Photo: Exhibition of nominees "Kandinsky Prize-2008"

[Wladzislaw]

Earlier in Europe did not give to read the Bible to ordinary people, the changes occurred later and was treated everyone as he wanted. And still later, at a certain reason, decided that everyone needs to teach philosophy, so some of the course for two, from the ancient Indian to Heidegger ... Here and read the interview ...

[MambaLeyla]

It need a few good photos from the opening of the exhibition for the photo report in the media
I would be grateful for your help

And maybe someone will be able to do at the weekend photos hung works?

[Сергеич]

You easier to organizers, the PR service request, they are the most interested party, must quickly send.

[Евгений]

The victory of Alexey Belyaev-Gintovt Kandinsky Prize in the category "Project of the Year" inflamed the situation in the art community to such an extent that yesterday's friends and colleagues began to threaten each other with death. Perturbation community called not the product of Belyaev-Gintovt, and his "party affiliation": the artist is the stylist of the Eurasian movement.

Liberals and dissent
The label "fascist" - this sentence. It is like leprosy in the Middle Ages and out nostrils convict in the XVIII century. Call the man a fascist - the same thing as to call him crazy, or gay, or tell about a woman that her climax. This stamp, which "explains everything" and not subject to discussion, generally does not involve the discussion: - "He is crazy, why take from him!" ... Accordingly, no discussion and no, but were only allegations.

Meanwhile, before the issuance of the final award Belyaev-Gintovt did not call anybody these negative emotions. All were well informed about his views, and he proudly showed the public their work, praising the aesthetic beauty of force and power of beauty. All this without any emotion was taken by the public and critics perceived as an innocent postmodernist game. A year ago, Andrei Erofeev showed work at the exhibition Belyaeva Sots Art in Paris. Six months ago, Anatoly Osmolovsky called him a follower of Hirst and K ° (see "ArtChronika» № 7-8, 2008). And two months before the ceremony the same Andrei Erofeev in the second round prize Kandinsky (jury chose the long list - of the exhibition) gave him 9 (nine) points out of 10 possible ... But when it came to selecting short-list, there was a scandal with accusations the "fascism". What happened? And why he became the object of criticism?

Читать дальше... 

The defendant
The artist had several Belyaeva sources of inspiration: New Academy of Timur Novikov, the totalitarian aesthetics epic Lenny Riffenshtal, Rodchenko and mosaic panels of the Moscow metro, imperial heroism of ancient Rome, psychedelic practice 1990. In general, Belyaev-Gintovt was a typical decadent and dandy. When Novikov from the philosopher turned into a purely natives in the blouse, and an ax in his hand, which threatened the pages of the newspaper "artistic will" every Kulik and Osmolovsky, Belyaev-Gintovt not hesitate to support the general line of his teacher. Timur Novikov mocked modern art with such a serious countenance, that some began to call him a fascist. But if in the 1990's traditionalism and radical statement about returning to the roots were opposed to political and cultural mainstream and quite fit in with the avant-garde rebellion, but today in the context of the new state doctrine of traditionalism, has lost to Timur inherent irony and detachment, it seems scary.

On the one hand, Belyaev-Gintovt is developing a grand style, which is well within the new doctrine of a strong state - a successor sovetskoimperskih and simultaneously pre-revolutionary political principles and traditions. But in terms of the current artistic mainstream it - the margin. He remained in panesteticheskih 1990. "Style Stalin" in gold (although, perhaps, gintovskoe gold - it is an alchemical element, the symbol of the Scythian kingdom and Orthodox golden domes?) - A purely postmodern combination.
Imperial trend

Exhibition of award nominees Kandinsky showed that the main trend in contemporary Russian art has become a reflection about the Soviet past or present Russia with its imperial sentiments. The same theme, but in a less linear form of lead and in the last prize: Vladislav Mamyshev-Monroe with a parody version of the film "Volga-Volga" and Anatoly Osmolovskii in the series "Bread", in fact, working with the same archetypes and themes that and current winner, but they did it, perhaps more ironic, more modernistichno in form and content.

This year, the imperial theme manifested in the "militant earth and the heavenly host" Orlova, "Throne" Shekhovtsova, political fashion Dmitry Tsvetkov, and even in the works of Dmitri Gutova, which sounds kabakovskaya theme of loneliness a little man in a totalitarian world. Paintings and Objects "young artist of the year" Diana Machulina were completely focused on political, as well as project the winners in the category "Media art" of GHGs.

