Art between the provocation, and cynicism

[LCR]

This paper is one of the most influential French critics - Philip Dazhana, who wrote in Le Monde. He has another distinguishing characteristic: it is possible, it is the only art critic in France, which, as I said one galeristka, "love and understand art." I was not going to translate it - the forum is already enough articles critical of certain parts of modern art - but after reading yesterday in the plot Ilona statements of people who refer to Manet, to justify their products, I decided to still put it as just Dazhan affect the subject.

I hope that the lesson regardless of my personal tastes and preferences I can observe a balance between the texts of fans of modern art and its critics


The Art of between provocation and cynicism

Le Monde, 31.10.2008

28-October a series of eleven watercolors by Adolf Hitler, retouched brothers Jake and Daynosom Chapman, two British artists with a satanic reputation and high quotes, were sold at FIAC two hours after the opening of the fair for 815000 euros. These watercolors, created during World War II, depicts the battle, written in the style of newspaper illustrations of the time. In terms of art they do not represent any value. Chapman Brothers added to them, a rainbow, sunset, different color stains. These additives are also deprived of whatever artistic interest.

Читать дальше... 

The interest in something else: the attractiveness of watercolors is the signature of Hitler. Do bear in themselves some sense additive two brothers? No, Chapman had nothing to say about Hitler, except, perhaps, that the use of his pictures is a wonderful medium for the provocation to which they will speak, and consequently, the financial value of their "joint work" will increase.

Chapman - specialists of this case. They became famous in the 90's. By placing mannequins of children, on their faces and bodies which have been implanted in a large number of male and female sex organs. Even then the automatic choice was obvious provocation, the more effective that the objects of her children were. Still bored, and when such work has ceased to attract their novelty, they began to mock-ups of piles of victims of massacres and death camps, and then - to Hitler's watercolors.

So Nazism was replaced obscenity in an argument scandal in the likelihood and profitability of emergency which could not be any doubt. Material form of these works has no significance. It is important to only one thing - that it was as simple as possible to understand. Any allegory, allegorical, the nuances could not weaken the shock hit. Of course, such works may not be the place and formal innovations.

Brothers Chapman promoted Charles Saatchi, a successful London-based promoter, which became a collector, a very influential character on the art market. His main achievement - is the organization in 1979, the exhibition «Sensation» at the London Royal Academy, where he presented 42 artists - among whom vzodili Chapman - whom he brought into fashion under the name «Young British Artists».

The same Saatchi "launched" Demiena Hirst, another worshiper of the principle of "do simple, you sell expensive" and unwavering star of the art market. His "Golden Calf" (oh, how hard to resist not to write "The Golden Calf"!) - Is a real eighteen months the calf, horns and hooves (Wow! Which of the two - Phillip Dazhan or Demien Hurst - a lover of Russian -Soviet literature? Still, probably Dazhan as something I can not believe that Hirst was well aware of literacy, despite its rather grandiose statements in the press, but in general, "the horns and hoofs" he would be in I think the place) were really gilded, and between the horn from him - a disc of this 18-carat gold. Make something more basic is simply impossible. Selling price at Sotheby's: 18 million euros.

Another direct and universal theme - death. Accordingly, Hirst has created «For the Love of God», a human skull, adorned with 8600 diamonds (as a whole was 1,106.18 carats). Actually no more than a ennaya variation on the theme "vanitas", one of the most popular characters in the history of art, no matter what civilization or take. Sale price of this luxury banality: 100 million dollars, that is 76,10 million euros.

In the same segment Hurst offers cow and sheep carcasses, cut into pieces and immersed in formalin killed. Disgust is guaranteed. As paintings, they are to increase the photos of sick cells. Description: "Skin Cancer", "Cancer of the salivary glands. And in case anyone does not understand, Hurst added more razor blades and broken glass. So, as to object to exert effective influence on the viewer, it is necessary to make it as easy as possible to understand, and will be attended by as many as possible of violence - and that's all. This is part of modern art - that part, which they say often, and which is sold dearer. And it is from that you experience some discomfort: not from the amounts paid by investors who possess the necessary means, but from the mediocrities and primitiveness of what they so dearly paid.

Advertising argument

The high cost of art - this is an old European tradition, but it should have been worthy of the name, it was supposed to provide food for the eyes, the heart and mind, and it was Rembrandt, Picasso, Titian and Bacon. However, items whose prices have for some time now reach the dizzy heights, characterized by poverty of ideas, bukvalnostbyu forms and complete absence of novelty. An iron rule for their construction: not only to dream, do everything as much as possible literally! This principle is akin to that prevailing in the world of television and advertising, cultivating a complete disdain for the audience. The report is done to stun its object, the image must be a more effective manner, the plot - how to more primitive - sex, death - or outrageous, shocking - Nazism. The proposed works are the illustrations, which should cause intense emotional impact - the price of these products is directly proportional to this clarity and force of impact.

Once Manet, Cezanne and Matisse, caused a scandal, this is not quite themselves wanting, not because they did not want to like, but because they could not write otherwise, without betraying himself. Duchamp, Dadaists and Surrealists scandal caused intentionally, for them it was one way to protest against the established social order and tradition. Hurst, Chapman brothers, and some dlrugie - Tracy Emin, Cattelan - have provoked his only artistic technique, but the scandal turned into an advertising argument. They did not protest against what, on the contrary, they are very well and enthusiastically use capitalism, flattering billionaires and passing them off as patrons of the arts. They play with the system Mediatization, and the only advantage you'd like for them to admit - this is the perfect and cynical understanding of the situation.

