Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
On some problems of basic
terminology
Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. о некоторых вопросах базовой
терминологии. В справочнике «Единый художественный рейтинг», вып.
Attention!
The following text
was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been
edited.
So it can be used
only for general introduction.
1.
We will begin our study with the term "decorative art",
usually abbreviated as "DPI".
This term is so firmly entrenched in the artistic life of the USSR and
Russia, which has few people think about its meaning and origin. We are dealing
with a stable and stereotypes, and any attempts to determine may seem just as
banal as the famous phrase of Chekhov's characters: "Volga flows into the
Caspian sea".
Therefore, let us not imagine any new definitions DPI and refer to the
Russian encyclopaedic dictionary (RECs) - the book is aimed at a dry state
stereotypical views on any scientific phenomena. PDI it presents a very
thorough article:
"Decorative and applied art - region decor. arts: the creation
of a feature film. products that have practical. the appointment in societies.
and private life, and hood. processing utilitarian objects (utensils, furniture,
fabrics, work tools, vehicles, clothing, jewelry, toys and so on). At
processing of materials (metal, wood, glass, ceramics, glass, textiles and
others) are used in casting, forging, chasing, engraving, carving, painting,
incrustation, embroidery, prints, etc. Production. D.-P.I. are part of the
subject of the human environment, and aesthetically enrich it.
Thus, DPI is one of the decorative art. On the last RECs also says
detail:
"Decorative arts - kind of plastic. claim-in, made in Holland
-cerned along with the surrounding architecture of art form of the human
material environment and make estetic.-shaped a beginning. Includes various
spare parts. arts, serving for jewelry production. architectural and gardening
arts (monument.-the decor. the claim-in)that creates hood. subjects for
societies. and private life (decor.-applied the claim-in), art of the
decoration of festivals, shows, exhibitions, etc. (execute. the claim-in).
Unlike production. easel arts production. Di Naib. fully disclose its content
in the ensemble, for esthetic. organizations of which they are created.
So, in the "decorative arts" there are three types:
monumental-decorative art, design art and DPI.
Immediately the question arises: why these three types only DPI was
short name, which is known to almost everyone? Why is the vernacular name
artists working in the field of PDI - Dpishniki "and no
"Mdishnikov" and "Oishnikov"? Why, when talking about
"applied art", we mean just artists PDI? Why such a situation
"legalized" RES, putting in the article "Applied art"
between him and the PDI full equality?
Let's see: any muralist can be called a painter or sculptor), and
objections to it, no one will call. Graphic designers (like the poster, as
scenographers) may be called either schedules or painters (and sometimes the
sculptors), and this is also in order. But Dpishniki" (officially -
"applied art") is and jewelers, potters, and shkatulochka, and
the craftsmen, and anyone, not just painters, not graphics and sculptors.
And if a jeweler or ceramist will call myself a sculptor, and Palekh or
Rostov miniature - painter, this will cause others at best a mild
surprise, and at worst - a remark like "don't sit down not in his
sleigh".
Characteristically, the RECs "legalized" and the situation.
Without going into the vicissitudes of different areas of philosophy, art, its
authors say:
"Art, 1) hood. creativity in General - literature,
architecture, sculpture, painting, drawing, decor.-applied I., music, dance,
theater, cinema and other types of human activities that are grouped as a
feature film.-shaped forms of development of the world... 2) In the narrow
sense - Fig. the claim. 3) a High degree of skill mastery in any sphere of
activity".
And "art in the narrow sense" - fine, - according to
the authors of REFs, means "section of plastic. claim-in that combines
painting, sculpture and graphics". And if the lack of this exhaustive
list, for example, photography can be attributed to the relative novelty of the
latter, why not here included DPI, existing for many thousands of years?
2.
In order to understand chance or not there was such a strange situation
with DPI, it is necessary to recall the thirties and fifties of the twentieth
century - long period of the formation of the "Union of Soviet
artists". It was then when creating the Moscow Union of artists ' Union of
the USSR were on equal footing selected section of painters, graphic artists,
sculptors, designers, artists and "applied art".
Perhaps, when dealing with organizational matters unions all these
sections really enjoyed equal rights. But the confusion has started already.
