Monday, January 24, 2011

Joonistamisest ja maalimisest ja joonistamise ja maalimise vahekorrast

 
Kui sa oled kunagi kunstikoolis käinud (nagu kindlasti ca 90% ZA/UM'i lugejaskonnast seda teinud on) siis sa võib-olla oled tähele pannud kui halvasti selle kõigega on. Puudub distsipliin, õppejõud räägivad mingit möga ja kaasõpilased on parajad jobukakid. Ei jää midagi muud üle kui pettuda ja tõdeda taaskord, et kunst on igav aja raiskamine. See selleks, kunst ongi igav aja raiskamine. See mida sa kunstikoolist tegelikult saama läksid oli niikuinii hipster street cred ja kibedate mitte kätte andvate (või liiga kergelt kätte andvate) kultuuritibensite lantimist ning natukene ka seda elukogemust, et ongi päriselt inimesi kes kasutavad ilma igasuguse irooniata termineid nagu "hingav joon", "pingestatud kompositsioon" ja äraütlemata leige kiitusavaldus "põnev pind".

No ma ei saa teile jagada street credi ega ka kibedalt mitte kätte andvaid bohotüdrukuid, aga ma võin rääkida ilma igasuguse irooniata ja täiesti tõsiselt natukene maalimise ja joonistamise vahekorrast, niimoodi imelikult ja pentsikult nagu ainult joonistajad/maalijad (ja andekad (ning andetud) kirjanikud) seda oskavad.

Joonistamine

Joonistamine onju. Joonistamine on mõnus, see on füüsiline mõnu. Pliiatsi kraapimine paberil, see pehme sahin, see kerge kohin, see grafiit libisemas karedal paberipinnal. Natukene nagu see kurioossum värvilisest rohkete piltidega nõukogude populaarteadusraamatust mis õpetab kuidas topsidest ja lõngast telefoni teha. Mäletad seda raamatut? Seal on ka see trikk, et sa võtad pika puutüki ja paned ta kõrva vastu ja siis lased sõbral seda toigast kaugest otsast kratsida ja ennäe imet! Kõlab nagu kraabiks see kohe su kõrva juurest! Seesama asi juhtub ka joonistamisega. See tunne, pliiats paberil, see tuleb nagu elektrisurin mööda raudvarrast sinusse, su näpuotstest, su pehmetest näpuotste padjakestest, nagu kiisudel ja kutsudel, su närvikoestikku ja läbi närviahela elektriimpulsina su aju sinna kohta kus registreerub ära mõnu, ja see koht, need kurrud, nad siis tunnevad seda surinat.

surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr surrrrrrrrrr sur sur surrrrr siuh surrrrrr ja mõnikord surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ja mõnikord surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr surr.

Ausalt ka! Selline intensiivne kompamismeele kõditamine, natukene nagu kompamismeele massaaž või nagu keelega patarei lakkumine.

Omaette hea kogemus joonistamise puhul on tumedaima tumeduse markeerimine. See ei ole enam niivõrd füüsiline kompimistajusid kõditav kogemus kuivõrd psühholoogiline hea. Või õigupoolest tuleb psühholoogiline hea kompimistajule otsa ja tekib mingi resonants, mõnumeetri näidik paneb päikese all ikarust. Vaata vasakul olevat pilti ja märka neid tumedusi mis on revääri ja krae all. Need täkked. Mõtle, kuidas su pliiats suriseb mööda paberit ja kuidas sa siis hellalt, hool ja armastus südames peksmas, keel niimoodi lollakalt suunurgast välja piilumas, järsku pingutad käelihaseid ja ühe kitsa ning kontrollitud SIUH või isegi SÄUH saatel defineerid Kõige Tumedama Tumeduse. Erilise hoolekusega kordad sa seda žesti silmade juures ja enneolematut mõnu pakub see õrnutsemise ja jõhkrutsemise vaheldumine, mida nõuab endast huulte ja suunurkade tegemine! See õhkõrn vaevu paberi puudutamine, nagu näpuotstega tüdruku õla silitamine. Vaikselt sahiseva grafiiditeraviku all tekib helehall huulemass, interpunktsioonina see lihaspingutus ja tekivad need sügavad varjud, põhjatud süvikud suu nurkades. Sa peaaegu tunned seda mõnu oma munniga!

Oota, ma pean korra pausi tegema, mul käed värisevad sellele mõtlemisest.

Sügavat psühholoogilist naudingut pakub kauguste markeerimine. See tuleb enesekindlusest ja see kasvatab enesekindlust. Seal sa seisad, keep tuules lehvimas! Kordagi kõhklemata, vingumata või kartmata oskad sa ilma eelnevaid kavandeid tegemata või pikemalt selle üle järele mõtlemata kerge, lihtsa, õhulise ja graatsilise joonega õigesse kohta ära märkida kaugeid punkte. See tuleb kuidagi nii sujuvalt, nii vaevata, patsutab sulle heakskiitvalt õlale, õigustab su eksistentsi, tunnustab su andekust. Ah, missuguse materjalist üleolevusega sa oskad nii täpselt, nii lopsakalt, nii mõnusalt ükskõik mis objekti silueti kauni lookleva joonega kokku võtta. Pliiatsi puidust pea on muutunud roostevabast terasest skalpelliks, su liigutused on ülitäpsed, nad on tahte kõrgeimaks manifestatsiooniks, sa oled kirurg päästmas elusid ja kangelane kangelaste seas.