All this fully applies to the Jeff Koons, who is not rampant in the genre smertonosnotsy provocation, and tenderly stupefies style - it increases the toys everywhere, shimmering heart hangs from yarkami bows and shows in Versailles, which he is a great decorator. Such an understanding of artistic activity is not new. In the last third of the 19 th century, it helped put together the official artists themselves considerable fortune - like their successors today, they created the work, impressed the audience by their orgomnymi size, its technical mastery, his complete absence of novelty, all the famous scenes and incredible expensive. Now everyone knows what happened to the suppliers of art for the great of this world at that time: from Jerome, Masson and others like them today were only names.

When one remembers that the court of history, it is somehow easier. But for all those who refuse to take the art branch of luxury and entertainment, comfort is very weak.

[Allena]

How good that even though someone somewhere calls a spade a spade! One is already comforting.

[Aaron]

And you think is different? There is no scandal, no name, it is well known.

[Meister]

Сообщение от Aaron

There is no scandal, no name, it is well known.

but art is definitely not to be developed under this scheme ...

[ottenki_serogo]

In kontemporari coterie popular term - "stupid." Drawn must be stupid. Invented - stupidly. Do dumber.

[nikola]

Сообщение от LCR

"just make you sell expensive" and unwavering star of the art market. His "The Golden Calf»

All that gray, primitive, secondary, surfactant is not immediately clear
aided eye. And this category fits most
created works of traditional (some academic) art.
Blame "Vanity Fair".
Who and where he said that art should bring only the aesthetic
pleasure? The world consists of black and white, beautiful, ugly,
life and death. and so on. and TP. That is what art should do.
Searches of harmony of body and soul.
I have not formed an accurate opinion on the works of Damien Hirst, to
watch creativity.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от nikola

I have not formed an accurate opinion on the works of Damien Hirst, to
watch the creativity.

But they got to the skull, and he more than anyone else, I think ... : D

[nikola]

Sculpture with a skull about the so-called "For the love of God"
Death, which laughs in your face.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

nikola, exactly.
For the Love of God
2007
Platinum, diamonds and human teeth
6 3 /4 x 5 x 7 1 /2 in. (17.1 x 12.7 x 19.1 cm)

[SAH]

Here are reflections on the theme "Modern art." E. Goloubovsky: I think the current avant-garde art casts a fine art in literature. It is all purely literary, philosophical, theatrical. This symbiosis theater and literature. Previously art struggled against literariness ... - Yes, strangely enough ... I have just come to mind an episode of Chaplinsky film. I think it is something that explains in what you said. In Chaplinsky, the movie, as always, the chase. Of course, Chaplin escapes, and police chased after him. In the heat of this mess, he jumps on any rides, spinning in a circle. Naturally, the range makes him frantically run towards traffic circle. Naturally, dazed police also jump on this circle. And so they run for some time. Then Chaplin, to check the balance of power, turns around and sees in horror that the police are about to grab him by the collar. He is ADD, and - on the strange! - A paradoxical situation: the police had already run away, as Chaplin pursues them.
Here is what you just said. The situation is quite paradoxical. That is what was considered a terrible vice, in any case, in a certain environment of good artists, and particularly violate the principles of socialist realism, and so forth, it was suddenly so good! This time. And secondly, what I began to speak. When the exhibition of paintings you suddenly see priknoplennye or glued pieces of typewritten text - to the board or even to something - but I did not feel surprised. Moreover, if it remained a surprise - it is still all right, but has a wild bore. And I afford to bring in this plan is one example. For example, a very famous artist Kabakov. With my light hand we had a slight controversy, instigated by the Union of Artists. It was a question about these very dangerous pirouette, which instigate young artists - of course, very advanced. So I asked them very simple. I will not mention names. I say: "Well, you certainly know this artist, avant-garde artist, who recently in America get some very large prestigious award. I'll call you to two of his works. One gray boards, which usually enlistment any chart hung or relating to the recruitment office attributes to such a board is nailed or, excuse me, prisobachena shovel. And the text: "Who is the shovel?". Left the text with the question, right answer: "Ivan Petrovich such a shovel. Well and other works. The situation - almost the same thing, only instead of shovels circle, but instead the question - again, the question "Who is the mug?" And - "Bertha Moiseyevna circle. So I ask them the question is entirely appropriate. This one of a series won an outstanding artist, very famous, indeed, the world has known. Of course, that two of his works must be very expensive. I will, so to speak, ideally give a million dollars and ask - but the conditions of iron - you should buy only one work of these two. What you take? Simple question. Alas, they all sat in galoshes. Because justify why he would take in one case, a mug, and in another case, a shovel, it is impossible. You understand. Here and there the answer to the question. Because after all, when we define and separate the art from the usual other areas, which is not art, still one of the attributes of this is preference. ))) Full version-EM Goloubovsky conversation with the artist Yuri Yegorov: http://www.slav-nonart.com/articles.php?page=18