Plein Air to abstract

[lusyvoronova]

Сообщение от Ika-Ika

I think that sometimes artists need to be collected in some groups, like the open air, where you can make a joke, drink, talk this evening about the painting and the like, but it is provided that is not becomes a way of zhizni.Vse still need to retire later and work in earnest in odinochku.A these plein-air are needed, that the artist did not begin to feel detached from svoih.I healthy creative competition too neobhodima.Bez it anywhere.

Just Plein-air-normalno.Razbrelis the bushes and write; evening together and boots dry. "Plener for abstract", had a specific task of the author-curator.

[inega]

Сообщение от Ika-Ika

I think that sometimes artists need to be collected in some groups, like the open air, where you can make a joke, drink, talk this evening about the painting and the like, but it is provided that is not becomes a way of zhizni.Vse still need to retire later and work in earnest in odinochku.A these plein-air are needed, that the artist did not begin to feel detached from svoih.I healthy creative competition too neobhodima.Bez it anywhere.

Does not agree with the first part! Plein air, this is not "a joke, drink, etc.", this is a very hard work both physically and mentally. Write to the track, to correctly identify the tone, color, put all on the shelves in the head, and then on the canvas, without losing a second. Believe me, this is not outdoor recreation. After such a terrible travel fatigue. I know many authors, for which there is open air and solitude and "work in earnest.

[lusyvoronova]

Сообщение от inega

do not agree with the first part! Plein air, this is not "a joke, drink, etc.", this is a very hard work both physically and mentally. Write to the track, to correctly identify the tone, color, put all on the shelves in the head, and then on the canvas, without losing a second. Believe me, this is not outdoor recreation. After such a terrible travel fatigue. I know many authors, for which there is open air and solitude and "work in earnest.

Plein-air-well, vazhno.Zadanie en plein air is not good.

[Peter]

Сообщение от lusyvoronova

Plener-well vazhno.Zadanie en plein air is not good.

In the pervyh.Kolhoz-is voluntary.
". But the job itself, each must put myself and deal with it in the best of my ability and sposobnostey.Prichem nobody has the right ...
In the vtoryh.Uzh if there was an agreement about something beforehand ... then the word must be kept.

[MarinaM]

And why you do not treat this as a plein-air, in a certain way, the lessons. Which may well give someone tolchek to find new techniques. And maybe even lead to finding a new personal style.
Learning should be lifelong. And it is precisely such problems (especially subtly) sometimes leads to a revelation ..

[GalARTA]

Сообщение от lusyvoronova

Plener-well vazhno.Zadanie en plein air is not good.

Good evening everyone, friends and opponents! Returned from Kiev - there is boiling metropolitan life - theater, museums, exhibitions and, of course, sitting in the shop until the evening and night, till you drop! We have during a plein air is thick and friendly, the company has developed that all still nice to see and communicate.
What to say about the open air and the job? I'm not an artist, and I do not know how to find your way there, and the creative process, but I think very differently in each. This is the case when there is no single mechanism. I've already said that there were would be my favorite artists, who can communicate about art only with an eye for an eye - for them in this debate, there are many open and hidden ... There are those who love the process of discussion - there are multiple opinions and positions. About their projects - I advance and clearly tell. I explain that I am interested in and that I would like to receive. Some refused, some bring their vision and adjustments (and this is the best option - the project comes to life a variety of colors), there are those who perceive the idea of going through it, interprets and makes his (many thanks to them too, I myself when I see the diversity any experiment, "creative laboratory"). So it turns out a collective project!)))

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от fabosch

Dear Mr. Tiutchev, I was just surprised that you (a man far stupid) with an aggressively trying to pass themselves off as "the holder of ultimate truth." Are you saying that you're one know what it means in Russian language (ie, in the minds of native speakers of Russian), the term "abstract art"? That any interpretation of the term but do not have your right to exist?
Personally, I understand your insistence that way.

Dear fabosch, I can only regret that my "insistence" to explain one of the existing art criticism in the points of view on abstract art, so primitive you interpreted. I'm not very interesting to understand what led you to this strange conclusion, if the limited personal experience, which resulted in the inability to imagine other motivations of my behavior, or ignorance of what I have raised this topic has long been a controversial issue in world art history. By problem I mean the question about the essence of abstract art. Namely, the definition of its specific, distinctive features and boundaries.

