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?