Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
Can Russian art-critics
reborn?
Published: journal-archive “Postklau”, 01-03.2015.
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.
Someone has such a question
would cause a reasonable counter question: do Russian art criticism stopped
existence, if we are talking about its revival?
In order to understand, there
are in
"Big Soviet encyclopedia (BSE)
gives this definition: "
Art criticism - evaluation,
interpretation and analysis works of art, phenomena of contemporary artistic
life, directions, types and genres of contemporary art. Art criticism is one of
the branches of art".
Recently her often called on foreign harmony - art-criticism. It creates some confusion, as in the West, art critic commonly called everyone who writes scholarly
and popular books and articles about art of all times, that is the most
adequate translation of the term "art critic"
in Russian language is not an art critic, and the art critic. Therefore, we
will call art criticism that's right - on Russian lad, and in her determination
to adhere strictly to the TSB, we have to consider it one of the branches of
art.
In his turn, according to the TSB the same, andiskusstvoznanie (art history) - "complex of social Sciences, studying art - artistic culture of society in General and individual types of art, their specificity and relation to reality, their appearance and patterns of
development, role in the history
of public consciousness, the
relationship with social life and with other phenomena of culture, the whole complex of questions of the
content and form of art works".
From this definition it follows that since art history is a complex
science, and industry art criticism is also a science and an art critic is a
scientist, specializing in contemporary art.
In this regard, we should possible to clearly distinguish between
concepts such as art criticism and journalism. Because we as
the basis of our definitions of accepted terminology TSB (a fundamentally new
vision terminology in the humanitarian field since then has not appeared), we
see that says TSB about journalism: it is a type of public gathering
activities, processing and periodic dissemination of relevant information
through channels mass communication (press, radio, television, movies, etc.)
That is art criticism is a science, and journalism - social activity
that can to coincide with the scientific activity only by chance, and it
happens very rarely. And if art criticism is not in the form
of scientific treatise, but in the form of newspaper articles or blogin The Internet, she still, in theory, should be deep and
comprehensive the analysis of the material, consideration is given to each
phenomenon in contemporary art the broad context of art history, the
availability of adequate and professionally reasonable judgment, - in short,
everything that distinguishes scientific papers from the writings of Amateurs,
even the most talented and educated.
There is another required feature, which should be different artistic
criticism. This feature contained in the term "criticism". Remember
how defines it the same TSB:
"1) Pasbar (analysis)
what-ever with the aim to give the
assessment. 2) Negative judgment about
what-ever, an
indication of flaws... Scientific
criticism in dependence from its object included in the composition
of those or other
scientific disciplines: Literary criticism is one of the topics of literary criticism, criticism of the art
- section of arts, theatre
- section of theater".
In addition, here reaffirmed the
definition of art criticism as a scientific discipline, pay attention, and the
first and the second value of the underlying term "criticism". Critics, including art, should evaluate, including the number is
negative. Without this, it can be anything but criticism.
And the art market these estimates are based on the
categories of "good-bad" and "better-worse", indirectly (through galleries, salons, auctions, private and
public purchase, etc.) are becoming quite specific monetary value, because
without the concepts of "good-bad-worse-better" to adequately determine the price of a work of art is impossible.
For example, how to explain the
picture painted by Aivazovsky, many times more
expensive written by his contemporary, the painter N, though the picture N - same size
and the same oil on canvas? When
explaining to do a lot of reservations about the talent, education, expertise,
fame, the theme of work, social status, etc., but will still lie simple, though
perhaps offensive to descendants and fans N true: Aivazovsky
as an artist much better than N. And at all times task art criticism was to
convey this simple (in this case) or extremely complicated (in the vast
majority of cases) the truth to lovers and connoisseurs art.
Some believe
that in art criticism certainly must be present criticism in the second sense
of the definition BSE, that is a negative judgment.
Actually this is desirable, but not necessary. Definitely different:
if the article or scientific work art criticism are extremely positive
judgments, these judgments must be justified. These justification can be or not
to be research on the form (depending on the audience for whom they are
intended), but in fact - always.
In this
regard, here is another simple example. If in a certain the article is written:
"There was opened the exhibition of works NN,
one of the greatest modern artists", and further there is only information
about the number and hang out pictures, opening hours of the exhibition and the
honorable guests at the opening, it is not art criticism and journalism. And the assertion that the little-known NN is one of the greatest
contemporary artists, issues and the nature of journalism ever Amateur, or
"custom".