You ask me if I wanted to say that one know, which means in Russian the term "abstract art"? I want you to confess, I do not know the exact number of people on all the subtleties of this issue (never really thought about it). How many Russian-speaking people interested in this issue, I also do not knows. I'm more interested than the number of adherents of various points of view on this issue, but the essence of these theories in the world of art criticism. Yet you ask whether the "right to exist" Any other interpretation of the term, but my? Firstly, the point of view, partly described in this topic, the question of what is meant by abstract art, my name can only be conditional, even though I had come to her regardless, but still it coincides with the views of others, which have been expressed to me. I repeat, the issue of discussion in art history, and my point of view, in general, coincides with the opinion of one of the participants in this interesting discussion (below I will briefly touch on this issue). Secondly, I did not decide whether the right to existence of one or another point of view. I only defend their own, and ready to give arguments in its favor. And you defend your, if you have a good reason for it.

Added after 31 minutes

Сообщение от GalARTA

I'm ready to talk further, but let's define the time when we both have company. I can not write one post in three days time - and I do not understand where you are going away, when asking a question? Please write when you want it - for example, on Friday. Thank you.

Do not see the point "scoring arrow. I do not understand what does it do? What is the goal you pursue? You see, I chose the format of the forum is not accidental. This is the only thing that comes to me in my employment. I'm still ready to continue the discussion, but in normal mode for the forum. Thank you for your understanding.

Added after 44 minutes

Сообщение от Stanislavski

Dear Tiutchev!
Moved on this topic on your link in the "Abstract art forever." Support your position on the absolute incompatibility of the project with abstract art. So-called "abstract series" and the entire project as a whole - is, in my opinion, nothing like a master class for simulating and profanirovaniya principles of abstract art.

Dear Stanislavsky!
I am glad that through you found a kindred spirit in this debate. You touch on another, equally interesting, question. That is why there are projects such as this? What motivates curators in their creation? I already wrote about the very controversial Exhibition organized by the MoMA. Sure, there are many similarities between this show and discussed in this theme project.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от fabosch

Let me cite several reasons for this.
First. If you open any dictionary, you'll see that many words and expressions shall have more than one meaning. If you bear in mind the subject area of ​​art history, the interpretations, for example, the words "vanguard", "modernism" you will find not one. For one, the vanguard is everything that is not realistic. For another, the avant-garde - it is quite certain directions in art, starting with the 1910-ies, and the term "Russian avant-garde" in general include, as a rule, only the direction of cubo-futurist and constructivist nature, etc., etc. And say the term "abstraction" are in relation to abstract painting ¸ and the direction in art, and in the process of abstraction in general and to the result of this abstraction, and in the process of visual abstraction, ie, away from realistic images to the side, for example, geometric or some other stylized image thereof. And all this understanding shall have the right to exist.

To begin, I want to remind you:

«term (from Lat. Terminus - the limit, border) - a word or phrase, precisely and unambiguously designational concept and its relation to other concepts within special sphere. The terms are specialized to the restrictive notation specific to this area of ​​objects, phenomena, their properties and relationships. In contrast to the words of general vocabulary, which are often ambiguous and are emotional, the terms within the scope of the unequivocal and lack of expression )».
 
It is clear that this definition seeks any term.
  
 It must be borne in mind to understand that the term "avant-garde" (in art) has a unique and long lasting value that is usually attributed to the vanguard of innovative trends in art (the term came into circulation since the beginning of last century). Another thing is that sometimes there are debates as to whether the authority to refer an artist (group), or even the whole direction of the avant-garde. But such disputes can not "dilute" the value of this term. As a rule, attempts to expand the list of avant-garde is the desire to give weight to a particular phenomenon in the art due to the "liquidity" concept "avant-garde, and are usually exposed by professionals. True, these "revelations" do not always reach the mass art lover, but that's another matter.
 
Following the same logic, it becomes clear that those your considerations that relate to the term "abstraction" can not also be of interest for appearing in this topic of discussion. We are not a lot of the meaning of "abstraction", belonging to different spheres of human activity, and only in art criticism. I'm sure everything will fall into place as soon as we confine ourselves to this framework (defining the boundaries of a special sphere) and escape of the superficial understanding, which is usually characterized by amateurs.
 
So, the term "abstract" is used in art criticism to describe works of abstract art. "Abstract" - a term that refers to one of the directions (flows) in the art that emerged in the early 20 th century. And the term "abstract" (denoting a process) does not mean the same thing as the term "abstraction" (indicating a work of abstract art), by itself, of course, if you consider them in the framework of art history.
 
