Excerpts from the treatise

[Игорь Гурьев]

I immediately thought up here to print a few chapters of the treatise, the report of one of my friend. >
As a book he published, though it was written almost 15 years ago.
Almost entirely been printed in the Israeli newspaper "Vesti" (although my friend > Kopeikin and not a Jew).


Anatoly Kopeikin

dry dock.
Treatise-report

About admiration works of art, or their sponsors

 Striking in some way music lovers and theater-goers. They admire the art.

Generally speaking, you can admire the art, for two reasons. First - you do not know how it's done, and why you admire it. Second - you can not make himself the same way, though, and you know basically how it's done.

After the Russian formalists 20-ies, after Tynianov pretend that you do not know how to make art that is impossible. Even more than that - indecent and shameful. Every well-read man, if he is endowed with at least some creative streak, he knows how to make art, and any art, any of the European nations and all European eras.

Читать дальше... 

You can forgive some of the marginals, who all tell us how delighted they are Chinese or Japanese art. Indeed, even if we are able to understand how it is there they have done, to do so, we can not.

Why admire the art of youth? Because they do not know how it is done and can not do, but want to learn how to do so, or at least understand how it's done.

Over time, this preklonenchesky fervor, fortunately, is, and remains the only motif recognition. What I admire, for example, Cezanne, when I had a couple of decades ago, it takes weeks and months recklessly?

My youth was held just so - in the megalomania of admiration. Admiration, fucking each stroke and stroke Petrov-Vodkin, Matisse, Konchalovsky, Picasso, Kuznetsova, Rouault, Derain and (this is if we take only the great, in my opinion, the artists of the twentieth century, which I list as the list of great Poles, according to their opinion, the poets: Dante, Slovak, Baudelaire, Milos, but I'm not afraid of it because for them, maybe, and poetry, but for me the truth. Or for me poetry, and behind them the truth).

Say, I see a beautiful table, and on it a wonderful service. What am I to admire? And if you admire, how much? how long? No, I just sit down and have dinner at your pleasure. And next, let's play good jazz. Marginal pathetic, a loser and tantrums will proceed immediately to the delight, as he believes that jazz. In fact, he admires the fact what he thin as deliciously he understands jazz. A fool does not realize that if he knew how to make this jazz, it would not they admired. Anyway, while his admiration would not have had a stretch in time, but it would be instantaneous.

Thus, we can speak of two types of admiration. The first type, then, comes from not knowing how it made the product. This type of admiration may be called melodramatic fascination. He extended in time and goes into a bad time infinity, from which not find out. What exactly delighted recipient, he can not express the principle, as his admiration - not instantaneously through current, the time length of which can be ignored, but admired it continually, and he can not get out of it. His standard phrase: you do not understand, but I understand. He says: brilliant! awesome! divine! I'm impressed! The most important thing here - not a work of art, and himself. Because a work of art - just an excuse to satisfy his passions, uncertain, in general, some sort of syncretic.

Of course, we should not take seriously what he says he admire. He can admire the wonderful "pianissimo", "pedal", "expression" and whatever. In any case, if he does not know how this is achieved.

Finical admiration - not unselfishly. Of course, aestheticism fanatic most of their income can keep at stores that sell records, albums, video tapes. His enthusiasm, he wants to fill and infect the world and so to establish themselves in it. And if the world had succumbed to his miserable passion, he, like his imagining, would be important in this world and we all know, an influential person - as well as he understands better than others, many others.

But the world did not fall for a miserable passion. Therefore, inspired fan begins condescendingly refer to all those (and they are the majority) who do not share his enthusiasm or even interest.

From this grim arrogance of professional admirers of art and their so-called snobbery (snobbery, as we know, there is a mask to cover up the inferiority complex).

It's the kind of people whose lives is to worship the greatness of man and their works, but not in the recognition and elucidation, to put it mildly, modest human capabilities, including about creation. They remind outsiders, admiring Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes-600 ", and for the normal person is - well designed combination of iron, light alloys, high-quality plastics and other chemical. elements serving for the purposes of travel and for representational purposes.