And for art
criticism, that is, a person who owns the basics of art and knows the true
value of the little-known and, frankly, incompetent NN,
to turn an artist in "President of Earth" will be extremely
difficult. Not because the critic is not find the words for it (as they say,
the paper will endure), but because together the qualification comes from and
understanding of basic professional ethics. If want honor. Few people want to
exchange your weight in professional the community on the "thirty pieces
of silver" from the immensely ambitious artist NN or it managers. Because of the broad artistic community
critics have never been, and colleagues are always very closely watched
publications each other.
Of course, to
err is human, to get involved, annoyed to go on about in the mood for, and art
critics of this Cup should pass. But on and there is a
notorious professional community to point out each other errors and
inaccuracies, to argue, to criticize, even to scold and shame. In eventually
all this contributes to another important purpose of art criticism is to
generate discussion around creating art that "degree public tension",
which at all times was interesting and attractive for the General public.
The ability to work with the General public, to
convince Amateurs in the rightness of their judgment, to perform the
educational role, are also important properties, must possess artistic
criticism. Without wide audience the masses are unlikely to be able to
determine who is better, Picasso or his contemporary, seascapes N. And the fact
that today the answer to this question but a few people cause doubts and
objections (all clear that Aivazovsky better) - merit
art critics of the XIX-XX centuries.
The word "merit" (by
analogy with "combat" and other merits) here appeared accidental. To
be an art critic is not easy,not
only because that it is necessary to have professional knowledge and skills.
According to the Patriarch Russian art critics Anatoly Kantor, "the critic
is under double pressure - from the artist and from the newspaper or magazine
where agree to print his article." Therefore, criticism must be able to
defend and to defend their opinions (including from offended fans dubious
talent N, NN and the like), and while he should be able to find a common
language with media. Because if the latteris
not interested in an objective analysis of the art market, then why would they
art criticism? Journalists somehow write exhibition reviews, and okay.
So art criticism is necessary and
fundamental knowledge, and professionalism, and civic courage, and diplomacy,
and flexibility, it is not can afford to withdraw into the academic world of
"big science", he needs constant contact with artists, and with the
media, and with public. To combine all these properties is very, very
difficult, and it is the main reason, as we have already mentioned:
professional community art critics have never wide was
not. Starting from the origins of the Russian art criticism in the early
nineteenth century, when it was published "a Walk to the Academy of
arts" Konstantin Batiushkov, in every historical
epoch number professional art critics in
2.
Despite the relatively small number
of critics, art criticism in Russia of XIX-XX centuries not only existed, but
flourished, and took a variety of forms.
We mentioned "a Walk in the
Academy of fine arts" Konstantin Batiushkov,
which poet and critic shared his aesthetic attitude to the world, to
The next stage in the development of
Russian art criticism is associated primarily with the
brothers Maikov. Undoubted
advantage of the brothers as critics was strictly professional a considered
approach to each work. The famous poet Apollon Maikov to be considered an Amateur, to the criticism he
spoke infrequently, but wrote and bright interested, and
undoubtedly expanded the range fans of fine art due to its popularity as the
author well-known ballads and songs in the folk spirit. Valerian Maikov was
Newspapers then started
systematically to cover the events and exhibition of the life, and there was a
need for qualified critics with his position, responsible attitudes of regular
readers. At this time began the polemic and journalistic stage of the history
of Russian art critics, most prominent representative
of which was Vladimir Stasov. He was not the enemy of
aesthetics, as claimed by his opponents, but he contributed to their aesthetic
Hobbies such public passion that enemies criticism it was easy to find the
arguments to brand it as "the destroyer of aesthetics". But Stasov had excellent artistic taste,
which combined with hot a sense of social responsibility, and both
emotions - aesthetic and social - formed bright weave, long after became the
peculiarity of the Russian criticism. Yes, and Stasov,
who lived and wrote a very long time, has become the norm and alive an example
for many generations.