Aga joonistamine pole muidugi ainult lust ja pillerkaar, selle juures on ka halbu kogemusi. Muidu kõik ju ainult hommikust õhtuni joonistaksidki ja majandusega ei tegeleks üldse keegi ja mõtle mis siis küll maailmast saaks. Vaata seda pilti veelkord, vaata neid juukseid, paned tähele neid tumedamaid laike seal? Mingid imelikud ebamäärased saamatuse märgid? Paned tähele ka seal käte vahel asetsevat sodilappi? Need on läbikukkumise tulemid, nõrkuse näitajad ja häbiplekid, nende eest visatakse sind tänaval munade ja kaalikatega ja su ema valgendab su perefotost välja. Ahastus tuleb peale, sa sitt ei suutnud ühteainsat tumedusala säilitada ühesena!? Mis, grafiididefekt pani söe purunema ja määris paberi liialt mustaks? Olid su näpud rasvased ja jätsid õhukese õlikihi paberile, kas see õlikiht ergastas materjali ja tegi ta tumedamaks? Niisama lihaskramp tuli korraks peale ja rikkus kõik ära? Juba oli kõik hästi, aga ikka pidid kuidagi ta ära sittuma, ei saanud muidu jah?

Küllap saab piisava tahtmise puhul koledates tumedusvariatsioonides süüdistada mingit paratamatust, mis leevendaks kantavat häbikoormat. Hoopis andestamatum on aga kunstnikuhärrale omane laiskus, mis takistab teda pliiatsit teritamast. Miks sa ometi oma pliiatsit ei terita!? Näed ju küll, et paberit ei määri enam mitte üliterav, rafineeritud, vajalikuks otstarbeks prepareeritud grafiidiots vaid mingi tönts lame jublakas. Nagu laps rasvakriidiga sodimas. Õudus torgib südames, kui sa näed, kuidas joon läbib horrormetamorfoosi ja kaotab oma joonesuse, oma teravuse, oma lööva oleku. Nagu ilus inimene, kes on end paksuks, vinniliseks ja koledaks söönud, saab sihvakast joonest ähmane laik. Sealjuures selline pesemata roojase välimusega laiguline laik, pisikeste täpikestega, hajusate servadega. Otsi neid kohti pildilt, pane tähele kui kohmetud, kui saamatud, kui lollakad nad on. Laiskus vaatab sulle paberilt otsa, otse sulle silma sisse, näitab sulle keelt ja mõnitab sind, raiskab su aega.

See on siis joonistamine. Joonistamine on mõnus küll aga joonistamine on lapsemäng maalimise kõrval. Oi mis jutud mul maalimise kohta on! See pole naljakas ka kui mõnus MAALIMINE on! Vaata, ma kirjutasin ta suurte tähtedega sest ma tahan, et sa saaksid aru kui elevil ma olen!

Maalimine

Kõige esimene ja kõige magusam asi, mis maalimisega kohe pähe tuleb on negatiivse ruumiga maalimine. See on täpselt nii lahe kui kõla järgi tundub! Ta on selline mõnus ärevile ajav idee, meeldiv asi mida oodata, paneb südame kiiremini põksuma. Imeliste kogemuste lubadus. Tuled rongi pealt maha ja tüdruk on perroonil sind ootamas, mesimagus naeratus huulil, habraste kätega valget seelikusaba kergitamas ja ainult sina näed, et tal täna polegi püksikuid jalas. Hing aimab head.

See on väga intensiivne kogemus, selline jumaliku võimu tunnetus, natukene nagu tormid ja välk taevas oleksidki sinu kontrollida (ja natukene nagu sa oleksid jälle 11 aastane ja esimest korda elus Populuses neid tillukesi arvutiinimesi vulkaanide ja orgude olemisse manamisega kiusamas), natukene nagu sa oleksid just teise High Templariga merge'inud ja oma transtsendentaalsuse sinakas-valkja udu seest ei oska sa midagi targemat ägiseda kui: "Power overwhelming!" ja natukene nagu sa oleksid Suur Poeet ise, kullast Horuse pea kaelas, väänleva häälega teatamas: "This is way too much, I need a moment."