Question: Why in such a rich selection of the jury chose to just decorative art Belyaeva-Gintovt?

Why the jury chose him?
Voting 4 to 3 (six-member jury, plus one vote in Board of Trustees). For Belyaeva-Gintovt made Catherine Bobrinskaya, Alexander Borovsky, Valerie Hillings and Friedhelm Hütten. Andrei Erofeev, Jean-Hubert Martin and the Board of Trustees voted for Boris Orlov.

Raise several versions of the alignment of the votes. The first - the jury made a mistake, as foreign experts do not know the local Russian contexts, and the words "Brothers and Sisters" took in vudstokskom sense. Not believable.

Or: the choice was the result of lobbying. Lobbying - in principle, common in all sorts of jury practice. In this case, if it was then possible by Andrei Erofeev, who published his negative opinion about the winner before the final vote, but lost as a result of lobbying battle.

This is another version: the jury has decided, under pressure from the art-community. Such pressure, and with it political argument, indeed it was, that the jury confirmed. However, the jury took a tough stance. However, all four voted for the Beliaev-Gintovt (two foreigners, art historian and museum director in fact, especially St. Petersburg), regardless of Moscow's art community, and therefore could hardly take his bidding.

It and many other versions. On his decision to let him speak jury. Judging by the reaction of the public art, the jury was far more visionary than it seemed. If we assume that one of the tasks of modern art - the picking in the public mind, to work with public fears and complexes, someone who is, and Belyaev-Gintovt just represents one of the main fears of a liberal society - a return to totalitarianism, and the dream of a new empire.

Thus the jury, and after him and the art community updated the previously marginalized artist.

   War and mir
Last year, a reaction to the winner's prize Kandinsky - Anatoly Osmolovsky - was exactly the opposite of the current: news about the winner had to cheer. The jury last year was almost the same as this year. The question arises: why in the past year art community to recognize the jury's decision, and in this - no? Why, then trust the credibility of the jury, and now - no? Maybe that's not the jury, and in the art community, which creates a "enemy image"? Incidentally, if so, it is curious why the liberal critics as fiercely fought not with the organization "People's Cathedral", which had filed the prosecutor's office demanding to be judged by contemporary artists under the Criminal Code?

At the same time, this situation has revealed yet another dangerous symptom. For the first time in the history of modern Russian art and artistic community judged one of its members for its views, dissent. Moreover, the methods are so ugly that they discredit themselves charged. If you follow the logic of the question, could the "ultra-natives" to win the prize Kandinsky, immediately raises the question whether the "Communist" to win the prize Kandinsky? Such as Dmitry Gutov with his painting "Look at the eyes of the bourgeoisie Lenin. Shout "Fascists!" From the mouth Osmolovsky also contradicts his public statements that the artist should be judged by aesthetic laws, and citizen in civilian areas. Then - whether zoophyte, gay, a devout Muslim, Orthodox activist, a crypto-flagellant get my prize? Everyone knows that means pull a quote out of context and oust him from the art of artistic component. It would seem that the group PG, depicting Chinese march on Red Square, calls for the occupation of Russia. A "Blue Noses" in "Kissing Policemen" promoting homosexuality. And the exhibition, which shows the Trotskyist and Stalinist art, violates the moral hygiene of the democratic public.

How to judge the artists - for purely political views? Generally not work with taboo topics? And this religion, power, sex. All deal with abstraction - that is the only correct way, will not hurt anyone! It turned out that the team pay for the right and left, which strongly convey a certain criticism, became a bone of contention. And to judge the artist's best yet for artistic merit. A citizen - the laws of the Constitution.

Passion, whipped around Belyaeva-Gintovt, were the result of displacement of the political public sphere. Now the destiny of art, literature and other areas of culture - a simulation policy.
http://artchronika.ru/item.asp?id=123

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Andrei Erofeev, a member of the jury by Kandinsky:
«The present Russianness is embodied in this disgrace»

Q: How did you win Belyaeva-Gintovt?
A: The far-right extras jubilant. Prokhanov clink with Dugin. World of contemporary art is shocked and dismayed. Breakthrough "fascist" in the final stage of the competition literally condemned all famous faces of our artistic circle. In my mind this community consensus of critics and artists shown for the first time. "No pasaran! "- As would have said Dmitry Prigov. Alexander Panov put at stake his career: "Wins Belyaev - go. It did not help. Perhaps the members of the jury award Kandinsky something misunderstood?

