9 Answers

  1. Pain-shin-stvu. Let's talk about the majority.

    How many people come home from work and spend two hours looking at scans of illuminated manuscripts? How many people out of a hundred can tell the difference between an Older Cranach and a Younger One, especially from the work of students, or a clumsy fake of the 1590s?

    How many people spend the same amount of time in the halls of China, India or Mesoamerica as Aivazovsky? I'm not even talking about African art, which is not given enough attention even in the specialized literature — but if you limit yourself to the internationally recognized millennial traditions, you personally, dear reader, can put two random anonymous Chinese landscapes side by side, and determine which one is written according to the canon and which is not?

    Finally, who has at home a complete album of any of our favorite Russian paintings-Repin or Surikov or Levitan-and who can say that he knows in detail not two or three of their most famous works,but their entire collection?

    The answer is that most people don't know painting at all. No history, no styles, no biographies, nothing. People know a certain number of works by sight, and only because once individual collectors decided to make their collections open to the public.

    The reason most people don't know painting is because most people don't watch it for fun, don't spend time with it.

    Art — any art-is liked by a minority.

    Art communities in social networks only sometimes exceed one hundred thousand members; jokes/humor communities gain more than ten million (a ratio of one to one hundred). According to opinion polls, more than half of people in Russia have never been to a theater, conservatory, or museum in their entire life.

    And the reason why people still quite often argue about art or like someone who somehow ended up in the Da Vinci tape is only because for many art serves as a marker of belonging to a relatively high culture that was never made for them, and about which they know nothing.

    This is the same syndrome of a believer who has not read the Bible. Only without eternal life.

    So here it is. From the point of view of the majority, all artists are overrated. Cranach didn't deserve his hall any more than Repin, or Malevich, or Xia Gui, or an anonymous Aztec sculptor.

  2. The question is not very correct. For example, for some reason everyone loves Da Vinci, although few people have seen him live, and if they have seen him, they can hardly explain his differences from Botticelli. Some people don't understand why Van Gogh's paintings are more expensive than Aivazovsky's. There are also those who are willing to pay serious money for the work of Nikos Safronov. Nikita Khrushchev called faggots artists whose things are now sold for impressive sums. It has always been so, and it will always be so.

  3. You don't always have to like art! That's not what art is made for. Art should evoke emotions, inspire thoughts. Art isn't just pretty pictures, dig deeper. If you don't like the picture , ask yourself: why ? Don't you like the technique ? Colors ? Or do you not like what exactly is depicted ? Or maybe you don't like the fact that it is not clear to you and there is no simple meaning on the surface?
    Now many people say that modern art is meaningless, but for example, think of Van Gogh. His contemporaries did not like him either. Just because they didn't understand his paintings.

  4. I never speak for others. For me, art is everything that evokes reciprocal feelings, creates associations, and brings food for thought. These feelings are not always pleasant and positive… Art is multi-faceted and of course primary… It predates technology, politics, and even cooking, and is our tuning fork of intelligence. Someone likes Shishkin, someone Malevich, the main thing is a review and do not need to call someone “faggots” if this manner or “construction” of the work does not fit into your brain volume. Most people will always like “pop music”, so it was and so it will always be. The question is why?

    I think it's a question of education… Our state does not think about such “nonsense” as changing the perception of art at the stage of human development, and if this happens somewhere, either formally or dogmatically: in poetry Pushkin, in ballet Plisetskaya, in painting Repin. No, no, I have nothing against “classicism”, but it is getting out of the frame that will allow people to better understand the versatility of art.And then the “minority” will become more numerous, and the “majority” will become more thoughtful…

  5. I never speak for others. For me, art is everything that evokes reciprocal feelings, creates associations, and brings food for thought. These feelings are not always pleasant and positive… Art is multi-faceted and of course primary… It predates technology, politics, and even cooking, and is our tuning fork of intelligence. Someone likes Shishkin, someone Malevich, the main thing is a review and do not need to call someone “faggots” if this manner or “construction” of the work does not fit into your brain volume. Most people will always like “pop music”, so it was and so it will always be. The question is why?

    I think it's a question of education… Our state does not think about such “nonsense” as changing the perception of art at the stage of human development, and if this happens somewhere, either formally or dogmatically: in poetry Pushkin, in ballet Plisetskaya, in painting Repin. No, no, I have nothing against “classicism”, but it is getting out of the frame that will allow people to better understand the versatility of art.And then the “minority” will become more numerous, and the “majority” will become more thoughtful…

  6. This is an interesting question, because it raises the topic of how to understand art and how art communicates with the observer. And, of course, more globally-what is art? For example, the person who answered the above anecdote about the “Black Square” makes a neophyte mistake. He does not understand what the “Square” is, why it was drawn, how Malevich went about it, what kind of exhibition “0,10” was, why the square was exhibited in this way.

