Modern art is intended only to ensure that plunge the viewer into shock

[Glasha]

Very interesting discussion, with great pleasure that read, thanks to the participants!

His - opinion, position, tuning fork, - of course, also exist and have been ...

Сообщение от qwerty

I have this so that everyone their world: to me Filonov, of course, higher the Rembrandt, but I totally understand the position of those who believe the contrary, it depends on the internal tuning fork, at which wave he configured.

At this point you can put ... (? )...

[Pavel]

In pre-revolutionary Russian art world, there are, of course French. Created Malevich Suprematism, which was developed mainly architecture, in competition with Cubism, so he and the dates cheat. How the Empire came from France, and following directions. Kustodiyev not find what studying in Paris in 1904godu. Then bloomed Bonnard and have Kustodiev it felt. But hooligans Picasso, who knew him then, and Shchukin bought and brought his paintings to Moscow.
Filonov had been ill with schizophrenia. This disease used to take his hand and not a genius.
Behold, David Hockney, it not the great artist, and without any lotion, just beautiful and original.

[Art-lover]

Сообщение от qwerty

The twentieth century has given so many new ideas, how many did not give the entire previous history. This is understandable: before the twentieth century was a mapping mission of the artist's reality, and a measure of skill of the artist was a "similarity", which is why many geniuses, departing from the accepted canon, and have not been too successful in life. In the twentieth century with the invention of non-figurative art and the slogan "art for art's sake" everything changed, and the first half-century gave rise to the Masters, making art is not for sale, which distinguishes them from all previous generations.
Here is a good idea to define the term "depth of spirit." ...
I have this so that everyone their world: to me Filonov, of course, higher the Rembrandt, but I totally understand the position of those who believe the contrary, it depends on the internal tuning fork, at which wave it is configured.

In art little put forward the idea, it is desirable to implement, so much so that the materialization of the idea had an equally persuasive force, as its wording. And then the seams: if you compare the substantive work of artists from 20c. and their theoretical manifestos, it is visible to the naked eye, large discrepancies.
If we agree that in the past there were "many geniuses, departing from accepted canons" - even at the cost of prosperity in life, you have to admit that no 1st half 20c. "gave rise to the Masters, making art is not for sale." Indeed, since the Renaissance, some masters (Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt among them) can sometimes allow myself the pleasure to anoint something for yourself, or - equivalently - for the sake of art. " (By the way, the slogan of "art for art's sake" marched across Europe is already in 1st half of 19th century). Even if you do not touch the issues on the lability of the canons and freedom within the canon (and even within an order), it is obvious that not all artists were up to 20c in hopeless bondage to mimesis.
Age 20y stunned by an abundance of ideas, and artists become like Ali Baba cave of treasures: take what you want - but do not forget the spell that opens doors from the world of ideas in the world of art. But many of the spell is either forgotten, or uttered with a false tone, whether considered taboo. I assume that this is a magic word after all "spirit" - although now it is commonly regarded as pop-cultural memom or cobblestone cultural imperialism. Of course, this is something subtle - something like the wave function of the "inner tuning fork."

Сообщение от qwerty

In my opinion, this is too categorical statement, since the Wizards listed belong to disjoint sets, it's totally different, disparate material.

Mnozhestvennnosti idea of parallel worlds of art (with disjoint sets of the works of masters and systems of interpretation of their work) is quite entertaining, but I generally closer to the idea of a multidimensional model of art, where artists and works by comparing all the same possible - because this is one space. However, analysis of reasons, circumstances and conditions for such comparisons, bad fits in the genre of forum gatherings.

[Pavel]

There is interesting. We must try and raise the level of cheer.
Talking about spirituality of art are, probably, from narrow-minded attitude. Это всегда подразумевает литературную подоплеку. French academics have considered mauvais ton that brilliantly done realist Courbet. Zola, Cézanne chose the Light of Truth of the well. Vobschem already passed. Now Glazunov decided to resurrect this dead academism. As a result of his Academy stamps academic plagiarists, and I suspect the counterfeiters.
Spirituality in the expressiveness and originality of artistic means, and not in mysticism. We must breathe life into a dead canvas with paint.

[Allena]

Сообщение от Art-lover

However, analysis of reasons, circumstances and conditions for such comparisons, bad fits in the genre of forum gatherings.

