What distinguishes the true artist from not present?

[Причал]

Сообщение от AlexanderG

Ili predstavit ', chto libo horosho izvestnoe v interesnoi, neobychnoi forme.
.

So saying the artist very often and have this very "unusual" form. Remember the Soviet textbooks of aesthetics?
About that "bad when the form is content"
So this is a type of vysskazyvanie - "form becomes content," only it is not bad.

Сообщение от AlexanderG

Hotia spor mozet razgoret'sia vokrug "ne znaiut kak". Popytki vydat ' "ne znaiut kak" za novyi, original'nyi stil', videnie hudoznika i pr, vstrechaiutsia dovol'no chasto.

These disputes generally possible only because those who can explain in detail why this is, and specifically - ignorance. not finding too lazy to do it. Usually, these people cherish their receptors and the words and quickly run past.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Berth

These disputes generally possible only because those who can explain in detail why this is, and specifically - ignorance. not finding too lazy to do it. Usually, these people cherish their receptors and the words and quickly run past.
     

Here and rightly so, because "Every good deed must be avenged!"
Admin, zabante me "at will" ... "a week before the second" .. pzhlst!

[LCR]

Сообщение от AlexanderG

Ili predstavit ', chto libo horosho izvestnoe v interesnoi, neobychnoi forme.


"Not really" artists also come in two types - those who have nothing to say, and those who do not know how.

Polnost'iu podderzivaiu dannoe utverzdenie.
Hotia spor mozet razgoret'sia vokrug "ne znaiut kak". Popytki vydat ' "ne znaiut kak" za novyi, original'nyi stil', videnie hudoznika i pr, vstrechaiutsia dovol'no chasto.

Absolutely. Sometimes these attempts have even been successful, as was the case with the Impressionists, Van Gogh, Soutine (see the topic on Soutine obsequious letter Francoeur, offers advice on how to paint), de Stael (an amusing anecdote -- that is, it amuses us here and now, and how to react to its Exact time diffident and depressive de Stael, we can only guess, but however, it is better not to know ...): before coming to him early in the 1950's. adoptive father had asked him to turn all of their work face to the wall - look at them, he was disgusting.

[Причал]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

Here and rightly so, because "Every good deed must be avenged!"
!

You can translate what you want to say?
any act, which avenged ?

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Berth

can translate what you want to say?
any act, which avenged ?

1.Eto (tested) "folk wisdom".
2.Cherez some time by itself all porazumeetsya ...

[Причал]

Сообщение от LCR

Absolutely. Sometimes these attempts ...

These attempts were so long ago. In another life. In another coordinate system.
It was the world progressism.
And then the art world for a long time the rules of the criterion of novelty. Very long. He is still trying to defend (and wonderful when it at least for small sites can).
So now the novelty is impossible to surprise the viewer. Still less is it that the novelty of it can be frightening. His view of himself eagerly peering into the picture with a vain hope to be surprised, amazed, frightened. He is too inexperienced eye /information society is-se /and full of the flow of visual information (since there picture, television, advertising, and generally fuck up the whole does not allow a person to obtain a sensory deficiency, by the way necessary to some extent for the perception of fine art in general , any art bad-good if there).

Therefore, with the Impressionists is not correct.
Moreover I have heard them milen times and always on the subject .

[LCR]

Сообщение от Berth

These attempts were so long ago. In another life. In another coordinate system.
It was the world progressism.
And then the art world for a long time the rules of the criterion of novelty. Very long. He is still trying to defend (and wonderful when it at least for small sites can).
So now the novelty is impossible to surprise the viewer. Still less is it that the novelty of it can be frightening. His view of himself eagerly peering into the picture with a vain hope to be surprised, amazed, frightened. He is too inexperienced eye /information society is-se /and full of the flow of visual information (since there picture, television, advertising, and generally fuck up the whole does not allow a person to obtain a sensory deficiency, by the way necessary to some extent for the perception of fine art in general , any art bad-good if there).

Therefore, with the Impressionists is not correct.
Moreover I have heard them milen times and always on the subject .

The Impressionists were a long time. Let us this.
Soutine was a little later, agree?
A de Stael even later - so that the scheme operates all
But it does not matter.

Truth in your message is.