Mis asi see maagiline võimutaju siis on? Samal ajal kui megalomaanne mõistus kujutab ette ebatõenäolisi võimujoovastusi, oled sa päris elus tegelikult lihtsalt defineerimas objekti mitte teda ennast maalides, vaid tausta ja ümbrust määratledes. Selline pinnasest silueti välja lõikamise idee. Pildil all vasakul olev nurk, see hallikas lohakas helesinine laik (ülivajalik pildi värskuse-õhulisuse jaoks! Et ei oleks selline umbne tume lahmakas või sogase soga lämmatav soga). Range üleolevusega, kerge fuck you suhtumisega, peaaegu nagu sigaret käes ja barett viltu peas surud pintsli vastu lõuendit (styluse vastu tabletit) ja tõmbad selle lämbe tumeduse massi peale tükikese õhku, kontrast on meeletu! Vaakumkuubikusse on roostes naelaga auk sisse torgatud ja kõrvulukustava vägivaldse kohina saatel täitub see õhuga! Kogemus on räige, ohtliku maiguga, potentsiaalselt universumi metastabiilsuse kollapsi esile kutsuv! But you ride it out anyways. Kuidagi eriti kummalist psühholoogilist rahuldust pakub see raiumise tunne, silueti välja joonistamine teda ennast puutumata, natukene nurgeliselt, natukene lohakalt, natukene ülbelt, täielik maaliline pedereerimine.

Hüva, negatiivne ruum on suur ja tugev, aga ta ei seisa üksinda. Maalikunstile on omane tegeleda pinnaga (as opposed to joonega) ja sellest koorub omaette tehniline võte - komplekssete kujundite latakateks lihtsustamine. Latakas. La-Ta-Kas. Mõnus labane rütmikas sõna, kõla illustreerib tähendust täiuslikult. Antud pildil võid jälgida näiteks silma ja panna tähele, et kunstnik ei ole sellega liialt piiderdama hakanud. Pole vaja seda pupilli paska teha, nilbelt magusat biidermeierlikku valget läiget silmamunale, heledat joont silma alla, vikerkesta galaktikamustrit. Kõik on taandatud maitsekaks ühtseks pinnaseks, ühe tooni võrra heledam tumedus katab silmalau ja servahierarhia märgib ära häguse ääre, mis tekitab laule vajaliku kumeruse tunde. Kolme pintslitõmbega kogu asi valmis. Lõuend ja värvid ei nussi vastu, the artist reigns supreme.

Servahierarhia! See seostub juba sellise üldinimlikuma nähtusega nagu rütmitaju ja võtab oma jõu ja võimu sügavalt inimpsüühe seest. Mõnuvankri ette on rakendatud su vaimsuse üks ürgsemaid ja olulisemaid funktsioone - mustrituvastus. See on komponeerimisnauding, arvata ja aimata seda looklevat trajektoori mida mööda subjekti silm vastu ta tahtmist mööda objekti pinda liikuma hakkaks ja teha see hästi värviliseks ja põnevaks. Rõhutada ja lahjendada, timmida intsensiivsemaks ja jätta lohakamaks. Nõelteravad torkevõimelised värvi- ja toonikontrastid, pinnaservad kohtumas ja põrkamas hägusate, venitatud, sulavate, pehmete ja mahedate piiridega, nagu viinauduse ja unise peaga sattuda ametnikust sõbraga kätt suruma. Su paks, palav, pundunud ja pehme käsi puutub kokku mõnusa jaheda, kargelt tugeva ja jäiga käega. Kujutad seda ette? Kujutad kui mõnus see võib olla? Ja kui silm liigub oma põnevat looklevat rada pidi, vaheldub pinna olemus ajateljel kuidagi rütmikalt, sa avastad, et seal on biiti ja seal on bassi, on aimatavad leitmotiivid ja üldisemad ideed, on tajutavad omaette kujundirühmad ja komplektid, need vanad tuttavlikud näorütmid, see teravus ninaaugus, see pehmus põsesarnal, see sulanduv mahe mass laubal. Rafineeritud maitsekas progeroki vahetuv taktimõõt, üllatavad vaikusemomendid, pausid, räiged crescendod, kordamööda polkipolkipolki, pidulikud aeglased valsirütmid ja igavikku drõuniv süntesaatorimuusika.

Sügavamal analüütilises mõistuses pesitseb natuke akadeemilisem esteetika valdkond - värvinihestus. Värvinihestusel (hueshift) on kaks lähenemist, räägitakse kas temperatuuri või koloriidi muutmisest. Sõna "toon" on muide eesti keeles (tihti ka inglise keeles) misnomer, kuidagi on nii juhtunud et tooni all arvatakse ekslikult värvust kuigi valdkonnaspetsiifilises kõnepruugis tähendab ta hele-tumedus taset. Ei ole päris elus sellist asja olemas nagu "Soojades toonides maal" olemas on aga selline asi nagu "tumedates toonides maal".

Voh.

Igatahes.  