Since the end of XIX century in
disputes with Stasov became a generation of critics
"World of art" - Alexander Benois, Nikolai Wrangel, Igor Grabar, Georgy Lukomsky,
Sergei Makovsky. They saw in themselves the defenders
of the "free art", "art for art", nonpropagative
"chimeras public service." However, it is
noticeable that sarcastic opponents Stasov were
largely his heirs - and in the vehemence of debate, in the sense of social
liability art. The most important thing that combined with his Stasov opponents of the "World of art", is a quest to discover the unknown talents and
unknown monuments of Russian art of all eras, to make them known to the world,
appreciated by specialists and the General public. Being human temperament and
decisive intervention in the artistic life of
1920-ies directed art criticism in
Not surprisingly, this raised such
critics with a wide theoretical horizons, as Mikhail Alpatov,
Anatoly Bakushinskii, Abram
Efros, James , Tugendhaft. Brilliant polemical
the performances of those years will remain classic examples of military and
eloquent art criticism and assertive, even aggressive activity and aesthetic
public positions.
Criticism of the 1930-ies kept this
warlike, aggressive tone. In this she was not the free choice of likes and
dislikes, but not criticism ceases to be criticism, even if free choice
critical judgment impossible, even if it turns into a set of guidelines as to
what must see. Nevertheless, until the mid-1950s in art criticism of
Freedom of critical judgment, began to revive in the years of the
"thaw". Exhibition dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Moscow artists ' Union, Moscow The Manezh
in 1962 and dramatic clashes between the authorities, demanding unconditional
submission of creative work to the requirements of the Communist party, and
part of artists to advocate for full freedom of creativity, Dali theme for
endless disputes. And it was a discussion of global importance because
political differences were transferred to the soil
fine arts, which allowed the most evil and acute political attacks to move in a
more "safe" area for analysis of paintings and sculptures.
In this situation critics felt that
their opinions and assessments have become of interest to people living on
different continents and representing the most diverse community. It gave art
criticism new tone: she felt that appeals not just to colleagues and the
public, and to the world and eternity. Therefore, leading critics of those
years - Alexander Kamensky, Anatoli
Kantor, Vladimir Kostin, Dmitry Sarabianov, Muda
Jablonski, Anna Yagodovskayaand others have managed not to succumb
to intimidation and threats of punishment, such terrible as in the times of
Stalin, but rather sensitive, and acted boldly, openly, declaring the rights of
art honestly testify of his time. Criticism of the fifties and sixties has
become a major public phenomenon, we can say, the finest hour art criticism as
a public significant activities.
The "stagnation" that began
in the
The position
of art criticism in those years was complicated what does the University have
been significantly expanded and deepened in many areas of theory and history of
art criticism but as a special area art history aside: even if the students
learned a lot from her history, methods and practical guidelines was to last
them for the book with seven seals.
However, the art critics of the late
sixties and seventies in these "stagnant" conditions of existence had
ceased, although largely lost its ideological sharpness and public pathos.
Critics have learned eloquently to talk about the mysteries and paradoxes of
painting and graphics. Sometimes even seem that artists come up with the most intricate
compositions, to then to read about them fascinating story. The art of chanting
intricate inventions then rose to a great height, it
seemed that the picture or figure are in order about them appeared in the storythe newspaper or magazine. In this story the great
significance of the historical roots of copyright style, which was erected by
the mannerism, Rococo, surrealism, and historical erudition gradually began to
take the place of critical judgment.
Paradoxically,
the positive role that the art critics of those years remained influential
social force, played the Union of artists of the
And those who for various the reason was not admitted to the
All this in the last two decades of Soviet rule created quite rightly
feeling bubbling artistic life. This time has generated a lot of such excellent
critics, as Leonid Bazhanov, Xenia Bohemian, Michael
Herman, Yuri Gerchuk, Evgeny Kovtun, Erast Kuznetsov, Viktor Martynov, William Meyland,
Alexander Morozov, Lion Mochalov,
Yuri Rusakov, Vladimir Yumatov and others.
3.
Since the mid to late eighties in
It is no exaggeration to say that at
this time began the "Golden the decade of Russian art". In Soviet
times, public interest in the the works of
contemporaries fueled by the prohibitions on "modernism" and some
social themes. And when in the era of "glasnost" bans were lifted,
this interest, coupled with the euphoria of freedom of creativity and access to
information, instantly led to the fact that the audience rushed to the
exhibition halls and opened in a large number of galleries and Russian and
Western collectors - in artists ' studios. And don't just look at the pictures,
and to buy. Yes and museums immediately took the opportunity to replenish their
collection of the once "forbidden fruit". And those artists of"non-conformists", which in Soviet times was
able to withstand persecution and to assert themselves against censorship,
suddenly overnight turned out to be recognized and in demand.