The issue of terminology in the science (art studies not quite science, but it is precisely because of this makes some sense (meaning) the term has a special role (due to lack of "experimental" component), it would be based as all art studies), one of the principal to determine the scientific nature of the or other areas of intellectual activity. In other words, the existence of a unique terminology - is a necessary sign of scientism. You completely ignore it. Bring down all in one pile in their attempts to prove something that vaguely aware of themselves (at least so it appears). Here you write: "And let's say the term" abstraction "are in relation to abstract painting ¸ and the direction in art, and in the process of abstraction in general and to the result of this abstraction, and in the process of visual abstraction, ie, away from realistic depiction of side, for example, geometric or any other styling images thereof. And all this understanding shall have the right to exist. " If you understand what you wrote is not only messy, but, in fact, true (in Art). I have already quoted statement Lessing, that abstraction is «property of all art". This means that any repeat, any person engaged in the art (not only), are involved in this mental process. You see, this is a property of the human psyche in general and not about something that is peculiar only to those involved in it abstract art. We are also the author of this theme suggests, the term "abstraction" used in the sense (meaning) that this method of creating abstract works that, in fact, easier and even obessmyslivaet abstract art (reducing it to a formal understanding) and therefore can not be accepted as such (more on this below). That is the essence of the debate.

You see, "a departure from realistic images to the side, for example, geometric or any other styling thereof images" can not be called an abstraction. Of course, this will be done as part of a process of abstraction, but despite this, we can not call it abstract art. It's all different things! I'll admit that "all these understanding are viable, but not in the field of art criticism. In the field of art history, as a special area, they are divided on the meaning (value).
I believe a "geometric or any other styling thereof images" you mean the ornament. So, if we compare the pattern and abstraction, it is important to understand that between them there is one very significant difference: the ornament has a service function, ie associated with the object, an ornament for which is always valuable in itself but an abstraction, ie, has value as an independent work. And it at least!

Сообщение от fabosch

second. Interpretation of words and terms in a particular language change over time. Language lives and changes to reflect changes in the realities of life, changes in consciousness and society (ie people). What is meant by the term "abstract art" in times of Kandinsky and Malevich are not identical to what is meant by this in our time.

The term "abstract art" resist not immediately. On his part claimed by others, such as "real", "concrete", "absolute", "pure", "pointless", "architectural art", etc. This uncertainty resulted from the complexity of the phenomenon and the duration of the process of its formation. From the beginning of its inception and throughout the 20 th century among artists and critics waged debate, fueled by the offering of new visual solutions and ideas. In general, an inevitable extension of the concept of "abstract art" was due to the dynamic development of art of the 20 th century. There were new things and events designated as abstract art, and reflect them and between them, the concept changed in this case its content. New objects and phenomena have such properties that have common features with those resulting from the differences on which it became possible emergence of abstract art. In other words, the notion of "abstract art" was a cycle of formation, from the birth to death, t . e. through expansion, loss of meaning and the acquisition of it (sense) again. Now, when we look at the "corpse" (in the sense that we add to this the direction that something significant will be very difficult (I will be glad if I'm wrong)), I mean abstract art without emotion, we can more clearly understand its essence.

Posted 8 hours 26 minutes

Сообщение от GalARTA

Seriy, that's true. Our project is dedicated to the 100 th of abstract art, but it is absolutely impossible without talking about Kandinsky, his work, methods and ways. What he has done over 15 years, we're trying to do for 15 days - he was an innovator, we are doing some version of reflection in relation to his discovery, but the author's reflection, passed through the creativity of all group members. It's not as easy as it might seem at first. The group's work was interesting, but very difficult.

GalARTA, what is common in your project with creativity, by and by "Kandinsky?

Posted 9 hours 6 minutes

Сообщение от SHCH

music is not always reproduce the sounds of the real world, with
striking impact on listeners, awakens emotions and associations. well and good abstract painting influences the viewer prepared.
Or it will be "dead" circles, squares, spots.

To be precise, the music is not used sounds from the real world. The exception is the music played by a human voice, using speech. Is precisely because the music was originally created as an abstract work, ie striving for harmony with no inherent value whatsoever ties with reality. Music - an example of absolute abstraction. And even where there is a text (narrative, the libretto), but this is real music - is always self-sufficient product.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от fabosch

Third. Your insistence on underlining the fact that abstract art is said only that created by the artist without any connection with real objects the visual world, makes believe that if you or I or anyone else does not know what was the intention of the artist (and that you In all cases, it ????), know it just does not know, this is an abstract painting or not, looking at the result, that is the picture? That is, the use of the term "abstract art" is made dependent on our knowledge of the creative process the artist in relation to each specific pattern. Dismiss me, I is not ready.
I believe that the term "abstract art" can be applied fully to any image, even if I do not know who the author (that is obviously not know how the artist did this work), moreover, an expansive understanding of the term also applies to the works having and figurative component.