Читать дальше... 

I bet they all understood and heard everything. All seven - three of those that voted for Orlova, and those four who chose Belyaeva, - act in their right mind and good memory. In the jury there was a time to discuss the situation. Behind the wall is already assembled and waiting for the audience, everything was ready for the ceremony, but the founder delayed the opening of the show, deliberately giving the jury a half hour to full-time discussion. A debate has not happened. Frenchman Jean-Hubert Martin began the discussion. He gently asked "not to push. Founder delicately withdrew. Other Russian month ago ran out of arguments, their warm affection or distaste for the scandalous nominee repeatedly exceeded the power of words. Only two - a German and an American - had firmly harvested opinion. They decided on the spot, while defiantly does not want to listen and speak. We sat and exchanged empty replicas, as in the queue to the dentist. But it knew that the solution depends on their choice of prizes. Why are these two recognized foreign curator voted Belyaeva? There's little doubt - they are experienced and prudent professional, do not make any hasty moves at random, and, of course, incorruptible and not subject to lobbying pressures. Those who know Russian art. I think that in this option (I would like to even say - call) a German and an American home is hidden intrigue Prize this year, and manifested a new attitude toward us and our art existing in the civilized world. I repeat - their choice was dumb, dumb. So I can build only on the assumption that the real motives and I beg your pardon, Valerie and Friedhelm, if I do not guess their way of thinking. So, I took the meaning of their messages read: "You, gentlemen, good, in Russia today - nobody. Losers. You are not representative of the spirit and character of this country. A Belyaev just reprezentativen. In Russia you do not understand, but through Belyaeva very even all becomes clear. This is a great, visual symptom. Yes, it is disgusting, from his sick revenge statements, from the paintings is the gold interior, this is a sweet-sour retrospective kitsch, it manifests resemble Fascist leaflets, his friends, mentors generally terrible people. But this is the new Russia. " - "How did you get that idea? - Would ask me, they want me pootkrovennichat. - And in general, that the policy of double standards? At home in Germany and the U.S. for anything would I bet this is not supported. - "Did not you yourself, Russian, taught us to think that better and brighter you seen the worst, lowest, and terrible, but to their very high and sophisticated offering to treat with suspicion and alienation?"

Indeed, several decades we have pillars in the minds of foreigners the idea that the modern (international understanding) Art in Russia - an exotic flower, which is included from outside and weakly bound to the local soil. It was born here and played like any citrus in greenhouses at Norilsk. Introduced the open air, and all - died. And now flesh and blood of local and public art employs powerful illustration of the political discourse. When the direct order, and when and on a whim. It is rustic, pryamolineynoplakatno, durnovkusno and mediocre form. However, it concealed the real vanguard of energy that can change the nature, civilization and man himself. Raise the achievement and ceremoniously lowered into the grave. Who is not only admired Stalinism! Komar and Melamid, Groys, TAR, Misiano and followed by most of the leading domestic critics and nonconformists. Yes, in the Soviet "underground" nests scattered single, yes, worked in exile, hundreds of Russian artists, but the real language of Russia's society in the Soviet period was Socialist Realism. Incidentally, this idea met with resistance. But it is called selling.

Another contribution of conceptualism in the history of Russia's art has become a description of social realism, by analogy with the artistic languages of primitive society. That is, as a form of communication of beliefs, rites and customs of savages. Not so important "plastic values" of such art, its innovativeness, personal view of the world, individual style, how typical, generic features, which it in itself accumulates. Picasso, the Surrealists, Levi-Strauss valued "wild" art of not less than modernism, and this passion laid the foundation of many collections and museums in the modern world. Museums' social realism does not exist. None snob with perverted tastes not occurred to savor the aesthetic features of this art. It is widely perceived as the ugliness and squalor. As an exemplary example of ugliness. But an increasing number of people in the civilized world, not only specialists are inclined to equate this disgrace to the concept of Russia ". Dostoevsky, Kandinsky - it was once. And the present Russianness, the current national identity of society, formatted the Soviet system, embodied in this disgrace. As the Germans - a concentration camp, so we - the horrors of socialist realism. And how much Germany would neither repent nor tried to convince the world in its transformation, with her forever label Auschwitz. Approximately the same is obtained now and in Russia with socialist realism. Therefore, our colleagues from the jury remained silent, smiled politely, looking at Gutova, Vrubel or Markovnikov. They say all good, but not necessarily, not typical, is not recognizable. But Belyaev - Wow! Present. Russian. Stalinist.