Art-lover, did not agree with you. The conversation just went to the basics, and you offer it to turn. No need to put this point ... I think that is very interesting not only to me.

[Meister]

Сообщение от Art-lover

In art little put forward the idea, it is desirable to implement, so much so that the materialization of the idea had an equally persuasive force, as its wording. And then the seams: if you compare the substantive work of artists from 20c. and their theoretical manifestos, it is visible to the naked eye, large discrepancies.

I must you absolutely do not agree. You might think so because of their own worldview or internal tuning fork, as the qwerty, but you seriously underestimate the art of the 20 century. It is connected to your tastes or a small amount of time devoted to you 20 in the art. I do not know, but in my opinion, the statement about the weakness of the materialization of ideas can not be so peremptory.

I am fond of, the arts for over 10 years, and when I first started to study it, I was impressed with classical paintings, ranging from Old Masters and finishing Aivazovsky, Repin, Shishkin and Kuindzhi ... But it was only the first couple of years, then I do it seemed quite banal and boring ... I'll explain why: This section is meant by art is just an image of the plot, the mythological, biblical, historical, no matter what. This can be landscape, portrait, still life and this is not important. It is important that there is nothing more than to bring these works can not. Here the quality of the picture depends on the skill of the artist and his ability to draw people, animals, buildings and flowers. From this point of view, Rembrandt, Cranach, Breughel, of course, have no equal. But the idea of something in principle is always the same: the image situation. You can admire prorisovannostyu, skill transfer colors, images, etc., but more then nothing.

The Art of the 20 th century set a lot of new ideas and challenges, in particular the transfer of not only the situation, but also thoughts, emotions, philosophical reflection on human existence, his relationship with the world, the universe and the nature and essence of the universe as a whole. The translation of these ideas have been extremely difficult task, so someone turned out worse, someone better. But to compare the old masters and artists of the 20 th century wrong for many reasons: different personal tastes, different time, different ideas and challenges. For me, Filonov stronger Rembrandt: his work can I study for hours and find in them answers to my questions in person (someone from the forum participants and Shishkin can be much more interesting, he will enjoy the beauty of the landscape, but to me after reading his memoirs and study Filonova his analytical method, many times more interesting to explore the creativity of the latter). In order to understand the art of old masters, in principle, do not have anything to read and know, so everything is crystal clear, and with 20 in the art. The situation is dramatically reversed.

I suggest not to engage in a thankless task and no longer compare the art of 15-16 centuries and art of the 20 century. One opinion we still do not get it. How many people, so many views.

[LCR]

Сообщение от Meister

I am fond of, the arts for over 10 years and when I first started to study it, I was impressed with the classic painting, ranging from old masters and finishing Aivazovsky, Repin, Shishkin Kuindzhi and ...


In order to understand the art of old masters, in principle, do not have anything to read and know, so everything is crystal clear, and with 20 in the art. The situation is dramatically reversed.

What you put in a number of old masters and authors such as Aivazovsky, Shishkin and Kuindzhi, completely refutes your follow-up phrase that does not need anything to read and to know in order to understand the art of old masters

Сообщение от Meister

I do not propose to engage in a thankless task and no longer compare the art of 15-16 centuries and art of the 20 century. One opinion we still do not get it. How many people, so many views.

And here, as an exception, I totally agree with you. It is useless, and it must stop.

[Meister]

Сообщение от LCR

The fact that you put in a number of old masters and authors such as Aivazovsky, Shishkin and Kuindzhi

Liana, you got me wrong. Of course, I do not put them in a row. Old Masters in order steeper. I spoke about classical painting in general. In my ranking of our classics are many, many flown below El Greco, Cranach and Brueghel, so below, that they were not even visible)

[Pavel]

So who are these old-master? This is becoming ridiculous.

[Самвел]

Сообщение от Meister

It is important that there is nothing more than to bring these works can not. Here the quality of the picture depends on the skill of the artist and his ability to draw people, animals, buildings and flowers. From this point of view, Rembrandt, Cranach, Breughel, of course, have no equal. But the idea of something in principle is always the same: the image situation. You can admire prorisovannostyu, skill transfer colors, images, etc., but nothing more then

Here I would agree to the above. I think that the artist should be different, the more it varies, the higher his vision and m e. Such artists as Shishkin, Ayvazavsky, they are too monotonous, and naturally uninteresting.