The fact that it is not easy to name the painter, never in life do not
mark any Museum, exhibition, Church or house of culture. Or a sculptor who
worked exclusively in easel plastic and not put any monumental works. Or
graphics, never illustrated single book.
And so it happened that among the "equal" partitions were
three "most equal" - painters, graphic artists and sculptors,
which could deal with and their "high" easel art, and in parallel to
do all that, the idea is that pertained to the competence of monumental artists
and designers. As members of the "applied" sections, of course, no
one could deny to engage in "easel", but mass-Union exhibitions they
could only rely on "peripheral" rooms, and purchase their easel
paintings has been the exception rather than the rule.
Consequently, any artist, once in your life try to easel painting,
graphics and sculpture (as well as without it?), first tried to join in section
of the form "art in the narrow sense". And if for some reason did not
work, was "on the edge" - monumentalists or designers.
Exceptions to this rule, of course, but only for subjective reasons - if,
for example, all pals artist N has joined the Moscow Union of artists as
decorators, what N was trying to keep painters or graphics with a huge risk of
prokalyvanie" on the admissions Committee? Better just to
"own"...
There were exceptions of another kind: in the history of each of the
"Union of Soviet artists", as in the existing Russian creative
unions, known periods, when "at the helm" was monumentalists or
designers. But these situations were and are extremely subjective.
In fairness, we note that just as arbitrary and subjective division were
the painters and graphic artists. For example, what painter never wrote
watercolors and never picked up a bed?
But the assignment of the painter to the graphs, although meant the
impossibility of honour heart of all-Union (and now Russian) exposure, yet
there was no equivalent to the precipitation of "art in the narrow
sense" is fine.
As we have seen, monumentalists and designers did not lose the right to
be called artists and schedules, and, respectively, of "art in the narrow
sense" is also not excluded. Sculptors-monumentalists never out
"obessolivanija community" and not allocated.
But "applied art" less fortunate of all. They were eternal
second-class". It turned out that jewelers, potters, glass artist -
not sculptors and miniaturists - not painters. The lush and spreading tree
Soviet semiofficial recognition at best shining title of "honored
artist" or "the honored worker of arts". People's artist of the
USSR, corresponding member, and the more full member of the Academy of arts -
these "high" for them were exorbitant. Moreover, for the vast
majority of "applied art" virtually eliminated "free
floating" (the order of official organizations, minkultovskie purchases
from exhibitions etc) - they were forced either to earn a
"crafts", or "levachev.
After the collapse of Soviet power formal restrictions of activity of
"applied art" is gone, but the stigma of "inferiority"
remained. Recently an acquaintance of the artist who has submitted the
application for admission in Moscow Union of artists, invited to join in
section of DPI only because he had the temerity to bring enrollment Commission
no pictures of their easel art works, and printing issued cards with their
reproductions. And if in our time was not "alternative" unions of
artists, the painter would have stayed "applied arts".
So, where is the a priori "inferiority applied art", and
whether it is justified?
It is very likely that the monopolistic domination of the Soviet
distribution system, such "second-class" had certain reasons.
"Historically" - from the XVIII to the beginning of the
XX century - the Russian jewelers and glass blowers, potters,
embroiderers, and other "applied art" were largely used concurrently.
The audience could only know the names of the owners of factories and
workshops, and almost all masters - let the most talented rarely had
the opportunity to demonstrate its author's personality.
For painters and sculptors of the Imperial Academy of arts, rigidly
imposing their own style and "rules of the game", lack of personal
responsibility is almost never allowed, retaining for the history the names of
even many "apprentices". And the vast majority of
"ordinary" masters of jewelry, glass and porcelain industry of the
Russian Empire irretrievably gone. The unprecedented rise of the author
"decorative art USSR" was only in the late fifties of the twentieth
century.
And in 1930-1950-s leaders of creative unions and their supervisors from
party organs rather sincere (in any case, in accordance with the
"Imperial" tradition) has attempted to separate the sheep from the
goats" - "the true creators of the" from
"podelochnikov.
It then emerged the division of the artists of the "clean and
unclean" - "easel" and "applied art". The idea is
that "real Soviet painters and sculptors have not found employment at the
national crafts and making toys (that are many actually true artists were
forced to work as porters and istorikami, now we are not talking). And the
stamp "clones" of their works, by painting and sculpture of the
industrial stream, the idea is that "real artists" should not have
been - but for "applied arts" it seems to be in the order of
things...
