Mark Rothko

[artcol]

Сообщение от zarajara

Rothko , Duchamp , Malevich , Picasso , Warhol , etc. - This is a value category. Expressed their creativity and sense of self changed a century. Without them, the culture would be different. Anyone who pays for their work the money actually gets some value , the possession of which is itself a value ( status, prestige , etc.).

But what about the smear ? How is a brilliant song? Line? Color, after all! !

[zarajara]

Сообщение от artcol

What about the smear?
How is a brilliant song?
Line?
Color, after all!!!!

This may or may not be, it does not just good picture - value

Added after 9 minutes

Сообщение от vg_edger

Look at the portraits Borovikovsky and compare them with daubs Rothko and other deviants from art.

I love Borovikovsky and many other artists of the 18th century .
Rothko - not spotting and comparing them is impossible.

vg_edger, do not think for teaching, but can you read something on contemporary art ? In contrast to the art of the 18th century , it is not designed to please any audience, it is not trying to entertain and delight . It is very difficult to understand and requires a truly serious knowledge .
Here is a book , not the best , but it is ..
V.S.Turchin . Through the maze of the avant-garde
http://fege.narod.ru/librarium/turchin/turchin.htm
P.S. Leave the devil and all religion in peace. This is no process in contemporary art does not explain. As anything and without it we will understand.

[Seriy]

Сообщение от zarajara

I can not imagine someone Rothko in the bedroom, and most of the Contemporary too.
[

Not in the bedrooms there are.

I know people (in the U.S.), which hang in the bedrooms Contemporary masterpieces.
And they refer to them simply, in any bank does not hold.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от zarajara; 2319151"

Rothko , Duchamp , Malevich , Picasso , Warhol

I do not understand this series.
What's the Picasso?
Picasso - a normal artist, abstraktivizme and modernism is not seen .
Malevich - the artist is worse, much worse, but came up with some symbolic things , like " Black Square ".
Duchamp - do not know if he even knew how to draw, but the first thought of the object set . At this would end the nomination of objects, but it turned out that he had just started the epidemic of " installations" .

On the other you do not want to even talk ...

Added after 1 minute

Сообщение от zarajara; 2319191"

It is very difficult to understand

In what sense?
Ie type is difficult to understand , but once understood, then it is easy ?

[zarajara]

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

I do not understand this series.
What's the Picasso?
Picasso - a normal artist, abstraktivizme and modernism is not seen .

Picasso all seen.
A series is made on the basis of value for modern culture , it can be extended. And not in styles, trends and better or worse .

"Contemporary art is difficult to understand. "

What is not clear in this sentence ?
If your idea is clear - I congratulate and envy

Who said anything about now and then?

[zarajara]

Сообщение от Seriy

Do not spend time in the bedroom.

I know people (in the U.S.), which hang in the bedrooms Contemporary masterpieces.
And they refer to them simply, in any banks do not hold.

I am only in his, and the work I have there also the (tapestries)

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от zarajara

Picasso all seen.

Not at all.

This is a normal doabstraktny garde.

With tradition of world culture is not broke.

Added after 50 seconds

Сообщение от zarajara

"Modern art is difficult to understand."


What's to understand this phrase?

The phrase "modern art".

I believe that it does not exist, so it "difficult to understand."

[artcol]

Сообщение от zarajara

I 'm only in my and my work there, too, the ( wall hangings )

Eeeet somehow not bohemian years

[color="#666686 " ]Added after 3 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от zarajara

"Contemporary art is difficult to understand. "

Zara , and can expand this idea ? What is the difficulty ?

[color="#666686 " ]Added after 10 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

Malevich - the artist is worse, much worse, but came up with some symbolic things , like " Black Square ".

And the peasants ?

[zarajara]

Сообщение от artcol

Eeeet somehow not bohemian years

Added after 3 minutes

Zara, and can expand this idea? What is the difficulty?

It requires some prior awareness, often appeals to the already known cultural patterns. Perceived in the historical cultural context. I happened many times to deal with people (not just students) who are watching (well, let's call it) contemporary art after pre-lecture conversation without it. The difference is usually striking.
In contrast to the figurative arts, and more or less realistic, in which at least one that is shown is perceived by all. Certainly perceived differently, but problems with pattern recognition there is no one else.
In contemporary art must learn to read the message of avoiding image, often against the inner aesthetic protest.
In other words you need aesthetic, psychological, historical, philosophical preconditioning.
In effect, you must have some set of codes that are not built into us by nature.
Let's say, the paintings of Bosch: about half of the way we now do not understand - codes are lost. For example the black birds symbolize his sin and the knowledge we reveals a small part of the meaning of this picture. But there is much that is still unclear. I think that a contemporary even noticed some elements to surprise us, and immediately read its meaning. As we look at the hammer and sickle immediately understand that this is the USSR, not tools.
But even with the lost codes we even recognize images Bosch. Now imagine a contemporary of Bosch, looking at an art object or a Rothko color field. For it to be something he knew would have to tell the whole way, which took humanity, with its wars and revolutions, with its styles and trends, with the globalization, problems etc.
Wrote a lot, I do not know if we can clarify something in his short phrase.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от artcol

And the peasants?

On the fan, as they say.

Added after 3 minutes

Сообщение от zarajara; 2319631"

In fact : you must have some set of codes that are not built into us by nature.
Let's say , the paintings of Bosch : about half of the way we now do not understand - codes are lost .

Codes are always lost , and this is the beauty of art.
Even in " War and Peace" on a Russian man of the late 19th century, they were also lost, because every reader reads a novel differently than the writer .

Among other things.
You think you understand Chardin still life easier than Picasso cubist thing ?
Equally.
The main thing is to have something to be understood.

In contemporary art, nothing to understand , so it is, as you might think. and " difficult to understand."

In general, the art is not important insight and perception.
This is important in science - understanding .
And the art - not a science, it is different.