Värvusnihe siis. Ah mis peenutsev naudingu vorm see veel on! Vaikne ja tagasihoidlik, nagu kammermuusika, selline tilluke ja kenake. Kuidas koloriit muudab oma olemust, vaata seda näolappi, pane tähele seda helget, jahedat, lillakat tooni laubal, neid teravaid sisse kraabitud tibukollaseid rasvaläikeid, see õrn roostevarjund mis tuleb sisse varju ja valguse kokkupuutepunktis ja kuidas ta lahtub ära sogasesse varju. Märka seda rohekat varjundit silma all, selline kergelt haiglane ja loomupäraselt tagasihoidliku minekuga, mitte päris nagu Päris, aga oma värvivaeses kahvatuses mõjub kuidagi loomulikult ja veenvalt, kui märkamatult ta tekib sinna nende külmade ja soojade värvuste vahele. Vaata ja naudi ka seda kuis taustapinnal võnguvad samat tooni kandvad värvilaigud pruuni ja sinise vahet. Nagu Machinarium'i soundtrack, kergelt ambient minekuga aga huvitav ja sõna otseses mõttes värviline. Natukene ka nagu tütarlapse selja topograafia - midagi ahmivapanevalt suurejoonelist ei toimu aga on rahulik ja kaunis, esteetiline. Nende värvisüsteemide loogilisformaalne välja töötamine koos ajaga õpitud instinktiivse tajuaistinguga on üks neid väheseid mõnusaid hüvesid mida maailm on otsustanud sulle kinkida.

Joonistamise ja maalimise vahekorrast

Joonistamise ja maalimise aktil on erinevad autoritüpaažid (tundub muide, et nad on umbes nii ka kirjutamises). Ma nimetan neid poeedi- ja skulptoritüpaažiks. Poeedil on teatud õhuline kergus millega ta läheneb materjalile, peaaegu akrobaatiline mobiilsus millega silgata, õrn puudutus millega suunata vormi kulgemist. Skulptor läheneb ülesandele raskepäraselt, rohke eeltööga, raiudes suuri kamakaid, lõigates ruume pooleks, vormi ära visates ja juurde võttes, ringi nihutades, alatasa korrigeerides. See on selline viisakas analoogia mis sobiks ka konservatiivsesse kooliesseesse või viisakasse paberkandjasse. Magusama metafoori ja täpsema analoogia saaks kui väheke nilbemaks minna.

No kui nüüd nilbeks minna!

No kui nüüd nilbeks minna siis joonistamise ja maalimise vahekord, sarnasused ja erinevused on umbes nagu armatsemise ja keppimise omad. Joonistamine on selline hellitav ja hoolikas armunud olek, maalimine on selline füüsiline, vägivaldne keppimise iharahuldus. Joonistamises on oluline sensuaalne rütm, peaaegu erootiline suhe materjaliga, õrn puudutus, kerge flirt, kaunis looklev kumerus, terav säuh nurgake. Selline juugendlopsakuse meelitsev küllus. Suurte vormide delikaatne määratlemine, mitte kunagi liiga peenutsevalt, sealjuures kerge lihtsustusastmega aga kindlasti nii, et ta kannab endas juba detaili ja tema loomus saab olema oluline ka valmisjoonistuses. Määravaks omaduseks on see hoolikus ja haprus, õrnutsev lähedus, silitused, juustega mängimine, suudlused õlale, puudutus, kindel õrn rütmitunne, pikka looklevat joont ei tohi tõmmata pliiatsile liialt tugevasti vajutades, aga ka mitte liiga õrnalt. On aktsendikohad kus sa pead väga täpselt selle õige survega vajutama. Hellust ja armastust.

Maalimise puhul seevastu on oluline olla vägivaldne, enesekindel, pealekäiv. Ülbe alfaisane seisab oma materjalist üle, sunnib teda alluma oma tahtele, teeb tast oma libu, raiub, murrab ja muljub. Rahuldamatu võimuiha võtab maad ja taiesest on saanud omaette Justine kes peab vooruslikult kõik su ülemeelikud maalihimud ära kannatama. Jõhkra metsikusega kallad sa ta üle rohmakate pintslitõmmetega ja tekstuuriküllusega. Säbrutavad pinnad, konarlikud pinnad, libedad pinnad (kindlasti kõik väga "põnevad"), mikromustrid pakkumas joovastusainet. Vihaselt sakutada juukseid, raskekäelise kohmakusega peale vajuda, tunda seda higist füüsilisust mis läbib kogu loometööd. Keppida seda libu vittu ja perse, otse kõrisse, halastamatult ja vägivaldselt, muljuda kintsud siniseks.

Voh.

Vot selline tunne on olla kujutav kunstnik. Ma ei saa aru miks te kõik ei ole.

53 comments:

  1. kuule nii pikale veninud jutu pärast peaks Sul küll häbi olema. WORDS ARE FOR PUSSIES ! mine joonista ja maali !

    ReplyDelete
  2. See on jumala meisterlik autoportree. Tõeline nõukogude inimene on alati polümaat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vinge, aga siin nagu eeldatakse, et kunstnik on meessoost. :S

    ReplyDelete
  4. puhas sex ... i'm having a hard-on right now :D

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seksi ja paljunemise nimel elataksegi (ja tehakse kunsti) ju (enamjaolt). Ei ole midagi imestada. Aga tore autoportree.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Vinge, aga siin nagu eeldatakse, et kunstnik on meessoost. :S"

    See oleks kindlasti k6va, kui Rostov suudaks sarase naturalismiga kirjutada ka joonistamise ja ja maalimise naiselik-erootilistest sensatsioonidest, aga mulle tundub, et seda on siiski palju kysitud.