But this is the idea. And what we saw and see in reality?
3.
We have seen that a large number of painters and graphic artists doing
exactly what the stereotypical opinion "applied art" artists "of
the second grade" - replicates his portraits, landscapes and even
abstract canvases in such quantities that will be envied by any jeweler or a
glass blower. Many sculptors, easel, despite a "gentleman's
agreement" that the number of copyright castings in the same form should
not exceed ten, actually reinforces their work with hundreds - if only to
reduce costs. That very many works "easel" art are purely decorative
nature: unfortunately, the paintings are very often written for the interior,
under the color of baguette or under the taste of the customer (the author of
the article in RES, listing the signs of "decorative art", in vain
ignored the last factor).
Consequently, the use of art materials such as canvas, oil, watercolor
and pastel, does not guarantee the "easel" (according to RES -
independent, i.e. "practicable and non-use") the nature of the work.
And many (perhaps even most!) artists who consider themselves painters,
graphics and sculptors, according to the stereotyping that
"legitimized" RECs, are the most real "applied
arts-Dpishniki". Shame? Yes, it's a shame. But today, the definition
formulated by DPI.
But in reality, of course, all the most untalented artist, painter,
working (or forced to work "on a stream", you still should not be
called "applied arts". Just among the painters were, are and will be
more or less talented, more or less successful, more or less commercially
oriented" - but still it is painters. The same applies to the graphs,
and sculptors.
Look at this same problem with the other hand. What today's
"unclean applied arts" worse "clean" - painters,
graphic artists and sculptors? Absolutely nothing. We see many unique,
inspiring, lyrical and expressive, abstract or realistic copyright things that
we are artists, jewelers, painters, potters, glass artists, painters,
engravers, painters medallist...
By the way, despite the fact that the medal for all formal parameters
relate to the DPI, they are equal members of the community sculpture, and with
this a long time, nobody argues. So what is the artist-jeweler worse artist
medalist?
Yes, the artist-jeweler in most cases it tends to give his works the
traditional form of brooches, rings, earrings and other "decorations".
But almost any painter "squeezes" the vision of the world in a
rectangular canvas and puts on a baguette!
And what those Palekh miniature, which created and create unique works
of authorship, not painters? Yes, the "master craftsman" usually work
in a very specific style. But certain stylistic features are combined and a lot
of artists!
And how many works of jewelry art, ceramics and glass being created
outside the traditional "application" form, only as easel?
What then divides the artists of the "easel" and "applied
art"? The impossibility of using "easel" works in
"applied" purposes?
The theory of the "dysfunction easel art was almost universally
accepted even in Soviet times, and now even more. But any canvas you can
decorate the interior, - and you can simply wrap the canvas when it is
cold. The latter, of course, a joke (God forbid that has been forced to use
painting), but the fact that any sculpture of small forms can be used as a
paperweight - in any case not a joke. Too often, that way the sculpture
and used.
On the other hand, in our time it is not necessary to be a
"postmodernist" or "conceptual"to realize any subject of
public and private life" (the most prosaic - table, chair, tea etc)
can be a piece of art, it is only important that its principal (and preferably
inspired) filing as such.
So the creators of the "easel" and "applied art"
divides the only tradition associated with the system of relationships within
the "Union of Soviet artists".
But now, when the Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of artistic
creativity, artificially limit the forms of creativity and try to divide the
artists on "pure" and "impure" absolutely illegal.
If a sculptor creates original works of authorship in the forms
of jewelry, it does not cease to be a sculptor. You can call it "a
sculptor-jeweller"can "sculpture jewelry forms, but above all
he is a sculptor, i.e. the Creator who works in three-dimensional forms.
If
a sculptor uses as ceramic or glass material and attached to their original works
of authorship form of a vase or pot, then he is a sculptor, using as ceramic or
glass material. And in any case he will not be "applied arts", even
if it could be a vase to put flowers in a kettle to make tea.
And if a painter or graphic lurid as his original works of authorship
box or Cup, he is the Creator still working in the same two-dimensional space,
as any "easel". According to the basics of analytical geometry,
two-dimensional space (plane) may take the form of any complexity -
convex, concave, twisted, broken...