    In fact, art is not about beautiful/not beautiful, not about like/dislike. But, in general, about the old-fashioned “what the artist wanted to say”. To begin to understand art, I would recommend you a couple of entertaining educational programs from Arzamas:

    The fastest history of Russian art

    Cycle “The Art of seeing”

    Russian Avant-Garde Course

    Going back to your question, you're still mixing up multiple questions: the cost of art at auctions; likes/dislikes; most. I note that many works that are considered classics today were not accepted en masse by contemporaries. And the price of a work of art is not an objective assessment of the significance of the work. Did you know that the myth of “La Gioconda”, as it is the best picture, appeared only at the beginning of the XX century, after the theft of the painting from the Louvre in 1911. Before that, the Mona Lisa was not rated so highly.

    The subject of the value of works of art and the modern art market is mixed up a lot, including such prosaic, far-from-art things as tax fraud. I advise you to watch a funny documentary on this topic from the TV series “Adam spoils everything” (Adam spoils Art, season 2, episode 5).

    Well, in the end, let me give you my personal examples of overpriced very mediocre art-the works of Ilya Glazunov and Nikas Safronov. This is one of our closest friends.

    Well, do not forget that the cost of an item is not an objective evaluation criterion, it is exactly how much the buyer is willing to pay for the item. The cost of the same item may vary by order, depending on the circumstances.

  7. There is an excellent definition of art – “Cultural heritage”. This definition includes a lot of things that were created by previous generations. But among the crowd there are always personalities who can surprise both contemporaries and subsequent generations. These are creative people in different fields. Including in literature, music, sculpture, painting, and other cultural fields. Therefore, I will limit myself to the topic. Why do we consider some painters great, and others less, and some time sinks into oblivion? The whole point is that the artist created something new, different from the previous ones, which created a breakthrough in painting. Why all artists know Masaccio, and he was the first in the picture tried to draw the foot unfolded and not like in Greek frescoes. Why Leonardo is considered Great, because he stepped farthest in his time in the development of the plot, portrait against the background of the landscape and was able to convey the inner content of nature like no one before him. The Renaissance gave many great creators who made an invaluable contribution to the development of painting. And these techniques are used by all subsequent artists. They inherited many discoveries of previous masters. But every artist dreams of contributing something of their own, looking for, finding and exposing to people. Van Gogh could not sell any of his paintings, and now they are worth a lot of money. Now all the early primitivists have suddenly acquired significant value, and Impressionist paintings are in great demand, because this is a new direction in painting. Time weeds out all the garbage and remains a beauty, an idea, an unusual solution. To understand painting, it is necessary for a person to understand it, from its origins to the present day. So that a person develops a taste and he can easily determine the present from the hack. This requires time, desire and a certain talent to see what many people can not immediately understand themselves. Time has given rise to one feature-a name in painting, where it does not matter how the artist draws , but he is famous and this name itself, and not his work, is worth a lot of money. Once a very famous artist was asked why there were no paintings of his in his collection. And he answered in a very original way, saying that he wasn't rich enough to buy his own paintings. Now often the brand is the name of the artist won in his youth, and not his subsequent paintings. It's almost like jeans with and without a label. Some of them are expensive, while others are cheap, although the quality is the same. And no matter how we perceive Malevich, it is impossible to put him next to Leonardo or Raphael. A “portrait of a woman” by Pablo Picasso costs money because of its signature, but a portrait of a woman in the manner of Pablo by another artist is worth a good punch to the artist's jaw. But this is my personal opinion.

  8. Painting, like poetry, and music appeal to the spiritual essence of a person, but people are different, one thing affects someone, and another affects someone. Authorities, of course, influence the viewer, but on the other hand, there are many cases when art historians did not accept the work of those artists who are now considered brilliant by everyone. Example, Van Gogh. I would break it down into three groups. Art critics, professional circle, middle class. who uses both his own intelligence. so it uses a partially formed opinion, while the third group does not use its own brain.

  9. Any items recognized by experts are worthy of attention. The reasons are not always obvious, but the value of, say, Mona Lisa is also not obvious. The problem is that art is so complex that the average person has nothing to do there. You can't judge art superficially, and in the categories of “like – dislike”. Something that looks primitive can have a deep idea, and global consequences (black square, yes), at the same time, something that looks very “beautiful” and technically can be a dummy ( photorealistic pencil drawings, for example)

Leave a Reply