 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
         |
| Gold of Mine Beauty as distinct from ugliness is inexpressible. It, as wrote R. Bart, can be found out, but never lend itself to direct description. Therefore discourse at its description is compelled refer to a code underlying any beauty, a code of art. Not jut out into historical excurse of representations of art about beauty (the theme is so fundamental and extensive, that would not be desirable to touch it at all) I shall pass at once to a modern situation. Consistently deconstruct all aesthetic codes of art XX century has proclaimed a priority of ethics (similar to the early christianity period of a history) in discourse beauty. Thus as well as in the beginning of our era "has expelled idols from temple". But the aesthetic code learned bitter experience, this time has not suffered at all, and opposite having entirely ratified in mass cult discourse, promotes prosperity by last and active replacement of "high" art (exile of the prodigal son) in marginal zone of undiscerning. It's not good, my dear. Yes, not good at all. Being unsupporter of hysterical throwings from one extreme measure in another (the last century has convincingly shown futility of such attempts to solve our problems), I see a unique effective way of the decision - ASSOCIATION ETHICAL AND AESTHETIC DISCOURSES in a single WHOLE. Utopianism of attempt to unit two "eternal contrasts" only apparent. It is enough to refer to a history of orthodox church (entirely ignored by modern secular art), successfully using both discourses in the purposes on an extent already two millennia. Being engaged more than 10 years I was quite convinced by this problematic in perspective of such approach. It means, certainly, not direct borrowing (quotation) methodology. I speak only about a successful historical example which can be found out few more*. Problem is in another. The orthodoxy as vision of the world differs from Catholic and more from Protestant outlooks steady representation about unity of the world. The world, in which ethics and an aesthetics are not opposite each other, but unites in a single whole. The beauty is inseparable from rescue (F.Dostoevsky), a body from the soul in beauty discourse (A.Chehov) etc. As people wisdom say: In honest life curls are twisted, in harm - splited, or from kind word as from gold dish. All these definitions naturally follow to orthodox "we expect revivals of all dead" and corporal revival (N.Fyodorov), intention in which not ethics are opposed an aesthetics, but life (fine) is opposed death (ugly). Life here is understood not as a reality, but as consequence of ethico-aesthetic work of the person on transformation of a blind nature. The world as one please can change, but constant remains sense of its existence. REVIVAL OF ALL DEAD - OUR TASK. So let's work in this direction, my dear, gold mine. It is beautiful. *) the personal example At the beginning of the activity, observing absence of an aesthetic code in art discourse and realizing, that historically there would be no place for it, I have decided to refuse from direct art gesture and I were carried out such project: I as though began to observe of life of the artist outside, finding out in his inartistic life aesthetic phenomena. Uniting then "factography" with his "art products" (quoting modernist directions of art, i.e. laying in the field of an ethical code), to me it was possible to unit aesthetic and ethical discourses in one. Thus, the author here played a role of the artist (as model I used myself), the observer fixing life of the artist and curator, such three - stage course, a little bit bulky, but necessary in that situation. It was necessary to begin with something. Further this three - stage was transformed in two level by replacement of "artist" by model which I molded from clay (demiurgical, revival gesture: clay - ashes of ancestors, a mythological material of creation the person etc.) and substitutions of the subjective "alive" observer by a certain "objective" machine of supervision (eye arming [Moscow Art Magazine, N 8, page 10.]), creating presence of certain objective criteria in a modern relativistic cultural situation. Now I gradually proceed to next stage, merging together process of supervision and process of modeling. I.e. as a matter of fact there is a birth of the new direct art gesture (but without the "subjective" author since modeling virtual). Or subjectivity transforming in objectivity (if it is allow to say). All these mechanisms are initiated by me as the subject and serve my personal (art) tasks. For example, the new project on which I'm working now (Mein Gold) represents transformation (connotations: an antique myth about Midas, medieval alchemy) all the most dear (expensive) to me (the close friends, dear persons) to native gold (the standard of eternal values), objecting my personal values. Here I try to revive next hackneyed, "died" for discourse of high art metaphor - "it is expensive, be valuable as gold (gold mine)" by visual means, achieving "its evidence", authenticity and as a result - vitality, the aesthetic importance. Thus there is organic (as it seems to me) a combination ethical and aesthetical in my art discourse. Gor Chahal. Moscow, 2001. |