do not know. I am inclined, rather, in some respects agree with the statements of Comrade. Guriev. Namely, in the sense that he does not stand out in any special way to their professional qualities, scenic artistry, virtuosity painter. His paintings are rather crude and sometimes naivety, the figure is the same sophistication, and in general is absolutely no maestro. Most of his works is feeling heavy, exhausting work, searching almost blindly, at random, but the search due to a very consistent and totally ruthless and implacable force, force, almost devoid of that in the traditional sense is associated with humanistic values. And I think that it is the totality of the sequence and a certain anonymity that power, perceived in his work sometimes almost physically cause the reaction, which demonstrates to us Comrade. Guriev, arguing it, however, some minor, unimportant arguments. And this is the property of Freud's painting makes it in fact does no longer painting (in which again agree with Comrade. Guriev), but practically this conceptual art. Just a conceptual art does not use the cards, no lists, no objects, not ideas, not the human body, and a canvas and paints. And why not? Why, in fact, a canvas and paint should be removed from the arsenal of conceptual art? And in this sense, article Cantor (a long-standing and consistent criticism aktualschikov and kontseptmeykerov) turns into its opposite, only confirming the inclusion of Freud in this field.
Of course, just say, that use the term "conceptualism", "conceptual art" in its broadest sense, not in the sense of historically specific directions in sovriske. And I know that supporters of terminological clarity primenut not me "bite."
They reflect whether Freud himself in that direction. This is a question for me. It seems to me that the original of his artistic aspirations had no such intention. Simply, he is the type of artist (by the way, say not so rare), slowly and consistently moving in one direction no matter what. Here we must agree with the comparison of it with Cézanne (in terms of facial features precisely and artistic temperament.) And his slow, persistent and progressive work coexisted with the emergence and spread of Conceptualism and other intentions, require for their adequate perception of immersion in a certain artistic and vnehudozhestvenny context. And the hallmark of these phenomena is that without this context, they simply do not read, that is, without that context, they are simply not in the field of art. And with some of the time, this principle began to spread on the work of Freud. That is, without context, they are still in the field of art, but in a rather trivial to the area. While this was not, well, he worked himself a man, attracting the attention even of its dehumanization of the human body (this is just what has always lacked and lacks), but rather a compound of this with a certain archaism of his position. It is no accident that "moved" it in the last 10-15 years.

fabosch, for some time (years 80), this approach even in the Soviet Easel has become almost mainstream. But then played back Kugachi - the demand was spoon-balalaika-love of country (national identity - the first stage of a long journey GGG). Freud And - yes, very consistently reached the end.
And someone would Kugacha hung on the wall, while others - Freud. But while kuchevskie aunt will not be included in and a certain artistic context vnehudozhestvenny they will continue to read at the level of discourse on the smear, composition, drawing and color.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Tiutchev

I'm very happy for you! I am glad that you are " crystal clear " in the text fabosch as well. You are " crystal clear " and you are outraged that someone would be something unclear ?

Tob . Tiutchev, I look like a friend, who may resent ?
I'm just not clear what it is you it is not clear.

you consider the theory of fabosch and , to such theories, which do not cause problems? Do you think that made ​​it into the text of provisions that do not require proof or clarification ?

Of course , not demand.
Not least because it is not " position", and brilliant text , live speech , charming and intelligent.
As if thinking aloud .
I love the genre .

These texts are , no doubt. And you think that is one of these texts ?

Yes, this is one of the best texts that I read here .
They are here quite a few thousands, of course .