It is no exaggeration to say that art
criticism at the time was the main tool for the formation of artistic taste of
the public, the promotion works on the free market, respect artists with
galleries, salons, museums and collectors, and most importantly - in the
pricing policy. New names in art criticism appeared little
(which, I remember, caused a certain amount of apprehension), but the authority
of those critics who has experienced times of "stagnation" and was
able in one way or another extent to fit into the free market (as Leonid Bazhanov, Eugene Drums, Xenia Bohemian, Victor Martynov, William Meyland, Alexander Morozov), was in the circles of galleristsand artists is very high.
But soon after 1998 this "Golden decade" is over. At the
outbreak of memorable "August crisis", there was still hope that the
temporary market decline that as soon as collectors and art lovers will again
become available money, they will invest in paintings and sculptures are not
only long dead, but living artists... erTy
of hope was in vain. The contemporary art market since then not only did not
rise, but continues to drop steadily.
How he fell - exactly impossible to say, as more or less objective data
in terms of sales works of art of our contemporaries (as well as Antiques) was
no and no. The vast majority of transactions were
carried out "under the table"and
is. But it is clear that the total this market compared to the "Golden
decade" has decreased many times over.
Proportionally effective demand for works of art and degraded artistic
life - exhibitions, lectures, discussions, meetings, the resonance in the press... InCE it is kind of like, but not more
than than "sort of". If, for example, on
the majority of exhibitions contemporary art audience only comes on opening
day, and this is the audience is almost exclusively from friends and relatives
participants and organisers? Or if
the vast majority of reports about these exhibitions "custom"?
Or if the interesting lectures of the most prominent art critics on
topics that, in theory, should be of concern to all, walk for five or ten the
listeners? Can it be called a full artistic life?
In our time artistic life became chaotic movement of single - and
artists, frantically running around the galleries in the hope of something to
sell, and gallery owners, with the same purpose,
frantically running between collectors, and collectors who are trying in this
turbid stream to form a quality collection. And artists in
the country - tens of thousands, gallerists , thousands of serious collectors
- tens, and even large collections - one, two, and a handful...
Some artists, making enormous efforts make their way to the
international market and periodically included in the auction quotes, sometimes
even managing to get for your works decent money. Succeeding
in trade in the West and some Russian gallery.
But compared with volume art markets of the most developed countries of the
world is a drop in the ocean.
Characteristically, reverse is the process "import" of works
by contemporary Western artists in
Plus General deterioration the investment climate
in
Moving from a General overview the current situation in the art market
to the topic of this article - art criticism, pay attention to the grown
sharply in recent years, the interest of the public, and collectors to
socialist realism. Specify: not to "Sots-art"
(a surge of interest which occurred in the "Golden decade"), namely
the textbook the socialist realism.
And it's not that people globally tastes have changed so quickly in the
last few years, this could not happen. And it's not just that modern the art
market is so big his proposal: socialist realism in large volumes offered ten
or fifteen years ago. The main reason here is next: social realism to most
viewers and buyers of works art was a kind of "anchor" that allows
you to cling to the "soil" - reliable, friendly, calm, familiar,
time-tested, and causing positive reminiscences of childhood and youth.
This phenomenon - from the same series, which is always greater interest
in Antiques compared to modern art. And this is logical: in the antique market
is more or less checked, artists more or less known, the trend is more or less
calculable, information real sales there is at least approximately - and,
hence, investment in this segment is relatively reliable.
And in contemporary art it turns out that the audience, especially the
buyer, "the catch". More or less educated audience (and uneducated on
the show at all stopped going) understand that "academic" criteria
for evaluation of works by formal skill transfer reality, of composition,
choice subjects, etc. are gone. Today, virtually any viewer
familiar with abstract art, conceptualism and numerous other "isms". Yes and in the most accessible and
understandable for a huge most people "ISM"the realism - the proposal very, very
great, to distinguish between genuine and realistic craftsmanship from numerous
imitations can be difficult.
Titles awards and other insignia of the artist,
the mention of his numerous exhibitions and the availability of works in
museums, even the "untwisted" it name in the media in our time is also not
attract viewers, and the more buyers: everyone understands that the artist has
the ability to activethe self-promotionand the establishment of good relations with the
authorities, gallery
owners and journalists are not necessarily
evidence of an outstanding artistic gift.
