53rd Venice Biennale. "Victory over the future. Tales of Italy

[Мунк]

Сообщение от Vladimir

I read. Once again, I wonder why these questions and contradictions are always opened to the fact, when the train left? Why such Liability parties not to hold a round table for four months before the show? Make some imitation transparent regime in the style of public hearings. It is clear that decisions must be made at the expert level (otherwise "shook" any question), but at least let each other agree in advance.

I do not know how all these people actually agree on a unified policy coverage Biennale. Everyone wants to show that what he does, and will bring the best result and so is the media and presents. I do not know how this event highlights the example of Western countries ... It is interesting that such imitation transparent regime in the style of public hearings? I actually important to be able to see projects Biennale eyes on the screen as if live. Are all have the opportunity to go ... That's what I really miss. The site Biennale only photos and some texts. At openspace.ru have commercials, but it is difficult to watch - the image all the time freezes indefinitely. Maybe the problem in me - and I too want to?
 

Сообщение от Vladimir

noticed exactly. But well, if explained at least at the level of sanding vector. Well, if "... the product brings us ..." or "creative intuition tells us ...". But how will discourse shmiskurs, then mascara light.

Comrades, but it is "context" and "discourse" and enter a work of art in culture, as mentioned Konchalovsky (You yourself, Fross, placed his interview). Poironizirovat of art history texts and povstavlyat studs are not forbidden, if only this irony is not degenerated into nagging and does not suffer total nonpositive discourse. Here is a fresh example: an exhibition of Constantine Batynkov in MMOMA. On one floor hangs Patsyukova text, but on the other - the text Khachaturova. Read both, but in the first "shmiskurs", but in the second discourse. All people write in different ways - read those whom you know or do not read - it's your right.

[fross]

Сообщение от Munch

Comrades, but it is "context" and "discourse" and enter a work of art in culture, as mentioned Konchalovsky (You yourself, Fross, placed his interview). Poironizirovat of art history texts and povstavlyat studs are not forbidden, if only this irony is not degenerated into nagging and does not suffer total nonpositive discourse. Here is a fresh example: an exhibition of Constantine Batynkov in MMOMA. On one floor hangs Patsyukova text, but on the other - the text Khachaturova. Read both, but in the first "shmiskurs", but in the second discourse. All people write in different ways - read those whom you know or do not read - it's your right.

Those who are really trying to write new works of art in culture and history interesting to read, even if it requires some effort to understand. But many there are trying to inscribe themselves, solely and exclusively.

[Мунк]

Сообщение от fross

But many there are trying to inscribe themselves, solely and exclusively.

Yes? I do not think about. No, seriously ... There are not only naive artists, but also naive art: o

[fross]

Сообщение от Munch

Yes? I do not think about. No, seriously ... There are not only naive artists, but also naive art: o

You please write more often, and do not leave us for so long, but we brutalized by shmiskursov and certainly can not understand anything.

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от Munch

I actually important to be able to see projects Biennale eyes on the screen as if live. Are all have the opportunity to go ..

Event openly export, but then what can and will bring. They brought the same to us when something from another show Mukhina's sculpture.

Сообщение от Munch

but on the other - the text Khachaturova.

Yes, the emotional critic. This not only writes well, but spoke passionately (that is not often a combination). To my taste, however, often overpraise Trust

Сообщение от Munch

Comrades, but it is "context" and "discourse" and enter a work of art in culture, as mentioned Konchalovsky (You yourself, Fross, placed his interview). Poironizirovat of art history texts and povstavlyat studs are not forbidden, if only this irony is not degenerated into nagging and does not suffer total nonpositive discourse.

A little artists themselves complicated things pokommentirovat? What we have them all to a man removed from the madding crowd? All in constant search for meaning? Unlike. Previously, once the innovators did not hesitate to take up the pen: and explained and monographs published. And now we often get second or third interpretation. For a devastating division of labor: the subject put the curators, the works funded by industry groups, noses mop PR, explaining that generates criticism. As a result, instead of pure product mix, we obtain: instead of waiting for us steak burger (may not be bad), in which what is not only a mixture. And how it left the meat and some of the cooks rasstaralsya stronger? With whose version in the end the audience is concerned? Noticed that even the interviews of artists today have become a rarity? Why would it?

No nagging could not have done But, honestly, not malice.

Added after 44 minutes
[QUOTE="Munch, 457595]Author dissatisfied (YP who is this?), Which is about the artists who represent Russia in the main draft Birnbaum hardly speak, but the draft of the national pavilion is stuck, with the exalted role of PR[/QUOTE]
Yuri Plastinin

[size="1"]Posted 50 minutes[/size]

Сообщение от gans

And this just strange. "Creative" or something?: D Some greetings from the past.

