Picture [Theme] Page 4

Stendhal syndrome is a medical term. He describes cases when a painting, and any work of art, is so beautiful that it stuns the viewer. A kind of shock. In 1817, when Stendhal visited the church of Santa Croce in Florence, he wrote in his diary that he almost fainted with joy. People have bouts of a frantic heartbeat. They're dizzy. When you look at great art, you forget what your name is, you even forget where you are and why you came there. Great art can drive into depression and cause exhaustion of the body. Amnesia. Panic. Infarct. Clinical death.

Picture of the infamous landfill,
Observed near vision, shows again and again,
What humanity needs sticks,
And not love.

Let's start with beheading the statues of Christ, virgin Mary... well, it is, unfortunately, natural. Because any infinite revolutionary movements always turn to God. Because the feeling of God in the soul puts some obstacles lawlessness. If you're a religious person, you know that there is a red line that can not move. So, of course, all revolutionaries will fight against God. Especially in Christianity says that there is neither Greek nor Jew. That is, you're black, white, green, red - doesn't matter. These people have a completely opposite picture of the world. This ethnic revolution - the most hard of all, what can be. Why? For example, the class theory of Marxism - there is possible to switch from class to class. A person commits an inner choice and switches to another class. And from the point of view of the religious relationship to the world. A person that is reinterpreted and changed religion. And here is the toughest situation. It is impossible to transfer. You're either black or white.

When it comes to choosing a career, a profession, the scope of activities, the choice of a life partner, place of residence, about his favorite writer, the choice of musical instrument on his favorite sport and the perfect place to stay, it makes sense to first spend a little time to try a few different options - preferably more than I would like. It would be unwise to make a decision, there is not yet a clear picture.

Visual art has always existed in a protected space. Originally this immunity was magical or sacred nature. But, in addition, it was just physical: it was a place - a cave, a building in which (or for which) it was written picture. The experience of art (originally the former experience of the ritual) was separated from the rest of his life just to over the life of the rule. In the future, this isolation has taken on a social character. Art has entered the culture of the ruling class and physically it has been isolated, enclosed in their palaces and homes. Throughout this history the authority of art was inseparable from the authority of the reserved space.
What did the modern means of reproduction of images, so it destroyed the authority of art and removed it (or, rather, seized the images, which are now reproduced) from any part of the reserve. For the first time ever, images of art have become fleeting, omnipresent, intangible, available, worthless, free. They surround us as well as surrounds the language. They came into the stream of life, on which more in themselves have no power.

We see the nearest star, as it was ten years ago, the far - thousands of years ago, the periphery of the Galaxy, a hundred thousand years ago, and the other galaxies we see today, what were the millions and billions of years ago. Here it is, our immediate landscape: Anagnina picture of the world - countless strokes from different eras, just combined in an imaginative Signorelli: the universe at any point for any look, at any time immensely at different times. Real simultaneity does not exist, it can only be imagined, not physically detect.

In the era of reproducibility images, the value of the paintings are already not assigned to him; its value is transferable: that is, it becomes a kind of information, like any information, it is either used or ignored; information has no special power by itself. When the picture is used, its value is either modificarea, or completely changed. We must clearly realize, what exactly this means. It's not about the fact that the reproduction is unable to correctly reproduce certain aspects of the original; a reproduction makes it possible (and even inevitable) that the image will be used for a variety of purposes, and a copy, unlike the original, will be able to adapt to them all.

Looking at the "virgin of the rocks", the visitor of the National gallery (thanks to all that he heard and read about this picture) would feel about the following: "I stand in front of her. I can see it. This painting by Leonardo is not like any other painting in the world. The National gallery stored its original. If I'm diligent enough to look at her, you can sense its authenticity. "Madonna of the rocks" Leonardo da Vinci: it is authentic and therefore beautiful!"
To reject such feelings as naive would be wrong. They correspond to a complex view of specialists in the art, to which is written the catalogue of the National gallery. An article about "the virgin of the rocks" one of the longest in it. It is fourteen pages in small print. And not a word about the meaning of this picture. It tells about who ordered this picture, on the legal disputes about who she belonged to, about the probable date of its creation, the families of its owners. For this information there are years of researches, aimed to dispel the slightest doubt that this picture really painted by Leonardo. The second goal is to prove that is almost identical to the picture stored in the Louvre is a copy that hangs in the National gallery.
French art historians try to prove the opposite.

Every word in that picture.
The vestments in the "cloud".

Life, like painting a wall, You created.
But the picture absurdities strange full.
I can't be better! You yourself in your crucible
Alloy my created: Thee I form given.

- What is this?
- Quiet. Listen. It's like a verbal painting. The artist invites the viewer to look carefully for an empty box or blank wall. He describes the picture, and the viewer, or in this case, the listener becomes the co-author of: he imagines the picture and projects his vision to the empty frame. The picture exists in reality, but the artist, describing her, immediately destroying it. In this way the painter makes fun of the cultural industry, producing exclusively tangible, material objects. He offers us something poetic, ephemeral, intangible.
- I think it is unlikely to buy.

It is a pity that I can not complete I
This study, though, was the idea wise:
I don't have enough droplets of LIFE
Not among the colors of my pearl.
Incomplete so palpable,
The idea is not embodied, and indeed,
I'll give you this picture
Maybe YOU will be able to finish.

It is a pity that I can not complete I
This study, though, was the idea wise:
I don't have enough droplets of LIFE
Not among the colors of my pearl.
Incomplete so palpable,
The idea is not embodied, and indeed,
I'll give you this picture
Maybe YOU will be able to finish.

Yellow drops - Sunny glare
Warm spots, happiness and summer.
Quiet tenderness will be spilled
In pink as clouds at dawn.
Drops green freshness combines -
The leaves and grass in wet ground.
Transparent drops - drops of sorrow,
Tears of rain on cold glass.
Droplets of scarlet beads of blood
I will heartbroken;
Drops of dairy - those that will cover
Warm lips suckling.
Blue droplet spray of the sea
In memory of seagulls, freedom, and wind.
Black droplets splash mountain:
Drops of fear, drops of death.