 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
    |
| Joy. (Revival of an image in art) During one of discussions of "cultural environments", taking place in 1997 in studio of Ter-Oganjan by modernist Zlotnicov unnoticed in heat dispute creeped a remark that in art practice there is such position in which is interesting to the author not what the world varies, instead what it is constant. I suddenly have understood then, that in this phrase that borrowed all my ideas practically from the very beginning of my creative activity is expressed. And it is valid, the face of the modern world varies so quickly, the space and time are compressed so promptly, that we literally live, under ourselves not feeling the ground, we slide smooth surface changing each other and degrading, bursting still plainly not having had time to be generated soap bubbles of crisis contexts of death of art, the author, product, representation, criteria of quality... ( this sliding refers to, if who does not know, an establishment of horizontal connections). Its dazzled, feature to not see a lot, only nightingale's trills of the modem in the ears. In common, I felt, the good anchor is necessary. To be hooked as follows for something strong to look round, take rest, think. To hurry up you see in effect there is no place. Sooner or later, but revive anyway we shall all. Not a secret, that revolution in development of means of the communications in itself at all does not solve communication problems of a society. It is no casual, after short euphoria of global arts of the beginning 1990 spontaneous process of strengthening of local cultural borders, active growth antiglobal movements everywhere is observed. PR a world wide web is muffled by damnations to the world garbage dump of culture, tendencies of development of movements for restriction of use of means of the mobile communication limiting freedom of private life etc. are traced. Why it occurs? The answer seems to me lays in a nature of a modern civilization. Crisis of humanism under the guise which has passed last decade is spoken that the civilization is mutate. The engineering is deforming culture, disfigured it. As a matter of fact, aggressively stick to a society a post-humanistic civilization nonantropomorphical techniques of functioning of the communications in sotsio-cultural space, ontologically alien to human culture promote not so much to increase of degrees of freedom of communication streams, suppressing in superfluous weight of the information, but instead - improvement of mechanisms of global management by them. The negative orientation (be relative antropomorphical cultures) of vector of such communication fields promotes total marginalisation of culture, to growth of deficiency of cultural immunity of a society (it is possible to name this phenomenon information AIDS by analogy) and promotes lobbying of a public opinion in interests international elite groups, thus sysadmines of modern civilization. But surprisingly flexible antropomorphical Culture looks like has already recovered from the first shock and more and more successfully resists to aggressors (invaders), assimilating culture another's, and actively using thus of achievement techno civilization contrary to last. The information in process of development more and more becomes visual. It is caused by the much greater speed of perception of the visual information a human brain, in comparison with verbal, that in conditions irreversible growing information redundancy is the determining factor influencing communicative strategy. Receptor systems of a human brain are based first of all on characteristics of brightness. The more intensively the general information background the is brighter owes the phenomenon, trying to attract attention. Besides as I once have noticed, describing object of the modern art <*>, modern art the practice, not connected on the nature with manufacture of material works of art appear more and more dependent from their means representation (a photo, video and atc.). Owing to what representation such event with necessity begins spread the influence in a strip of its presentation, and thus, self occurs replacement from a zone of a urgency and further actual replacement of initial cultural event representing its document. And last gradually becomes full object of art, submitting to the specificity of the cultural market demanding increase of competition i.e of efficiency (attractivness) representation which is compelled to transform initial event to damage of its documentation, switching interpretation mechanisms (i.e. Stoping insignificant on a sight of the subject representation characteristics of event and on the contrary allocating essential). So the image of event (in its traditional understanding) is revived and the modern art assimilates traditional. Process this can occur both subconsciously, and is conscious. Important is, that modern lines in art confirm the fact of that process this goes everywhere (Even dear HZH has paid attention to it). Dealing with this problem already ten years, (Other problem which are not having the direct relation to a theme of this article though for me the parity ethical and aesthetic in discourse the modern art is close enough with it connected, namely, I to concern here directly not I shall. Interested persons can find my article "Gold mine" on this problematics < **>) as projective strategy, I, consistently developing a problematics clearing a "alive" image from a rust of a multilevel reflection on a body of the art statement, interfering emotional perception of product, necessarily have refused the direct gesture which has completely exhausted in this sense the potential. Being the opponent in principle radical destructive strategy (having made sure in implosive, not representative character of their influence on sotcium), began to use various representional strategy from virtual performance (projects: "Poet and a pistol", "at the bottom", "I striding on the water", "fields"), through a series of the projects based on use of a principle of "the clever (armed) eye", allowing to improve our vision of direct essence of object of art through a blank wall of cultural and pseudo-cultural stratifications <*** > (projects: "Arming eye", MAN, "Love", "Patria o Muerte" (it is not realized)), gradually has risen before revealing new (ansubjective) direct statement ("the Song of the protest"). "Joy" - the project continuing projective construction of intercontextual plastic language of the modern art on base of "clever feelings" - feelings or the hyper-emotional conditions creating autofunctional vertical oriented (ennobling) communication fields in socio-cultural space. People of different cultures, races, age etc. become capable to understand as action of these feelings (conditions) each other at once and up to the end, i.e. start to speak in one (uniform) language without any translators and interpreters, it is instantly and naturally enough (freely uniting them for performance of a common cause. What kind of language is it? What thesaurus It is using? How we study it? How to use it in the relation to art, to return a work of art from (dead) reproduction to (alive) production, from reaction to the action of irrespectively formal technology used by the artist? That are only some questions occupying me now. I saw too much. Eyes mine for a long time already get blind from horror and a pain. Living for Years in darkness, I have understood one thing. Only is visible that burns, or, truly to say, what burns - is visible always. That's all. Light up. Gor Chahal. Moscow, 2000. <*>: HZH, N13, p.75 <**>: COMOD, N10, p.52 <***>: HZH, N8, p. 10 |