Excerpts from the treatise

[Маруся]

Dear Sasha !
Let's all the same grown-up , featuring icons of art !
But who does not like Andrei Rublev ! Only now as his work is left? As far as I know , Zvenigorodskoe church is opened only on major holidays . A Vasnetsov - an imitation of Russian icon painting , is unlikely to be of interest at the level of genius .
Pavel Kuznetsov very much, but he did not disdain to avant-garde exhibitions , do not you know ?
And here's the "genius " Magpies , I do not bother to explain : Does he could stand in one row with Kandinsky , Malevich and Filonov ? Or is it just your regular joke ?

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Maroussia

And here's the "genius" Magpies, much bother, please explain: Is he able to stand on a par with Kandinsky, Malevich and Filonov?
Or is it just your regular joke?!

Why is it a joke?


Just unlike them, he knew how to write kraskkami ..

[Маруся]

Сообщение от Guriev , Igor ; 1644381 "

he could write kraskkami .

Get lost in words ...
A Kandinsky , Malevich , Flon , Rodchenko , Rozanova , Popopa and t.d.i.t.p. colors could not write ?
In my opinion , they are all over the world have taught " to paint . "
And that is an abstraction : the form and paint ...
Somehow you should decide whether they face , arms and legs could not draw , or did not know how to paint .
As a magpie looks funny in this series ...

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Maroussia

get lost in words ...
A Kandinsky , Malevich , Flon , Rodchenko , Rozanova , Popopa and t.d.i.t.p. colors could not write ?!

Kandinsky - not very .

Malevich invented the geometry and the gifted design and so on .

Paintings as his figurative rather helpless .
Rodchenko general photographer first and foremost.

Rozanov and Popov were able to write .

And that is an abstraction : the form and paint ...

The form can only be in something of a subject .
Abstract - formless art, that is not art at all , in my opinion ...

you somehow decide , whether they face , arms and legs could not draw , or did not know how to paint .

Kandinsky - neither one nor the other could not .

Malevich did kontseptuhu funny as his Suprematism .

Once Luchishkin , Labas and Soroka look funny in this series ...

They are really funny .
Funny - a very valuable quality in the arts ( if any ) .

[Маруся]

Thank you , that at least my favorite Olga Rozanova not hurt ! After all, you know that between her and Malevich was serious dispute about the primacy of Suprematism ...
Kandinsky you do not like it izvnstno , but how it would be without Kandinsky's contemporary art : abstract art is so revered by many , it is even called expressive abstractionism in contrast to the geometric abstraction of Malevich . When he was born , and born at all?
Kandinsky and Malevich , both college drop-out , could not write as Serov and Kuznetsov - agrees , but they moved the world ( not afraid of the word ) the art of painting to something new .
After the invention of photography , realism, very pale , but appeared Pollock , Rothko , etc.
About Rodchenko - would not be so adamantly speak out without the " quotes "because it is a quote Khardzhiev and artistic merits of Rodchenko evaluates each in its own way .

Generally , you wonder to argue , that's just genius Magpies , you forgot to justify ....

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Maroussia

C
Kandinsky you do not like it izvnstno , but how it would be without Kandinsky's contemporary art

What is a " modern art " ?
Art ended in 1910 .

This was followed by individual artists and even flow , no more .

You do not notice the void in the global art after 10,910 years ?

Added after 1 minutes

Kandinsky and Malevich , both college drop-out , could not write as Serov and Kuznetsov - agrees , but they moved the world ( not afraid of the word ) the art of painting to something new .

Well do not laugh.
Art moved Impressionists , Cezanne , Van Gogh , Matisse , Picasso .

Kandinsky to Mondrian - is already obsevki came when it was over .