The paradox is reinforced by the fact that nearly half of literature devoted to the theme of our limited capabilities, our imperfections, and the impossibility of perfection in earthly affairs. Perfection is achieved only very relative, and it is determined primarily by the capabilities of materials engineering: the same "Porsche" is made of iron, and iron is iron, it gets old, tired and rust.

But we have mentioned above and the other type of admiration - of admiration, when one sees how to do, but can not himself do the same. Admiration we call it in advance, to better understand the business and our point of view.

Now, let's say that on closer examination this thing should be called by another name - or at least not by what we have used. That is, if and admiration, it is not eksteriorizirovannym and interiorized, does not the centrifugal and centripetal, that is not vented into the world with behavior and sob, and other manifestations, and instantly goes from work to the heart, directly and immediately.

We must first declare that the "internal" admiration completely disinterested and based more on idle curiosity and general benevolence, than some all-consuming passion and devotion.

This feeling of joy for the other, because he had something that does not make you. It's pleasant, sometimes relieving feeling: here, the case has already been done, and it saves me from having to do the same.

It's like a good football team: everyone is happy that scored a goal, although it scored someone one. Rada and the goal, and the man who scored it, and themselves, that it provided a goal, and generally throughout the world.

It's like Fellini, looking to "James Bond" - he understands how it's done, understands that he do the same can not, and realizes that is not worth it.

It's like Boris Barnet looking film by Jean Vigo, like Kubrick, Fellini's looking like Gogol, Pushkin's reading as Matisse, Cezanne, considering.

In addition to the undoubted pleasure, this process inevitably leads to a clear understanding: the best place in the art works are made not by the author, and by the author! Quiet enthusiasm and constructive meeting is just a mystery, how this or that was granted to the author so open themselves to some higher power that they typed into his work all the living and incorruptible, and that we have now opened.

 

To create or think

The artist brush should be ahead of thought. First he has to do - and only then think about it. That he can predict his work, even in the short film? Not only that. To some extent, the artist reminds commanders that any new war begin as if it were the last. They finish it by different rules, which come as a result of trial and searches.

And an artist. Something that he came at the end of the previous film, or rather, what he understood from the previous picture, looking at her already at the end, he has been deliberately used in the subsequent - not on a whim, but deliberately.

Such a concept seems to me logically impeccable. Indeed. If every picture to start and finish without a name referring to the previous (or earlier), we obtain, as the artist Mondrian, a sister painting, paintings, no path, and without quality. About the same as in Kandinsky - also art without qualities, only slightly more complicated. And where there is no quality, there are professional critics, molders of public opinion can do as they please. For example, they can be declared as a complete nonentity, and vice versa - to declare "total quality" pictures of an artist.

The artist can not think, when he wrote the canvas, otherwise the canvas will be far-fetched. You can not dance, at first thought, as you set foot, and then her putting.

He must, as a director to watch, as the brush goes, and sometimes change the nature of touch: from fast to slow, with an extended stroke at the point with a pasty on lessirovochny - ie, take a kind of directorial decisions. That is to act like a salmon, swimming against the tide: sometimes the tail light quickly, sometimes just jump, sometimes diving deep, etc. Element dictates the rules the artist.

The ban on Thinking in the creative process - certainly not an absolute prohibition. A ban on all kinds of thinking, but the actual art, that is, for all kinds of conceptual thinking, all ideas, and so on.

But this ban and the Dome of the spectator, how he will perceive it. This ban on the Dome of criticism and even of something extraneous to art.

Misfortune of modernism that was and that all modernists first thought (and this is important!), They will be perceived by the spectators in the galleries, critics in newspapers, collectors, etc.