By the way, we already spoke about conventional division of creators
working in two-dimensional space, the painters and graphic artists. In
principle, this division can survive long enough as it is based on preferential
use of other art materials. But it is gradually sinking into the past -
for example, what to do with those artists who work in acrylic? What is closer
acrylic - a gouache or oil?..
It should be noted that at the beginning of the Handbook "Single
artistic rating" was the question about creation of various nominations
for the painters and graphic artists. And almost immediately had to give it up
and introduce a single nomination because the vast majority of artists
have proven themselves and in fact, in another capacity, and membership in
pictorial or graphic section of any of the Union of artists, of course, for the
history of art in principle irrelevant.
But the final and a General flight from the division of artists working
in two dimensions, the painters and schedules - the question of the
future, though not far away. And from the archaic and humiliating to the
original creators of the term "DPI" should refuse now.
And,
in principle, the rejection of this term is nothing in our perception of the
art world will not change. Part of "applied art" will be sculptors,
part - painters and graphic artists, as part... and then it turns out that
"applied art" will not artists, but only those masters who did not
create and does not create original works of authorship and (or) works of art.
It can be armourers, master shkatulochka, glassmakers, master embroiderers,
blacksmiths, master casters... should I explain the difference between
master-caster and sculptor?
Of
course, some confusion creates the concept of "master" - just
remember that sublime interpretation, which gave him Mikhail Bulgakov. But in
that case when we talk about the artist as a Master of Bulgakov's sense enough
to write a great letter. That's how he wrote and Bulgakov.
Not everything is simple and the concepts of "original works of
authorship" and "works of art": strictly speaking, they are not
identical, the difference may be in the intention, the inspiration, the
positioning in a number of other equally nondescript factors. This is a subject
for a separate study, much larger than the present.
Thus, it is proposed the following classification of fine art:
- art in two-dimensional space (painting, drawing, photography,
book graphics, scenography, miniature, embroidery, mosaic etc);
- art in three-dimensional space (marble, bronze, ceramics,
glass, jewelry and medallic art and other);
- art in four-dimensional space, i.e. in a dynamic unity
"space-time" (performance, kinetic objects and video installations
etc).
Accordingly,
the artists can be conventionally divided into those who work mainly in two -,
three-dimensional and four-dimensional space. More "subtle" division
of predominantly used types of art materials and scale to create works
(painters, sculptors of monuments, jewelers, photographers, potters and other)
may be of secondary importance, but not more.
And the term "applied arts" can be used to denote the masters,
not create original works of authorship (or more precisely: do not create works
of art).
The work of these artists can be characterized by such terms as
"arts and crafts". In principle, applicable, and the concept of
"decorative art", but with an important caveat: the word
"art" here is understood in only his third value, the proposed RES
("a high degree of skill mastery in any sphere of activity"). Indeed,
there are skilled construction workers, skilled chefs and skilled racers, there
are "martial art".
4.
Thus, we are left unresolved question of what to do with the term
"decorative art", whose works, according to the EGA, "art form
surrounding human material environment and make it aesthetically-shaped
top", but, unlike "self-sufficient" easel painting, "the
most fully disclose its content in the ensemble, for aesthetic organizations of
which they are created?
Yes, to abandon the division of works of art at "fine" and
"mounted" more complicated than the "mounted" and
"applied". But, apparently, we have to do this. Otherwise, disputes
about the "mounted" or "decorative" character is the
"Sistine Madonna", can be endless and fruitless, as any opinions here
can be extremely subjective.
For example, where better to see "Trinity" by Andrei Rublev?
In the dimly lit and smoked, but "native" Cathedral, or still in the
Tretyakov gallery, where it is absolutely intact and exhibited according to all
the canons of the exposition?
According to the stereotyping that "legitimized" RES, it turns
out that the recognition of Rublevskoe masterpiece "decorative" or
"easel" work depends on the answer to the question, where the
"Trinity" looks better. But actually, probably, it is said: a
masterpiece - it is in
Indeed, the "Trinity" because no one calls. But the vast
majority of the icons are usually classified in this way.
So, with "decorative art" is just the same as with DPI: in the
current practice of art criticism, the term a priori second-class work.