    See on muuseas yks nendest artiklitest, kus all on "Hea artikkel!" kommentaarid erinevatelt värvilistelt kommenteerijatelt, congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ma arvan, et Rostovile ei peaks otse ette heitma, et ta on meessoost.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ma natuke tahaks seda sisseloetuna ka.
    Siis: tegelikult on mõtetu mõelda, et kõik lugejad on kunstikoolis käinud ja punkbändi teinud. Sellest oleks natuke kahju.
    Also: kunsti tehakse tihtilugu ka seksi ja paljunemise asemel või kõrvalt.

    also: õnnitlused!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pole mul plaanis Rostovile soovahetusoppi teha, kuid lugedes antud teksti ja olles aastaid maalinud ja joonistanud, samastusin pidevalt autoriga, mistõttu kohad, kus mainiti libu keppimist jms, tekitasid samastumisprobleeme. Kuidagi tundus, et tekst peaks kõnetama kõiki, kes on midagi taolist kogenud, olenemata soost ja orientatsioonist, aga tegelt on see pigem autori kõvasti soolistatud isikliku kogemuse edasi andmine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. kuid ka naissool on samastumiseks seksi-kristy reproduktiivsüsteemiga maalimise kaasus olemas. meil on rostov, teil on seksi-kristy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kui samastuda ei saa, siis saab vastanduda. See tekst lihtsalt näitab et kunst on isiklik ja ei ole siin midagi niiväga üldistada. Liiga palju ühesugust kunsti tuleb äkki sellest, et on liiga palju ühelaadseid isiksusi? Ah? Mh?

    Mina maalin ja joonistan läbi viha või maeiteagi mis see teine asi on, mingi kergus? Nagu vabanemine? Üldiselt pole kunagi püüdnud seda analüüsida.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kindlasti leidub ka tütarlapsi, kes armastavad oma libusid keppida.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ma isiklikult seksi-kristyga ei samastu, aga teiste naiste eest ei räägi. :)
    Üldiselt näen, et kogemus ei sõltu kuigivõrd soost. Naljakas ongi, et samastun palju rohkem Rostovi kui seksitädiga. Võin praegu käisest visata selle loo paroodia, vahetades autori soo lihtsalt ära. Keegi mu blogi kommentaariumis juba soovitas mul ZA/UM-i tekste parodiseerida.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Aga palun tee seda! Nii kogemuse terviklikkuse huvides. Rostovi postitus oli väga haarav insight ja iga edasine katse täiendavalt penetreerida on ainult teretulnud.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://fideelia.blogspot.com/2011/01/joonistamisest-ja-maalimisest-ning.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Viimase 10 aasta parim artikkel, ausõna. Õnnitlused.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Man! Well. I would have really like your article, if not the inability to express oneself clearly. The "art" of writing, as well as all the other arts, is expressed in its clarity and sincerity, of which I found very little. All this, would be fine however, if in the article I found substance. Maybe it would be easier for you to express yourself clearly, if you, in fact, knew what you wanted to say. (Or had anything to say in the first place) Next time, I would expect people daring, and honest enough, to write about art, to actually know something about it. It also couldn't to post work that shows this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. hahahahahahha, that was a funny response. I guess you just didn't read it then.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The author's crudeness and inability to express himself through language is only rivalled by the poor quality of the works on display. If this vaudevillian grotesquery is meant as an illustration to the author's own attempts at coming off as some sort of a sensual writer, then I must say, in their failure they complement each other perfectly. Also of note is the pseudo-naturalist pink prose deployed here to mask any semblence of humanity and honesty on the author's part. Perhaps, before smugly and self-assuredly venturing off into the wilderness of prose, You might want to direct your endeavors towards becoming more than a hobbyist painter.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My goodness! It's wonderful that like-minded people exist.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Very.. interesting, how you'd use the term "aesthetic" in relation to this illustrated piece of writing. Conversation Killer - a suitable name indeed

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Sir! If you don't mind me saying, I am a fourth-generation intellectual and shall use the term "aesthetic" whenever I vouchsafe. Anent the issue, I have come to believe that the caballero behind the so-called Mr. Vladimir is indeed our very own RK whereas Mr. Iliya is a mere carpetbagger at best and a hapless agent provocateur in all probability.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear Conversation Killer !

    From the flashy paragraphs to the right, describing the purpose of this "ZA/UM", I gather that it is intended for the perusal of the general public. Or am I mistaken ?

    Also, it states that it is run by a - let me quote - "a crack team of experts" which, very un-characteristically for any "crack team of experts", settles for mere empty laconic statements and petty insults seemingly targeted at anybody who does not join in with the general adolescent self-congratulating.