Here the audience and collectors, and
art market would have to come art criticism. We have
said that the specifics the art market is that it is art evaluation of the
place of the artist in art history, his work in General and each specific work
should be the basis of forming opinions of the public and, in eventually,
prices for a work of art (speaking in market terms, to determine the quality of
the product). All other factors in the formation of opinions and prices ("untwisted"the name of the
artist, the status of the exhibition hall, Museum or gallery, the credibility
of the auction, the personal tastes of the buyer and seller, the accidental
coincidence of circumstances, etc.) is secondary. Aboutthe TsENKI art
critics, which are based on the category of "good-bad" and "better-worse"should indirectly (through
galleries dealers, auctions, private and public purchase, etc.) to buy quite
specific monetary value, because without the concepts of "good-bad-worse-better" to adequately
determine the price of a work of art is impossible.
It is in theory. But in reality, the
situation is completely different. Negative changes on the Russian market of
modern art had an impact on art criticism indeed fatally. Art criticism on the
market works art not only does not generate any tastes and ratings, she's not
sounds. You might expect that in the worst case criticism would be reduced in
proportion to the reduction in the market, but the situation was even worse -
art criticism is almost completely gone.
Even those media who position
themselves as specialized in matters of art, full of not only purely positive
(simply speaking in praise), but also shallow, no art
not substantiated information, which has no relation to art criticism. Stories
about the artists so crowded as positive biographical facts
("deserved", "folk", "spent so much "exhibition,
"paintings are in the museums", etc.) that occurs the feeling of
reading is not critical and even journalistic articles, and autobiography or
"summary" for employment.
Like well
said William Meyland about
one newspaper, specializing in the visual arts: "This a
newspaper is a quiet and unremarkable in General colourful
stream of modern printing products. Its not nice reading
pensioners and the elderly. They find there a lot of cute texts that are
remotely attitude to art. As for art critics, it was not spends the night. It's
not her place and not her occupation with his fist, glorifying fine emekuku".
To art criticism are irrelevant and
numerous exhibition reviews, as if copied from press releases prepared and send
the organizers.
The
same picture with the overview of the event the contemporary art world in
non-specialized media, but there articles, usually shorter than in profile, and
that's the difference.
So it turns out that art criticism,
which in theory is one of the most important parts of such a serious science,
like art history, practice has degenerated into journalism, mostly at its
worst, "custom-made" form. There are exceptions, but compared to the
sad picture they almost invisible.
As art lovers, as they say, fools: when they dazzled by the abundance of laudatory
epithets in any critical article about any artist, they understand that
"every Sandpiper praises its swamp, and no trust to read
not experiencing.
In principle, the spectator (respectively, buyer) might be interested in
the sharpness of discussions, emerging around the fine arts.
("Intellectual content" such discussions, as we have said, is also
one of the most important tasks art critics). In Soviet times, this tension was
maintained constant conflict between the "conformist" and
"nonconformist" in these the conflict took an active part in the
state (of course, on the side "conformists"), there was a serious
struggle, and this struggle with sinking hearts watched not only citizens of
the USSR, but also all over the world.
Cruel vicissitudes of this fight (like destroying paintings with the
help of bulldozers) with the fall of the Soviet power, thank God, was over. But
as they say, the water was vyplesnut baby: together
with extreme ideological sharpness is gone all that ideological sharpness and and a little bit of interesting discussion. And this is not
surprising: the Soviet ideological heritage was even less "robust"
than manufacturing and research, and to exploit it in a positive, and in
negative context, it was possible for a short while, it was not enough even for
the "Golden decade".
The result is disastrous: in our time to the public in General no
criteria, except "like -
dislike", does not exist, and when purchase paintings or sculptures such
an important landmark, as rated places in the history of art, everywhere is
replaced by a set of secondary factors - "the popular"
author, status, gallery, personal preferences, etc. The
choice of works of art (things, the definition of unique and which is not only
a decoration, but also long-term investment) is akin to the choice of bulk
commodities such as televisions or refrigerators, with the only difference (not
in favor of art market) that the "producers" of paintings and
sculptures by many times more than manufacturers consumer electronics, as
"consumers" - accordingly, many times less.
And according to the General laws economy, with a significant excess of
supply over demand, the prices of mass the goods are steadily falling. This
further worsens the situation in art the market.