[Игорь Гурьев]

Extend vykladalovo selected chapters from Anatol treatise Kopeikin "dry dock".

to shock or amuse

Turning to the inglorious history of modernism, one notices that the main thing in modernism - is the problem of how the impact on the viewer. He tried to work something like rays mikroprozhektorov on performances of vocal and instrumental ensemble, which is spinning in all directions, blind students danced, shifting them any idea of ​​where they are. He tried to work on the principle of firecrackers: a sudden loud bang, which aims to osharashivanii citizen.

 

In general, the main principle of the impact of modernism on the audience - is the principle of outrageousness. He is still in some way acted in 10 th years of the century and in the 20's, too. In the provincial (for Plastic Arts), America was still effective in 40-50-ies. With 60 years experienced the same audience it became difficult than ever to shock even in America, and therefore what is considered "modern art" 70-90's, contains an element of outrageousness, as it were retroactive property, how would such a shocking, which, though not to shock the contemporary audience, but could shock the old crowd, the beginning of the century audience.

(The very same audience that part of it, which is open to influence of modernism, called this state as follows: We are stunned, we are overwhelmed. Note that the Russian "stun" comes from the word "hat", "helmet" - when the club was hit on the helmet, then people and been stunned. So in modernism).

The principle of outrageousness was placed in a modernist act as a topping, the trouble is that because of their uniformity, he can not long work. Of course, the element of outrageousness is always present anyway in the art of past centuries - but as one element, and when he became the only (as in a strange Italian Renaissance painter Arcimboldo), the art just once ever stay, there was only a trick, a trick contains in itself anything but a mystery. And no one will deny that all art beckons us some its mysteries.

Outrageous, of course, was a reaction to the previous period sententiousness art, at its didactic, when the viewer and the reader should feel the object of education.

The fact that modern artists (especially the call 20-60's, and about 70-90's and did not speak) overlooked the fact that the viewer quickly learns that what the artist wants to teach him. And so if, for 70 years and only deal with that shock the viewer, unpleasant surprise him, it's like constantly to do in the face of human karatistskie fighting or boxing movements: first, he instinctively pulled back, and then stop to notice. And since literally beating the viewer over the head art is forbidden, modernist perpetual motion and spinning idle, and artists have pretended that they were shocking, and the audience pretend that they are shocked (or, conversely, they realized that others do not such smart as they are, shocking).

In essence, the global processes occur simultaneously. In the USSR in those same years, the leaders pretended that they develop Marxism-Leninism, and people pretended that it believes that Marxism-Leninism (Marxism, too, was kind of shocking, has not yet started its concrete implementation in practice, since he became a criminal doctrine). The difference, of course, only in the fact that modernism is not associated with violence, and adherents of Marxism-Leninism had a heavy nuclear capability and a few million under arms.

Modernism fostered a state of psychological discomfort, it is perhaps the most striking degree distinguishes it from all other periods in art.

Now we need to ask a question: what should be for the viewer (reader) art? Is it really only distributor of negative waves, the source neuyuta and psychological discomfort, heart-rending cries and destruktiruyuschim gesture? (And who would argue that so it was in this century).

Art in our century, tried to reach the top, ersatz become something more, from what part of the population declined. Religion, perhaps.

But art has never been a principal. Art has always been fit, beautiful addition to something already existing: for example, religion, or to self-comfort of society.

When art no pretense of being something special, then it happened the best art. Example of this - Holland XVII century. Artists painted pictures of their citizens to buy and decorate their home.

The alternative to outrageous should perhaps be called funny. When art fun, it does not interfere with him. Funny Watteau, Guardi funny, funny Degas, Picasso, often funny, have funny elements of Giovanni Bellini, Titian, Veronese, Caravaggio, Velazquez, Hals, Vermeer of Delft, de Hooha, Terborch, Metsu. We can easily go into their pictures and easy exit.

Funny poet Pushkin, John Donne, Brodsky, fun thinkers Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Montaigne, Pascal and others, funny writer Rabelais, Gogol, Nabokov. And the fun does not harm each identity, but rather encourages this identity.