    Again: or am I mistaken ? In either case: why is that ?

    Last I checked high intelligence is not inheritable per se, and stating it aloud anonymously on the IntarWebz so matter-of-factly that one indeed is precisely that - an intellectual no less - comes off as.. not very convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear mr Coka Kola,

    I thank you for such a prompt and enlightening reply.
    My sincerest apologies - I was definitely mistaken and am now very happy that we have cleared up this slightest of the very slightest of slight misunderstandings.



    Sincerely,

    K. S. P and R

    ReplyDelete
  25. With regards to the initials "RK".

    I assure you, a set of gold-embroidered insignia on my bath-robes begs to differ. This bafoonery, parading as a conversation, has thoroughly sullied my mood and I am afraid I must take leave.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is truly upsetting. a) whoever you be the term carpetbagger is unacceptable. Because you are not an American and I have nothing to gain from this but an intelligent discussion, which I have not, as it seems, gained. b) No one, my friend, who is truly an intellectual, as obsolete a term as it is, ever calls themselves this. Its arrogant, and disgusting, no matter how jokingly said.
    All I was saying was, that if you do not know what you are talking about, don't talk about it. Is it that difficult? Also, I recommend writing your articles in English, so that, open to a broader audience, your article, through the wave of opinions and comments, might teach you a thing or two.
    I wont debase myself, like those on this blog, and insult everyone, accentuating and trying to prove my fluency in the English language. I will just say, that a) absurd, does not mean stupid. b) learn to paint and draw, before you brag about it. In the field of the visual arts, I know what I'm talking about, at least a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thats more like it. My endeavors, if anything, are artistic, not literary. But the same can be said for anything here, really. The problem is still content. If one writes about worthy things, people close their eyes to everything else. If not, then at least explain yourself well. A convoluted text usually results in lack of something to say and the desire to say it anyway. Kandinsky managed this interestingly. Having so clearly organized his religious and mystic perception, no matter how absurd, and in fact distant from his practices, phrased and expressed everything simply enough to make his writing bearable for a while. But alas, it bores you with unrelatable, overtly personal, ideas. About Irving Stone I can say nothing but that he was indeed a good, direct writer. My problem is not with the foreign language, it's with the article! All it shows is what Erle Loran called, poetry, vagueness, and rhapsodical flights in art criticism (something he found, disruptive, to the teachings of art). And to my taste, a complete lack of knowledge on what really makes up the practices of Painting and Drawing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Saying Rostov can neither paint nor draw is not constructive criticism. It does not say anything about any qualities of his works. As for the article, it is undoubtedly one of a personal nature and mostly describes how does this one man feel while doing his work. I have no reason to doubt it's honesty and it's main value is in it's use of language. You seem to expect a serious theoretical piece about comparing those two mediums. This must surely either be a misunderstanding or a desire for poetry to be educational.

    ReplyDelete
  29. More or less worthy points. However, none of it rings accurate. Saying that one cannot paint or draw, is a criticism. What one does with it, may render it constructive. Furthermore, it happens to say, quite precisely, that the quality of the "works" leaves much to be desired. Please, this one man, can write all he wants on his personal processes and emotional turmoil while painting and drawing but I don't understand how it doesn't come off as banal and amateurish to you people! Painting and Drawing is not about bursting with emotion as pencils scrape paper. As Cezanne said (and please don't accuse me of taking this out of contest) that art should START with emotion. The rest is focus, thought, search, and often simply doing. As one reads this article, one assumes that the writer spent his time painting, thinking of what to write online later that evening rather than concentrating. If art is fun, or sad, or emotional, or whatever else you folks think it is, than you really have no idea. Art is none and all of those things. But simply- art is HARD.

    I have nothing more to say really! Specifics take too long, will mean nothing, and will be surely lost on deaf ears in any case. All I am saying is that this article is pure graphomania. Never a good thing. If it is condoned and hailed as poetry or art or science or whatever you people like to call it, then please. Your tiny community can enjoy patting itself on the back, but in the greater scope, you should know, it's worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mis mäng siin käimas on? Midagi isiklikku? Ma olen hämmingus. Ma ei valda inglise keeles lennukalt väljendumise kunsti aga mul oleks eesti keeles kunsti kohta nii mõndagi öelda. Kahjuks minu amatöörlike taieste alla pole tekkinud pooltki nii ärevusttkeitavat diskussiooni, kus saaks söösta oma positsioone kaitsma. Lükkan õige veel midagi üles ja tahaks siis oma pildi all lõugu laksutada.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The great Iliyad has appeared as a person proper and not a troll of the barren internet wastelands!

    I can see where you are coming from and would have agreed with you wholeheartedly not two years ago but in the interim I have had the fortune of making a decicion to consider art Not Boring. I have to admit, it is hard and sometimes I want to give up but I carry on.