It would seem that this falling prices professional
collectors should enjoy and cheaply to buy works of art, then it will
make good money. This, in turn, would revive the market. In
theory. But in practice everything is different: any, even budget buy is
a waste of money if the artist already after a few years, few will remember
(and this often happens). So, for investments in contemporary art you have to
be sure that the piece is actually worth buying. And the relative confidence
here can to give objective, impartial and science-based art critique that today
in fact.
Exclusively to your taste and intuition serious
collector will not rely always (the art of combining fundamental knowledge and
skills to earn a lot of money - the exception rather than the rule), so
wouldn't it be easier and not safer for him to invest in relatively stable and
tested the Antiques market, and even in other markets?
Thus, no more
or less visible and influential art criticism influences negatively the
General, and without depressing the situation on the market of modern Russian
art.
4.
Objective
this sad state of Affairs to art criticism or not?
Maybe have a negative effect on her any time, and even
subjective factors?
Art
criticism is not taken out of nowhere, her form specific people - critics. And critics, unlike critics (involuntary tautology), have not gone
away: alive and well many of "pillars" and the Soviet era, and the
"Golden decade" of the Department of art criticism and art history of
Russian universities produced annually and release hundreds of experts who are
able to engage in artistic criticism and if you have the desire and capability
could enrich this industry of art.
Why and
professional, and potential criticism do anything but criticism? We see here
two reasons.
The first reason is the material. Art
critic whose opinion claims to scientific validity and credibility (and,
accordingly, may to benefit the art market), must be professional.
"Between thing" to deal with criticism is
almost impossible: the critic stops adequately navigate the current art
situation though, because he didn't enough time to walk around the exhibitions
and revisions and browse a huge the amount of materials that constantly appear
in connection with the work and its fellow critics, and artists.
And professional needs to get to work, reward, or he may to be elementary have nothing to
eat.
Who is today on the Russian art
market is willing to pay for objective, impartial, scientific criticism?
Media?
They will print critical articles and respectively, to pay fees critics, only
if there is interest the public to objective and scientifically sound analysis
of the situation in art the market. But the interest of the public just do not,
otherwise the market would not be in such a deplorable condition.
In the end, and core and non-core
media are not art criticism, and the pandering to underdeveloped tastes of the
public. And "indulge" can do better, if you hire pliant, nimble and
undemanding of journalists, not professional art critics, who, as a rule, have much greater ambitions. Besides, the journalist, unlike from
criticism, is universal, it can "throw on culture", and it is
possible - and in a "hot spot" or on the coverage of political
events.
And so it happened
that art criticism has lost not only potential royalties from the media, but
also venues for performances.
Whether to pay for art criticism by
the public? At least indirectly - for example, critic publishes their articles
at their own expense, and they disagree bring some no profit? Or placing
articles on the Internet, on his website comes many visitors, and advertisers?
But in modern conditions it is
absolutely unreal. Not interested in today the public
neither the article nor a book on art criticism. Her and very modern the art is
not very interesting, and as such a specific area as criticism, and even more
so.
Can I pay criticism artists? No, of course. Them for
"lying" art market money get nowhere. If they could unite in
something even remotely resembling public importance and scope
"Association of Peredvizhniki", "World
of Art" or "Jack of diamonds", these associations would have had
its own audience, its sources of funding and, accordingly, their artistic
criticism. But we have already seen that in our time the artistic life of
Can I pay art criticism collectors of works of art? Theoretically, as we
have already said, you can as you to invest in contemporary art need to be sure
that we or work worthy of purchase and the relative
confidence here can only give artistic criticism. But practically, the collector need not "their" criticism, and
criticism in General, to create a broad and objective picture. While the modern
Russian art collectors market is extremely small, and to support (or at least
try to maintain) criticism in General, they have not enough money.
Can I pay criticism any sponsors - so
to speak, admirers talent? Hardly. This is more or
less possible for artists, but the talent criticism is not so unambiguous and
understandable to the layman, how the artist's talent. The combination of the
potential sponsor of big money and understanding art criticism is something
staggering.
Can I pay the critique gallery? I
guess in theory, Yes, but in practice - why Kommersant-gallerist art critic? To enter artists,
which is promoted by the gallery, in art history? The gallerist is another problem: more
and sell today and will speak to the history of art, businessmen concerned
enough. They are on the market, and market their cruel laws.
Sometimes it happens that the gallery owner himself is professional art critic. But because he works in the market, and subject to the laws of art,
and the market. And no time to do art criticism: need to buy paintings,
and hang, and sell, and press release to write, and a lot of Affairs to do:
gallery - troublesome...