Thus, artistic thinking substituted philistine thinking, artistic calculation - managerial calculation. Painter connected himself with the audience without the audience did not exist. Without looking at the viewer, he suffered because of public recognition - an essential part of the modernist worldview. It is clear that such a reflection of the vicious: the artist has to do not with the audience, but to create as an artist, and only then can show itself to the viewer. Maybe even the desire to fulfill the audience, but to fulfill one, but not with the audience.

The same bad luck was also in social realism. Painting was to carry a certain amount of propaganda material, without a picture is not appreciated. Hence, the artist always had to think how to solve the two divergent problem - his art and service ideology. Sometimes they came to some kind of compromise, but always, even great artists who performed an order of the Communist Party of paintings betrays a certain strained, unnatural, and even false. At best, it minimize fraud, according to Michael Sablin, sincere falshivinka "that is, representation on public display its not entirely clear conscience.

But we digress. What the artist saw in his previous film, he boldly as obvious, are included in subsequent, more precisely, starting from this follow-up. He starts it with those more or less obvious for him and finds things that are raped in the previous picture. But the subsequent picture can not be done exactly as the previous one, though, because as time passed, circumstances have changed, light, weather, position of the moon and the mental condition of the artist.

And at a certain time of writing, followed by pictures of the artist discovers that previous findings have been exhausted. Then he activates a dialogue with nature, draws its intention to it - and waits for nature to bestow. And that nature, which is in front of him, and his own nature. Can bestow upon them both.

When you look at some pictures so striking performance strained, unnatural performance is not a consequence of some "unnatural" nature. So artists have to ask the question: what do you actually write the pictures? Whether its for fun or to prove to myself and to others that you can write something? And if the latter, then it not better to stop this suffering and do something else?

[Fed]

Сообщение от Guriev , Igor ; 1620771 "

a book he published ,

It is not surprising that a book was not published . Subjective judgments , disputed the argument , even without an attempt to bind to objectivity . As an article in the magazine under the croissant with coffee properly . Closed and went to chew on .
I wonder what kind of work with him? The manner of the artist , the presentation is not. Share .

[Us-tin]

About reading ...


"A fool considered now:

Purple bull licking walrus.

Fool ducked did mine

And he began: "Painting is fresh ...

The idea is too symbolic,

But styled decently. "

(The poor man hid hardest,

What he did not understand anything). "


Sasha Cherny

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Fed

subjective judgments, disputed the argument, even without an attempt to bind to objectivity.

I know that in his youth he had a long and painful path of care from the "objective and uncontested judgments with reference to objectivity."

[artcol]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

I know that he had a long and painful path of escape from the objective and uncontested judgments with reference to objectivity.

Graphomaniac?

The artist brush should be ahead of thought

[tchaika]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

a few chapters of the treatise

Verbiage.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от artcol

graphomaniac?

Tochnyak.
>

.......

[artcol]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Tochnyak.
>

.......

Such a good graphomaniac and theme chosen - good: writing - not to rewrite >

[Игорь Гурьев]

continue vykladalvo elected heads of the treatise friend Kopeikin.

smart or stupid

Limitless genius, and genius limited

Every thinker has strengths of his thinking is weak. Infinite (or present) genius is not afraid to show the reader their weaknesses, or at least hint that they are. This gives it the quality and accessibility of humanity, or something.

Limited genius, of course, has a certain power of thought, and may reveal to the reader her extraordinary izvoroty. But limited genius avoids showing the reader their weaknesses - the reason being that he does not want to see them. He thinks that if he had them utait, then readers (viewers) do not guess.
 
Do artists strengths and weaknesses on their part expressed in systems of hard and soft brush strokes. If you make a picture of some of dry, hard, intense, vigorous strokes, it will monotonous (though, in the opinion of many, much). So did Michelangelo, Tiepolo, Corinne. Therefore, even though they are geniuses in painting, but limited genius. True, limitless genius in painting - who combined hard smear with a soft spreads, as if helpless. To those owned by Titian, Velazquez, Guardi, Borisov-Musatov, Munk, Derain and others.