    Also, to be truthful, I DID write the article only to tell everybody a crude joke about comparing drawing to making love and painting to fucking. : )

    Painting is ofcourse a difficult calculative process of considering pigments, adjusting composition schema, triangulating distances and so on but that is not all it is. You should consider this fun little trivial article to only cover a small spectrum of what goes on in my head when I paint. I have chosen to really only describe the juiciest tactile senses of pleasure one has while drawing and painting. I want to ask you, have you never really felt that specific sense of awesome that happens when carving out a shilouette with negative space (with forceful big brush strokes none the less)? Have you never felt the pleasure that is drawing (in a sketchbook! that is, small format - drawing with your wrist not with your shoulder) a really light line, a contour of some foot for instance and then, without taking a pause, without taking the pencil of the paper, with a strong flick of the wrist define the dark under the foot which makes it stand on a surface?
    I ask you: Does that not feel GOOD?

    (As a side note I do not like drawing big with pencils for fun (that is I do big format pencils only for studies) exactly for this reason - there are very few of these tactile senses of pleasure. Drawing big is a dry process, the line so tiny, the surface so huge! A bit like building a real house out of matchsticks. The slow building process is very rewarding academically however, to study and build the shapes with proper line curvatures is intellectually very satisfying. But other than the pencil scraping against the paper there are no physical rewards in there. (But come on! Does THAT not feel good? Really? How come do you even draw if you don't feel pleasure from just dragging a pencil across paper?)
    Charcoal is very fun and gung-ho though, the painterly aspects, the flicks and the potential for calligraphic lines, that's the money stuff for just drawing for the fuck of it.

    Also I want to ask you if you've ever painted just for the fuck of it? Deliberately never really taking time to calculate too much, just going with instinct. A general sense of fun, some canvas to waste, a couple of good pigments you can rely on, get a bit drunk on the side, put on real loud music and dance in front of the canvas and throw some shit down? Try it out! I assure you, it's THE SHIT!

    You should know that painting is not holy, it's just a thang.



    And as an aside - the whole ZA/UM agenda is to kinda try and do this whole culture thing so as not to be boring as fuck. And asserting that video games are art! That is definitely the #1 on the ZA/UM manifesto - video games as art!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also, are you the Iliya that's a friend of Kaspar from St. Petersburg? Or just some dude who stumbled in here and read the article through google translate? (How DID you read it? : D)

    Also! Cezanne was a total bitch and made boring and terrible art.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rostov ! You finally took the bait !
    Iliya is indeed my friend "from St. Petersburg". While I usually wouldn't say anything in his stead I can vouch that his intent was not to start a mere flame war, but rather to strike up a discussion on the given topic . I'm sure he'd gladly rip you (yes you Rostov!) a new one for your take on Cezanne ! Care to elaborate on that ?

    ReplyDelete
  34. CK, heh, isiklikult võtakse vaid seda, mida on isiklikult mõeldud ; ) Rostovile vastu pükse andmine oli siiski pigem elava diskussioni arendamise eesmärgil. No ja kui maitse üle ei vaielda, mille ülse siis veel ? Mu isiklikest nuustaku-tuttavaist on nimelt Rostovil ainukesena just sel alal mäd skillz ning mu sõber on mõeld juba pikemat aega mõnel antud teemal temaga jutuotsa üles võtta. No ja siin me oleme.

    ReplyDelete
  35. no aga ZA/UMis rebitakse ikka suht värvikalt ükskõik mille kallal, miks siis peaks väljast (linnast) tulija šokolaadikarbi ja lilledega tulema ?

    ReplyDelete
  36. My beef with Cezanne is really my beef with any given modernist painter. The dull colours, the boring subject matter, the coarse brushwork. Is this not the most boring thing you have ever seen? http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/moma/chateau-noir-28
    (Oh god! Google art project! I love you SO much!)

    Konrad Mägi, Cezanne, Lucien Freud. They are all shrugworthy and boring.

    To take a stand and present somethign to defend I submit Zorn http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2968974/Zorn_Anders_Fiskmarknad_I_St_Ives.jpg observe the variety! The brush strokes, a brilliant balance between coarse moments and silky smooth gradients, the brillance of the colours, the spot on observations, the simplfications in that mass of fish on the sand! Out of personal taste I would have liked it even more if the brushwork had more gall and "Fuck you!" moments present in some paintings of his. Along with Sargent and to a lesser extent Sorolla (Whose sense of colour I find a bit too jarring).

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2968974/furstenberg_natteffekt_large.jpg one more Zorn! The brushwork, look at it! Zorn was a man of BALLS OF STEEL! Too bad the colours got eaten by the photograph.

    Alright, enough of boring old dead guys, lets check out some contemporaries!

    This is Adrian Ghenie, he is a machine in the sky. http://nicodimgallery.com/artists/adrian-ghenie/ Look at any of these paintings and then look at a Cezanne. How can you not feel disgust at Cezanne for wasting your time, your life with his horrible boring early-modernist kitch?