Fresh interviews with Molodkin in Art Chronicle: http://artchronika.ru/item.asp?id=1640

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Vladimir

Mukhina's sculpture.

Where that's just it.

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

Where is she only here.

Promised to return. They say that a lot of work, too much, it was bad. No wonder: in a hurry to do, and then another and on the road had to be cut further, the Polish carriers with dimensions not cope

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Vladimir, I'm afraid that does not really want to collect it, and only "return" and even more so.

[Мунк]

Сообщение от Vladimir

Event frankly export, but then what can and will bring. They brought the same to us when something from another show Mukhina's sculpture.

I do not even pretend to see the objects themselves, would at least look at the film.

Сообщение от Vladimir

No nagging could not have done But, honestly, not malice.

Of course, not malice. Can see that you're more for their cause. And all that I am responsible, too, believe me, not to refute you, well - look at some other point of view, the opinion of another party (if I may so call themselves) vysheupamyanutogo triangle.
 

Сообщение от Vladimir

noted that even an interview artists today have become a rarity? Why would it?

Сообщение от Vladimir

As a result, instead of pure product mix, we obtain: instead of waiting for us steak burger (may not be bad), in which what is not only a mixture. And how it left the meat and some of the cooks rasstaralsya stronger? With whose version in the end the audience is concerned?

I noticed that the interview appear in the events regularly. I read them, or ArtChronika, or Gif.ru or Openspace.ru. The last - interview ArtChronika in Batynkov, Pepperstein, Zvezdochetova, with all participants crown. Biennale. Of these, I often see that the artists themselves prefer that interpretation did art critics and art historians, openly moving away from explanations of meanings. Here even judging by this interview Molodkina. He spoke mainly about the formal methods ( "negative" sculpture, "projection"). And the meaning is extracted Tupitsin, raising parallels with Rothko, and Chaim Soutine, and with Jeff Koons, and even with Adorno. Ie they are trying, I think, to ennoble politically sensitive works Molodkina, because he gives a unique interpretation - a political one. Ie as if to disguise his candid konyukturnost cultural meaning. No one noticed? Is it from this, we lose? And he does not refute Molodkin Tupitsina not send them to hell with their associations. He likes what they say. Of course, we can all their cultural explanations aside and say: "The artist Molodkin operates solely political theme, and it belongs (or is creating) emerged in the contemporary art trend aesthetization policy. And this is likely to be true, but their interpretation of "deepening", forcing the viewer to move convolutions. Also bad.

Сообщение от Vladimir

A little artists themselves complicated things pokommentirovat? What we have them all to a man removed from the madding crowd? All in constant search for meaning? Unlike. Previously, once the innovators did not hesitate to take up the pen: and explained and monographs published.

Perhaps the time for writing monographs for these artists have not yet come. Nonconformists 60's, 70's began to write a monograph in the 90's and zero, except Kabakov. And artists from the 90's now boldly wrote Osmolovsky. More I did not remember.

Сообщение от Vladimir

For a pernicious division of labor: the subject put the curators, the works funded by industry groups, noses mop PR, explaining that generates criticism.

This life How else ...

Сообщение от Vladimir

Fresh interviews with Molodkin in Art Chronicle: http://artchronika.ru/item.asp?id=1640

Read with great interest the interview. I am sorry that we did not show his projects. I do molodkinskogo in Moscow has not seen. He says - export an artist? Or have I missed something? Inform forumistam interested in the actual art, that on July 8 in the Garage will be a lecture by Alexander Panov "political as an aesthetic category." It may be interesting, given that it is now superaktualno.

[fross]

Сообщение от Munch

Here, even judging by this interview Molodkina. He spoke mainly about the formal methods ( "negative" sculpture, "projection"). And the meaning is extracted Tupitsin, raising parallels with Rothko, and Chaim Soutine, and with Jeff Koons, and even with Adorno. Ie they are trying, I think, to ennoble politically sensitive works Molodkina, because he gives a unique interpretation - a political one. Ie as if to disguise his candid konyukturnost cultural meaning. No one noticed? Is it from this, we lose? And he does not refute Molodkin Tupitsina not send them to hell with their associations. He likes what they say. Of course, we can all their cultural explanations aside and say: "The Artist Molodkin operates solely political theme, and it belongs (or is creating) voznikschuyu in the contemporary art trend aesthetization policies. The truth in art is very subjective ....

But from a marketing standpoint, his strategy is flawless. Capturing the semantic category of oil and Russia, the same as twenty years ago, the USSR Reconstruction - of course export commodity. Attempts to give this meaning as in the parable about the Talmud, Socrates and two in the chimney:

This whole issue - nonsense, and if you spend a life, responding to pointless questions, then all your answers, too, will be meaningless!