Mikhail Shemyakin: on modern art

[Mona]

Сообщение от LCR

Maybe I got it wrong, all this was quite a long time. Philosophy he still engaged in earnest. For me, it does not matter, but I apologize and retract it.

Groys philosophical education has not received NEVER. He is in philosophy about the same as Vysotskaya in cooking (which she has no education), ie in any case to reach the heights is enough talent, but not the diploma index. About Groys

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%...BE%D0%B9%D1%81

You forget one thing, and this thing is - the most important. Within five years, students in this narrative secular discipline daily show things and teach them to recognize and respect.

I do not forget the important things, but VY_TO THEM JUST DO NOT KNOW, that have no idea. What is important is not to respect the artist and to distinguish, telling stories about him without the slightest notion of the Arts! And it can not be without a system view, without understanding the integrity of the process as the unity of the ongoing time continuously since the Paleolithic period and still. And all this time the subject of art is the same: there is no progress in art (Zizek, quote tomorrow). If you do not distinguish art from blundering, if you do not distinguish between the art styles, current trends and their relationship logic and art, the illustrations you distinguish Rivera From Ribera, when you modernism from modernism not distinguish between?? and confused? many times had to face it with art. I think the Baroque artist Caravaggio - open any site - a train like you there has been written. I do not want to know anything and do not read anything. Interestingly I'd known, from chegorastut your knowledge? вобще in the textbook written that the art history of its conceptual and categorical apparatus has, and uses elaborated estetikoy.No you do not want her to know and do not recognize. What else can I say after that?

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Mona, so you are calm.
Here you tear something ...

[Mona]

Added after 9 minutes

In any science is the subject of study and tools for it (the object) study.
In art history, and even more so in the history of art is both.

In Cultural same, yes, actively growing spoons forks and knives and other instrumenariem.
Here it would be more to the subject oprdelitsya .

The history of art and art history all Well we must distinguish. History of art - a scientific discipline. Arts its categorical apparatus is not (repeat) - hence not a science. See story any kind of science is not science-pseudoscience (it's just the domain of philosophy)
 Cultural studies of artificially created by the discipline and can be dissolved in the sources

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Remembered:

What we have left? Actors, artists, rheumatic, and other martial sklerotiki detachment physically immature people. They should be used for delicate work. Here ballerina spins. Intense, intense, as many as in the eyes hurt. Attach the dynamo to it - let the current yields in the underdeveloped areas.

Ah, this would passionately some participants, but in the right direction ...
In the national economy, for example! About!

[LCR]

Well, I'm told that this hobby Groys will end badly, but I warned!
And now we became hysterical.
But to hell with him, with socialist realism, with art studies and with all the rest. You're right, Groys and Socialist Realism - the greatest!
You just take it easy, darling Mona, health - all expensive, and the nerve cells are not restored!

[Кирилл Сызранский]

LCR, but with what is there in the theme Socialist Realism, I took one, you do not remember?
Something somehow I do not remember that it has been discussed here ...

Added after 2 minutes

Сообщение от gans

Mikhail Shemyakin: on contemporary art

That topic. And really Socialist Realism can not be called modern art, yes and Mikhail Shemyakin to him not leaning to any side.

[LCR]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

LCR, but with what is there in the theme Socialist Realism, I took one, you do not remember?
Something somehow I do not remember that it was discussed here ...

Oh, Cyril, I really am afraid to say a word, because it could be a stroke, and then all my life I'll blame myself.
I leave from this topic on tiptoes ...

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Mona

history of art and art criticism yet I must distinguish. History of art - a scientific discipline. Arts its categorical apparatus is not (repeat) - hence not a science. See story any kind of science is not science-pseudoscience (it's just the domain of philosophy)
 Cultural studies of artificially created by the discipline and can be dissolved in the source code

Dear, Mona, allow you to object. art studies, of course, is not science, but art history, too, it is not. And not only the history of art, but history in general - not science, strictly speaking!

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Mona

In the subtitle "Artlikbez" to ensure that it is necessary to eliminate illiteracy rampant artistic population.

No, the man lit a high mission "to eliminate illiteracy rampant artistic population. This is a minimum of respect.
But, somehow it is necessary, it seems softer, calmer, kinder that I carry in shirnarmassy educational thought, and, Mona?
And it calls to mind a phenomenon I first action of the immortal comedy (sorry just my first theater, all rushing it, damned):
The same, I must tell you and the teacher of historical
part. He is a scientist's head - is evident, and the information grabbed the darkness, but only
explains with such fervor that does not remember himself. I just listened to him: Well for the time being
spoke about the Assyrians and Babylonians - still nothing, and how to get
Alexander of Macedon, then I can not tell you what happened to him. I
thought that the fire, by God! Ran away from the department and that there are forces grabbed a chair on
floor. It is of course, Alexander Macedonian hero, but why break chairs? from
this loss to the treasury. (c)

[Причал]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

LCR, but with what is there in the theme Socialist Realism, I took one, you do not remember?
Something somehow I do not remember that it has been discussed here ...

Added after 2 minutes

That topic. And really Socialist Realism can not be called modern art, yes and Mikhail Shemyakin to him not leaning to any side.

And bohh with them, with Shemyakin. Not under it, to see, and the topic was opened

We have that same - do not wait until we tell you why no Caravaggio Baroque