And the curators of the exhibitions,
which can be (and in "the Golden the decade was often) art criticism,
contemporary gallery is not needed: the trained eye,
somehow picked up the paintings once hung. Why do we need high exposure
culture, if the main aim is to sell?
Characteristically, gallerist and critic usually
require from the artist absolutely different
qualities: gallery - stability, critic - inspiration,
development and creative searches. The critic will never perceive the artist as
a workshop for the production of paintings, gallery -
pretty often. The critic tries to shape the artistic taste of the buyer, the gallery owner - in every possible way to indulge any
whim of the client, which is "always right".
So it turns out that money on the
contemporary art market critics get nowhere.
But financial problems could lead to
a reduction, but not to the disappearance of art criticism. Indeed, in the
history of Russian art ever there was not a tradition to work solely for the
money. "Not by bread alone man." If there is
a sharpness ideological and artistic life for which you "go to
battle", then what kind of dough are we talking? Yes and the media are not
so necessary: for example, you can post articles on the Internet, and eternal
"Samizdat" none Soviet times has not been
canceled...
There is
another reason that professional and potential art critics do anything but
criticism. And it seems that this reason was indeed
fatal.
And this is the reason that the
participants of modern art the Russian market too well received by the Western
principle of publicity: "counter-advertising" also an advertisement,
and ideological and creative opponents better not to mention than to criticize.
Remember the exhibition dedicated to
the 30th anniversary of the
And if you look at any TV commercials
- for example, washing powder, where there are competitors? Nowhere.
Where can to see an overview of the General situation on the market? Nowhere. Where's there a little bit an objective analysis of
the composition and consumer qualities of powders offered different firms? Nowhere. In the best case featured a "normal
powder", which always and everywhere is worse than advertised.
Can you imagine a scientific dispute,
the outcome of which depends on who are the scientists are better off
financially, has a more representative appearance and louder voice? Of course, no. And in advertising everything happens that's
right: who has more advertising budgets, who made
advertising more vivid rollers and occupied more airtime, he sold more of their
products.
Anatoly Kantor at the time, wrote that criticism should separate themselves from
advertising. But, unfortunately, now any mention in the media and the Internet,
and General all public mention in any context are perceived as advertising:
this is another one of the Western PR.
And these
principles of Western PR, participants learned art market in
Fyodor Tyutchev wrote: "Blessed is he who
visited this world in its fateful minutes". We "visited" the
world of Russian art in its truly fateful minutes: before our eyes in the past
ten to fifteen years virtually disappeared Patriotic art criticism. And circumstances due to which it disappeared, unfortunately, quite
objective.
The circumstances in which criticisms can be reborn, too, must be
objective, action enthusiasts-singles there's nothing to help. And variants of the Renaissance, unfortunately, not so much.
Anyway, we see only three.
The first significant the rise of the Russian market of contemporary
art. Without a valid artistic criticism is unlikely, but theoretically it might
work the other factors set - strengthening of the Russian economy, the
emergence of "fashion" in contemporary art, state support, etc. Then inevitably
the emergence of art the media market, specializing in the review, analysis and
the identification of trends (as is the case in the
automotive industry or electronics). And here for such media are
objective, impartial and scientific valid artistic criticism undoubtedly will
need. With frames for her problems: if you have the desire and public demand,
almost any the critic can become an art critic.
Second (unfortunately, even less likely): the
emergence of a certain "God from the machine" (as in medieval
theatre), which will establish, a "spin" and will be in further
support certain media specializing in fact, what were we talking about in the
first embodiment: an objective review, analysis and identification of trends
the art market. So "God" can be the state,
a large public Association or even a private individual - of course having the
relevant tools. If such media are able to survive financially, to gain a wide
audience and authority, to maintain objectivity and openness,
it will inevitably become the center of attraction for the same objective, unbiased and research-based art critics, will be a platform
for serious discussions. Undoubtedly, this criticism and such discussions will
involve the audience - and, hence, and increase effective demand for works of
art, and revive the art market. Next can begin a positive "chain
reaction": disagree with the policies of this first media will be able
create your own, to gain credibility and an audience, to argue, to criticize...
the Art market and criticism will only benefit from this.
Third appearance in modern
In conclusion we can say: if objective, authoritative, science-based art
criticism in
Yet the basis contemporary art in
God forbid.
© Sergey Zagraevsky