A true genius - a man who is completely involved in the present and can adequately convey all the peculiarities of contemporary man, his strangeness, his habits, his interests, his mind and even his nonsense. But if the average person is afraid to admit what a fool he, for genius is no such problem. He does not care who to be now: a fool or wise.

Here come two people and see one problem. They began to deal with it. Ordinary people decided, decided, all confused, and the quarrel, gone.

A genius way to behave is not. First, he had no reason to lose balance. Then - he does not want to be a priori the most intelligent, or just very clever. He pre-prepared to recognize as valid, and weakness. In a difficult case, he readily admits that his mind will not allow him to solve this problem. If one is asked, not because there is that he is a fool, he ruled, and this will not happen. Genius at some point may well pass for a fool, even a fool can be as simple as people in general can also be such in a significant number of cases of this is being a fool intrusive. But a genius, even in those moments when he is stupid, will not be annoying fool, his folly - it is a temporary lack of intelligence due to the circumstances and the imperfections of human nature as such. Over the same or less permanent fool just intrusive, in the words of General Lebed, "a fool - is not the absence of mind, a mind so."

On the other hand, it is logical to assume that a genius - more intelligent than the fool. But the question arises: is the smartest? We are somewhere, we consider several examples of what a genius - and see at once that they were not smart at all times. Consequently, in the other hours of his life they were fools. Do they have done everything to their stupidity does not become public domain? Often, nothing to do do, quite the contrary - nenazoylivo announced to the world how stupid they acted. And the world is to learn from their stupidity. But it is not simple stupidity, as understood in terms of umnosti.

Smart is different from a fool not because it does not commit stupidities, and the fact that, having made them easy to recognize them and not insist that it was the right decision or the only smart, or the only possible solution. Fool is bound to insist on its right, explaining that can not do otherwise (in the development of his version of events and circumstances). Add that to the genius problem right - not the most important, insist on it in whatever he felt like something not from the hand.

Therefore, an intelligent man (a type of genius) - is correct, timely and harmonious alternation of states of mind and stupidity. At the same time and under some circumstances, be smart, and in others not afford to be clever. And sometimes combine intelligence and stupidity in some kind of a cunning combination - so humor born.

"Tired of being clever", - said Kalyagin in the movie "Slave of Love."

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от tchaika

verbiage.

There are other opinions about this treatise.

Foreword by Viktor Suvorov

Love for philosophy has been to me in my youth pereshiblena lectures on Marxist-Leninist philosophy. I thought this thing out of love with me forever, until he met Anatoly Kopeikin and have not read his treatise. After reading a treatise Kopeikin, I'm sorry that I lost years of not being interested in philosophy.

At first glance, the treatise is a work of art history. But it is not. It covers many aspects of life. Any person who considers himself a creative, in my opinion, must read philosophical work by Anatoly Kopeikin. At the same time does not necessarily agree with the author, he himself does not count on it. But even those who all agree with Kopeikin, must also read the treatise.

Kopeikin apologizes for nothing frivolous tone. I think the most important thing for any text written on paper - it should be interesting. The most powerful idea expressed no interest, until people do not get it. No matter what we wrote: instructions for use of a refrigerator, a guide for astronaut or a treatise - it should be interesting.

Kopeikin, this thing rides, understood, and all of its non-trivial ideas presented extremely interesting, effectively and with humor. I personally love the people who speak and write simple Russian language and humor. Kopeikin says that if a person has a sense of humor, he is more intelligent than the fool - and vice versa. The very thought is enough to consider him an outstanding work of the treatise.

Another thought Kopeikin, which is very close to me: better to pretend to be a fool, than pretend to be smart. No one stupid person does not work under a fool, and, conversely, a man, sure enough in itself, can be fooled. And who is notorious, he will never play the fool will not.