Consequently, the "second class" are all kinds of art included in it:
the monumental, design and application, with which we began our study.
But few modern art does not agree that the sense of ensemble, the ability
to form a single space, the output of the author's concept of the proper scope
of works is "aerobatics", and it can not just
"easel".
So
right there we are here to talk about "class II"? No, and again no.
But it is precisely this "inferiority" we dictates modern
stereotypical "decorative art".
Of course, we are in any case not going to completely abandon the
concept of "decorative" as such. For example, perhaps the primary
positioning art as a "decorative", as occurred in Raphael's
"Sistine Madonna" or Rublev's "Trinity". We see and
widespread use of "easel" things for decorative purposes: a majority
of two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of art still is not in the
museums, and "public and private life" - in the interiors.
But today, things might be in the interior, tomorrow - in the
Museum, and the day after tomorrow - again return to the interior. All
these cases are subject to a local assessment and in no case does not involve
the classification of reference to such global categories such as easel or
decorative art.
5.
Lavrasia in the article "the Rating of artists and philosophical
understanding of art", published in the third edition of the book
"one art rating", identified the phenomenon of art (outside of
political, economic and specifically social feasibility) as the
subject-object unity of the artist work. This approach, according to
Lavrasia gives everyone the opportunity to display themselves in a situation
of "viewer-work."
These definitions will help us move from outdated notions of easel and
decorative arts to more modern terminology. After all, "easel" and
"decorative" classify artwork in accordance with their location in a
particular space - the temple, Museum, hall, bedroom, etc.. So we may say
that these terms mean the spatial component of the situation
"viewer-work."
From this component depends largely on the perception of the
subject-object unity of the "artist work. Indeed, any viewer perceives the
product (together with information about the artist), primarily in the surrounding
space - Museum, interior, cult, urban development, etc..
Specify: in the space takes the work is not only a spectator. Artist his
plan usually covers and "mounted" or "decorative" the
character of the creation, i.e. also suggested to him a certain location in
space. But this plan is an integral component of the act creating the product
and, therefore, included in the subject-object unity of the artist work. And
later, the location of the product in the space (for brevity, we denote it as a
"place of work") can significantly change - we have already said
that today a thing can be in the interior, tomorrow - in the Museum, and
the day after tomorrow - again return to the interior.
Seems useful to make one more clarification. Undoubtedly, the value of
art is eternal and - in our time to state this fact deep excursions in
philosophy is hardly necessary. Yet the perception of any work of art
significantly correlated with the tastes and traditions of a particular era, in
which the viewer lives. Including the question of reference to the
"easel" or "decorative arts" (i.e. motivation for
accommodation of a work in a Museum on the square in the temple, in the bedroom
and the like).
Thus, if we abandon the concepts of "easel" and
"decorative" as the primary qualifiers, we must add to the
subject-object unity of the artist-work" component, indicating the
audience's perception of the place and time perception works. Place and
time of creation of the work included in the first component is an artist,
so to distinguish the audience's perception from the act of creation, we will
name the time and place of the viewer's perception of the circumstances of
time and place.
Thus, an exhaustive theoretical tool for perception, evaluation and
classification of a work of art can be subjective-objective unity of the
artist-work, perception in the circumstances of place and time.
All the perennial problems of visual perception -
"like-dislike", "good-bad" - are determined by the
interaction of these primary categories. But in any case, in art is not the
place to plagiarism and spiritless replicate only the uniqueness and
originality of unity "of the artist work" (is perceived in different
circumstances of place and time, but do not change their deep, genuine essence)
create a phenomenon that we call art.
All other components of perception, evaluation and classification of
works of art (a two-dimensional or three-dimensionality, "decorative"
or "easel" primary positioning, decorative Museum or accommodation in
this or that age, realistic or abstract style, plastic, color scheme, art
materials etc) can play a role only supporting, but not primary.
And
there was no division of the creators of the "clean and unclean" -
easel and applied arts, realists and abstractionists, traditionalists and
conceptualists, monumental and miniature - at this level of understanding
should not be. True (not declarative) the equality of all trends and directions
in art - one of the greatest achievements of twentieth century art history, and
it is time to bring into line with these achievements and basic terminology.
© Sergey Zagraevsky