Center problem - decide who is to say, and who have nothing to say, who knows how to say it, but who knows.
That is, I want to say that you are substituting one insoluble problem to others.

Consider just a recent example - an example of my husband, Mikhail Roginsky, and simply browsing the titles of articles written about him and not very steep, steep (but mostly still the most cool) art critics in a relatively short period of time. What do we see?

• Michael Roginskii - invaluable classic 60-ies
• The heroic pessimism Mikhail Roginsky
• Great scoop. Mikhail Roginsky in the Tretyakov Gallery
• The artist with plenty of classicality
• Gray memories
• Master, drew eternity
• Noctuidae with a Parisian garret
• Russian Soviet
• Color at the end of the tunnel, its other Mikhail Roginsky
• Russian Basquiat, Michael Roginsky

Well, enough, probably. So, the color at the end of the tunnel or gray memories? Russian or Soviet? Master, drew eternity, or scoop with a Parisian attic? As you can see, the specialists' opinions differ radically.

You can, of course, to declare those who wrote about the gray cutworm, incompetent - I do it with great regulyarnstyu and a lot of pleasure, and orally and in writing.

But it can be declared incompetent and others, those who speak of eternity and of the classics, is not it?

So it turns out that my acceptance (and I am not ashamed to do it), that a good artist - a painter, whom I love, the less absurd than it might seem.

P.S. Of course, the flavor develops. The more one looks at the painting, reading and thinking about it, the more likely that he will like not pissing boys from the area of Montmartre and the dense and stinking Soviet lilac 1940-1950 gg. But something more personal, suffered and artistic.

P.P.S. Several members of this forum have told me that what they liked 2 or 3 years ago, now they are not interested, but the fact of the existence of which until recently they suspected them very much. One of them even bought a painting of the artist, which he discovered here - for my cue, which I am proud of many

[Причал]

YB. LCR, I did not know that you are the wife of the artist.
And I have a long-standing rule never to discuss the work of artists with their wives.
In themselves can, with their wives pardon me.
Just imagine what it is - to be the wife of the artist is beyond heroism. Sama spent eight years with one. Objectively good, somewhere, even ingenious, well-read terribly, terribly hysterical - one of the most famous artists in the city.

Thus, purely on the note. That is my wording about the "have something to say and be able to do it" - rather shamelessly cited me (and repeatedly) just out of it.

That is the whole problem can be reduced to "Who are the judges?"

Need only to choose who you take yourself to the judge and not to expect that those whom you have not chosen will be chosen to share the views of judges.

[Pavel]

Сообщение от Berth

In the art is very much the objective.
This objective derives from the very objective things - the laws of perceiving the world by the human eye, for example.

And the spirit ...
Who is able to read about the meaning and spirit of all can understand and even tell .

Only for this artist must possess the means to transmit these meanings properly.

If shorter: the "real" artist has something to tell the world and he knows how to do it.

"Not really" artists also come in two types - those who have nothing to say, and those who do not know how.

This just does something like that, and as like, and the result is - begin talking about the spirit and spirituality, rather than simply professional analysis.

[LCR]

Сообщение от Berth

YB. LCR, I did not know that you are the wife of the artist.
And I have a long-standing rule never to discuss the work of artists with their wives.
In themselves can, with their wives pardon me.

But I do not suggest that you discuss the work Roginsky, especially with me. I put a rule to move away from all the discussions associated with the name of my husband, at least here on the forum. And such, I dare assure you, were

If desired, however, you can find the theme in the discussion which I will be able to participate - because of its weak forces, of course - a such neutral territory.

Сообщение от Berth

That is the whole problem can be reduced to "Who are the judges?"

It could be stated so. I am more than happy with my wording, because it does not lead to disowned judges whose views are not like them, but simply says freedom of choice, but I'm ready to agree with yours.

Сообщение от Berth

need only to choose who you take yourself to the judge and not to expect that those whom you have not chosen will share the views of judges chosen.

Why? As a judge I did not choose. Basically my opinion is to me self-sufficient, and acknowledge it, I do not need it (although, of course, it is nice). And the fact that different people have their opinions about Roginsky - or de Stael, or Kossoff, or Dibenkorna - then what to do with this? They have every right. Another thing is that I also reserve the full right to disagree with them (and try to put them in intellectually as much as possible uncomfortable position - in war as in war).