I sometimes wonder why my books so good buy? And I think that's because I write them not in the abstract the reader, and mentally see the front of the soldiers is not even his company and his platoon (23 people), when I told them, for example, explaining the device RPG-7V. During the lecture the soldiers know what they think - and it had to overcome it and get to listen to what I say. For this we need to expound things interesting. With humor and jokes. The most simple Russian words.

I'm sorry that I did not Kopeikin wrote many books: that the reader holds in his hands - this is his first book. Reader, you read a great book. And I wait for new ones.

Viktor Suvorov

August 20, 2003


Who is Kopeikin and what is his treatise report

 

Kopeikin (Anatoly Alexandrovich, born in 1957), it is sometimes Koropkin and Korochkin (Korochkin - is transparent pseudonym under which he sometimes published in the "Russian idea", and Koropkin - name the main character of his stories and humorous anecdotes, which were printed there As for the latter months of 2002, alter ego of the author) - a native village Tretyakovo Klin district, Moscow region, education and vocation of art. In the "RM" worked typesetter, he wrote himself, and practically acted as the editor, especially in its last heroic period (2001-2002), when the newspaper is considered closed, but got laid off by the volunteers when she did not have facilities and all training facilities went on homes, via email.

In the corridor edition we met in 1983 - it led me Kublanovsky and said: "Get to know this young poet ... - I shuddered inwardly (another "young poet"), - Anatoly ... Kopeikin. I sighed with relief: Kopeikin poems I had already printed in the "Continent", and could not flinch. They were quite amusing, but not about poetry now we are, the more so that more Kopeikin poems not printed on my memory composed only some stanzas to the case. Although not guarantee that somewhere in his notebooks do not lie, reserved for future stock poetic production.

And since we are friends - for twenty years, though, truth to tell, my eldest son, the artist probably thinks that Kopeikin - most notably his friend, and my really so, for the company. Once Kopeikin - a friend of mine, think you mean the preface to biased in favor of the author. Will be, but not why (friendship did not prevent me from dog Kopeikin for editorial matters and generally to look at him, as they say, without partiality), but because the more I read the treatise - or, if you author a treatise, a report - the more I liked it.

I have read this treatise in the process, when he was still not called - and a treatise treatise - and then again when he was called "hard sign", and now, under a new heading of "dry dock". What is a dry dock, everyone knows: there put the court on the repairs and, more importantly, on a full scan. So checks and when necessary, and repairs Kopeikin own and others' hypotheses, beliefs and prejudices. But of course there is this headline and overt hint. Doc - what was the treatise to the final transformation into a printed work, and generally something with which all of us every day work.

One of the friends to whom the treatise is dedicated, once, even as we go along, asked: "Why do you write a diary and his treatise callin '?" I know this from Kopeikin, but he answered and said, if at all, and I do not know. Did not even ask: The answer, in my opinion, has already been concluded in the matter. Because it is written diary - and the result is a treatise, a relatively slim design, but not in a ticker and a warrant derived. See the index date: Hlávka treatise published in the chronological order in writing, the diary was not given as a sacrifice harmony of design. Immediacy the thought just came to your mind or, perhaps, with the student youth started to think about, clinging to the immediacy of the same preceding or subsequent - and you can not split artful dykes and dams the flow of thoughts of one man, leading his diary-tract. If the term had not been so compromised, you could say "stream of consciousness. But under a stream of consciousness usually understand the flow of the unconscious - conscious mind here than the flow and adjust. Sudden, seemingly transferring from one theme to it at all does not seem to close in the next head office, repeated returns to some (and some other complete oblivion: once said - and that's enough) - that's rapids and rods that thread.

I will not either quote or to express that and what the author writes "dry dock". If you're reading this preface - so it must keep a book in my hands and read it yourself. If you have it in my hands did not take - you can not read and this brief foreword.

Wishing you a fascinating, though not always easy, and sometimes just annoying at first (that is spurring your own idea, "my head") reader remains deeply respect you, potential readers,

 

Natalia Gorbanevskaya