TALKS ON THE ISLANDS OF ART (part 2)
02/13/2011 Jrn Calo:
First of all, I must tell you that I like to think and manage the reading public. We live in an era of image, when there is no time for reflection. People often prefer to act, because thinking and working on their inner world takes too much time. Therefore, I like to make provocative judgments in order to stimulate new thoughts and ideas. I would also like to look into the future to find out how the history of art will develop and imagine what could happen in art tomorrow.
Each company uses all its resources and knowledge that may be useful to the cause. If you think that everything that is hand-made is art, you acknowledge that the urinal of Marcel Duchamp or the shark in formaldehyde Damien Hirst is art.How can we think that we are free and can do whatever we like?
All writers are different, I do not compare Solzhenitsyn with Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Turgenev. These are different times then and now. If they lived now, they would write with their natural talent differently than they did in the past. They would certainly be inspired by the realities of the 21st century.
Before I became a digital artist, I painted on canvas. And maybe back to it when I retire. But I doubt it. The tools I use form new ideas. Brushes, it seems to me now, have limited capabilities in our era. Now there are no students of the great masters of painting. There are academies and colleges, but there is no one on the scale of Picasso or Dali who at one time left the Academy of San Fernando, where teachers could not teach them anything. These teachers did not have the humility to admit that they had encountered two geniuses, but imagined themselves above them. Where are these teachers now? Nobody remembers them.
There are several geniuses in the art of high technology, for example:
There are many talents, but you need to know how to use new tools and ideas. True art consists in the formation of ideas, thoughts. Art is not a random combination of mechanical actions of a computer. The real value of art – in thought, the work must be a living creature, must be reliable and have a powerful effect, it must not be similar to that previously created by another artist, it must be original. There are millions of people whose work looks good or very good, but they don’t say anything to the viewer. This is an ornament.
The duty of the artist is that their art is consistent with their ideas, ideals. The artist must be true to himself, he must be sure of what he is doing.
We are facing a revolution, a digital revolution. Many continue to think as they thought at the beginning of the twentieth century. I have nothing against them, but it will not add anything to the 21st century.
A true art critic must observe and closely monitor evolutionary art in order to find it and show it to the whole world.
Let me give an example:
A month ago, after several young artists showed their expressionist works, critics called them falsified art and compared it to classical art. They said that these works are worthless. In the future they will talk about who discovered a 21st century artist. It is these critics and connoisseurs who will remain in history, but not those who talk about Picasso again and again in the 21st century. Innovative artists will remain, not those who are now the successors of Picasso.
21st century = computer and digital era, the era of oil residues in the world.
02/15/2011 Tatyana Nesvetaylo writes:
The work of art has always been appreciated how lively, original and expressive it is. I completely agree that it is necessary to use all the means that are available in the modern world. But I want to say that works performed digitally are often simply beautiful and decorative too. For example, the beauty of fractals is similar to the beauty of snowflakes or minerals. After the emergence of abstract art, the artist explores matter deeper and deeper. Already have nana art. It is intriguing, fascinating, but not for long. It is forgotten that one does not want to look at it very quickly and for a long time. I think that the matter is not only in the means used by the artist. We live in a tolerant world, when all trends in art are equal. Each artist (like an art critic) chooses what is closer to him and is able to adequately express his thoughts and feelings. The main thing is the scale of the personality of the creator, his energy potential.