http://artchronika.ru/item.asp?id=153

[IrinaC]

article published yesterday in the Art Newspaper, by John Varoli


"Modernists pushing Russia into a hellish darkness"

December 8 Belyaev-Gintovt izvsten was only a small circle of people close to modern art
But for one night the artist became known for the masses, to the fore. "Before I visited the site several hundred people a day, now receives thousands"
The journalist was invited by the artist in his three-room apartment in a working-class district of Moscow. (in my view a further description of this branchy cranberries for foreign journalists-IC)
The wall of one room is decorated with print 19 th century "Napoleon at Waterloo" and the slogan: "Workers of all countries merged. Bust of Lenin on the shelf. Simple furniture and an Iranian chair the 18 th century, of which the artist says: "My Eurasian throne" a video film was Stalin takes the parade of athletes in 1937
"Look at these faces. I want to make a parade of the Eurasian and the future in its 15 large-scale works reflect the aesthetics of the Stalinist period."

Belyaev-Gintovt not hide his sympathy for the Stalinist period, but feels insecure when it comes to criticism of the dictator. "Members of my family were in the NKVD and the gulag"

"My style combines the time and place, to grant the Eurasian ideals. Art in Russia has always been part of society. And I'm epicenter perestroichnogo movement

Belyaev-Gintovt said that contemporary art in Russia in the hands of "totalitarian sects" and the modernists pushing Russia into a hellish darkness

"The controversy about my art is a classic dispute between the painters and iconoclasts. They want to destroy the holy images, and I want to glorify them. There is a big battle for Russia's future, my prize Kandinskogo showed that my opponents have lost their primary battle"

To date, the primary task of the artist considers the promotion of its Eurasian ideas. But on the merits of these ideas are giving way Russia from the West to East, seeking to revive the Empire
It is also the artist remarked that in his art, he deliberately jeering and provokes its critics and detractors ultra.
After such a declaration is the question, whatever the artist says about ideology, it is serious or tricks of the trade

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от Ilona

47-50. More projects, the names and authors of which I have not recorded (excuse).
Miniatures

White children's images on the top is a project of Oleg Duryagina (DOU) "TOY STORY" and this is a good job that falls on the honest and subtlety of execution of the rest ...

[K-Maler]

Yes, Gregory Yushchenko managed properly "qualify" is what we all seen enough, the author must be congratulated on the creative good luck ... very difficult to adequately carry out this theme, the intonation is good ...

[Pavel]

Сообщение от artcol

But in fact - he was the first artist-to-date. Before him, as I understand it, there was no one - all worked fine in the genre, the traditional discourse.

As it was not? And the surrealists and Picasso. Duchamp original artist, and these wealthy boys brainchild of the Ministry of Culture, to understand how the curators of contemporary art. In general, what is common uetoy exhibitions and Kandinsky. Kandinsky is the mathematics of color, the desire for a bright painting. Abstraction from Kandinsky is striving for the emancipation of color spots, and it's just illustration of the political order.
For comparison Rauschenberg exhibition in the same halls. There flight, a revelation, a talent, and now a miserable dullness and preoccupation with politics. Appeal to the policy is always a sign of mediocrity.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 5 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Eugene

Cyril Syzransky, were certainly more worthy artists ... With him is unclear, he or sympathizer kommunyakom (then a full gov ..), or the Orthodox (is better).
Not like it when an artist very busy with politics.

The first Communists are Christians. The municipality is a community, as is well known Russian peasants-freemen and this idea of mutual assistance.

[color="# 666686"]Posted by 21 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Wladzislaw

used in Europe did not give to read the Bible to ordinary people, the changes occurred later and was treated everyone as he wanted. And still later, at a certain reason, decided that everyone needs to teach philosophy, so some of the course for two, from the ancient Indian to Heidegger ... Here and read the interview ...

Sorry, Vlad, the Bible, and now the Catholics of Latin and when she was transferred to French and other languages that proved that this book is full of silly-Jewish national epic, so the first critics and atheists were Jesuit monks.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Eugene

best young artist of the jury chose Diana Machulin, author of" Work ".

Open letter to the Ministry of Culture.