In the early 20 th century abstract art arose precisely because finally lost touch with reality. Only after losing that connection, she was born and became a fact! By itself, this fact is one of the proofs of self-worth (solvency) of the art direction, from which it can be concluded that the gap with reality - is one of its main distinguishing and forming qualities. Cubism and Futurism only led to the emergence of a new direction, but it is born only when completely dissociated itself from them. How can one explain the fact that Kandinsky, Malevich and Mondrian, each its own way, through figurative art, futurism, cubism came to the creation of abstract art, through this most disassociation? They went further than his contemporaries, completely abandoning figurative.

and so abstract art was the result of conscious rejection of the image forms visually perceived reality. And that means that this quality is crucial for this movement in art. Which implies that not complying with this quality product can not be considered works of abstract art.


Not going to dwell on all the views on the nature of abstract art. Under this topic we are interested, can be attributed to abstract art, those works that were created by the abstraction of real objects around us? This issue is certainly one of the key among the issues on the essence of abstract art.
  Indeed, there is enhanced understanding of abstract art. It is based on a formal (surface) view of its origin and development. For example, art Vilensky believes that abstract art, in addition to works properly abstract, can be attributed, and works by Cezanne, Picasso and others, which are shown in the abstracted form of real-world objects. In the same broad sense of the term "abstract art" interprets abstractionist Max Bill: "We call it abstract art, which appeared as a result of abstraction and in which the objects of the world in some form, still exist." Such enhanced understanding of abstract art can not be taken seriously, but rather the result of an experiment in theoretical or practical knowledge of its essence. I am interested in a more narrow interpretation of abstract art, which became the spokesmen Michelle Seyfor and Leon Degan. Their definition of abstract art in general are similar but still different and curiously enough, just in that aspect, which is discussed in this thread. Here are the definitions:

   «I believe abstract art any art that contains no reminders, no idea about the observed reality, regardless of whether it is a reality or not is the starting point of the artist. Any art that can legitimately be considered only in terms of harmony, composition, order, or a casual disharmony kontrkompozitsii, disorder, is an abstract »
 

Michelle Seyfor

«Abstract Painting - a painting which does not reproduce the visible external world and which is not defined by this reproduction of any of its purposes, or in their vehicles, either in its spirit"
"Abstract painting is not seeking any reproduction of the external world, in other words, painting is an abstract only in the strict sense, when the picturesque building up is not mixed with the intention to portray something of the objective world - willingly or unwillingly, consciously or not. She does not want in their vehicles to any reproduction of the external world, as the painting is abstract in the true sense only if it does not use any of the conventions and rules of language inherent in figurative painting.
And in the spirit it should not be defined in this reproduction, because it can not be figurative, not ceasing to be an abstract, may not disclose the logic of the order apparently appearances outside world »

Leon Degan

Seyfor believes that no matter what comes out of an artist to create abstract works. Degan also believes that the abstract artist in his work must break with reality completely. In my opinion, the point of view, Degan largely reflects the essence of abstract art. Yet I must say, though it does not matter what point of view, Degan is more common among art historians dealing with the problem.

I would like to add that given my definition of Degas, is enough for me to determine the nature of abstract art in the context of our discussion. But I suspect that not everyone will agree with me. Therefore, I am ready to continue the discussion, gradually revealing the above theses.

[fabosch]

Dear Tiutchev, I am very glad that you did not have in mind those "tricks" that I have you without malice attributed.
I just responded to these are the words

Сообщение от Tiutchev

For what they've spent so much effort, if you still do not understand what is abstract art?
...
Why this game with a substitution and blurring of concepts, if they have already defined the notion of "abstract art".
...
But why do you persistently call it abstract art? If it is clear that abstract art - it is quite another!

Thank you for consistently, thoroughly and to present an arguable point. I can only envy your professionalism. Me to write so intelligently and logically structured text, even the poor can imagine how many would have to spend time.
Well, now it turns out that even the in the framework of art history there is a very respectable point of view of such an authority, like Michelle Seyfor, according to which at least part of what artists have done in this project is quite a might be called abstract art. Was easier.

Your point of view for me now, too, became much clearer. From it, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), it should be, among other things, for example, is the conclusion that if you were simply presented the final (figurative) the results of the project under discussion, then you would have found it difficult to say is this abstract art or not? Your difficulties would be related to the fact that you do not know how these works were created and what repelled an artist.
I understand you correctly?
Sorry, that police officer with questions, but it seemed to me that you are interested in the discussion, and I to discuss important to accurately understand your point of view, "not to wave his sword in front of a ghost."
The only thing I want to warn in advance that view in science education from time to time may happen to go to the "trail of Art" in our mortal world, but I hope you are not frightened. Ready to immediately return to the track as the judges, as I will do my weak podkovannost in the subject.
All the same it is a forum not only for professional art historians (and even, perhaps, not so much for them) and my lack of professionalism here will not look like a wild