    Saville is pretty cool I guess. Yeah. And Alex Kanevsky gets me all hot and bothered http://www.somepaintings.net/2010/Heroes/heroes.html

    And that is ignoring the subject matter which from these guys has been pretty boring. Though to be honest off the top of my head I can only think of Anton Vill and Helnwein as having intersting subject matter, both of whom have been featured here.

    Oh! Mucha did the ridiculously awesome Slav Epic after getting rich and famous with his girly menu designs and other Nouveau frivolities.

    I suppose my dream artist has the craftsmanship of Sargent with the suave clever conceptualism of Duchamp and it is what I would hope to aspire to be one day.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry, Ghenie should be considered to belong to the 'has interesting subject matter' camp

    ReplyDelete
  38. Lucien Freud - paints like a second year art student.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ok, on aeg asuda vastasleeri. Ma pole tahtnud algusest peale liiga sõna võtta, saati veel isiklik olla. Ma hindan Rostovi kõrgeid skille, kuid mulle väga ei imponeeri tema temaatika. Ja ei peagi ju. Mulle ei meeldinud ka sinane artikkel aga kunstniku eneseväljendusena oli see kõva, nagu natuke mingi Jaanoksalik. (Teate kes oli Jaan Oks?)

    Ka ei meeldinud mulle alul Lucien Freud. See tundus mulle inetu. Aga ma hindan tänapäeva kunstimaailmas seda, et üks mees võtab kätte ja maalib läbi terve oma elu paljast inimest ei mitte kriipsuvõrragi sotsiaalset kunsti,enamasti neidsamu modelle ja ta teeb seda kusjuures siiski kuradi hästi, see koledus on nagu väheke valus, justkui oleks inime ilma nahata.
    Mul ei ole miskit liiga laia silmaringi moodsas kunstis, aga see sai siis praegu ära öeldud.
    Ma julgen isegi seda öelda, et kui see rumal kunstikool mulle üldse midagi on õpetanud, siis seda et paljud asjad mis mulle varem EI meeldinud, on mulle nüüd sümpaatsed ja arusaadavad. See tegelikult ongi kunstihariduse sügavam mõte.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Personally I would put both Freud and Saville into the same pot - Saville pretty much changed the colour-scheme and is, perhaps more contemporary and outré in her chosen subject matter, which has lately become rather repetitive, thus dull, and relies a bit too much on the shock value.

    Speaking about shock value, while I think that Anton Vill had a great show (too bad I missed the real thing õ_õ), I believe that he too relies very much on that, his skill with the mediums and not much else - undoubtedly a personal taste, explained by my current leanings toward more down to earth and naturalistic painting.

    I hadn't seen anything from Adrian Ghenie and, as I actually like the work that I see in that gallery, I must admit that it is not that original - there is a lot of semi-abstract tonal work out there. I'd contrast him with a contemporary, Sangram Majumdar (www.sangrammajumdar.com) who, granted, keeps the compositions less conceptual while working more with colour (although artifial, but colour none-the-less) - a personal favourite of my more recent finds.

    My problem with Alex Kanevsky is the same - his lack of colour. I'd even go as far as say that Freud has been an influence on him while Freud's a more masterful draughtsman.

    I'm not going to disagree with you about Mucha - I'm a big fan of those monumental pieces, I'd be happy to see a lot of that come back.

    Sargent and Zorn - without blinking, either can be called a virtuoso, and neither worked too much with colour. Zorn was more masterful with watercolours and graphic work (which is plain amazing). Only recently did I discover Sargent's watercolour work (actually it was Iliya that introduced me to it). Have you seen the painting of Monet (while Monet is sitting behind an easel and painting, outdoors) ? And have you seen the painting Monet was painting ? Those colours ! There's a canyon between these two very different masters - Sargent couldn't get the tiniest bit of the brilliant colours that were present, no, that were the essence of Monet's painting.

    And colour is what Cezanne has. As Iliya has recently taken great interest in Cezanne and his work, I'll leave this bit to him.

    Made made a good point, one that might turn your current tastes and preferences on their heads - seeing all that different art and seeing it in life has had a great impact on they way I approach a painting. While I seem to think that you have a greater problem with the subject matter Cezanne was working with, when you look at him in life, you'll probably, perhaps in time, come to respect him for his skill at east.

    Here: http://gallerix.ru/storeroom/819964423/
    You can see that his subject matter was varied and he never deviated from painting, form working with colour, I think that it is difficult to compare one as he to any of the contemporaries you mentioned - they all tackle different problems of the painting medium

    ReplyDelete
  41. holy crap it is a whole lot of text

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thank god/or whatever, that we and everything we do is all worthless shit. Phew.

    Tubli Rostov, postmoderniste tuleb kakaauku vägistada, kasvõi natukene.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, alright. To put an end to discussions about the article, I just will mention that I am not a big fan of such sentimental expression as presented. The countless examples of poetry written describing the processes of art, all come short of anything worthwhile, and at their best, try to recreate it abstractly. Anything that is attempting to describe such feelings as anguish, and the tactile pleasure, and intellectual delight of smooth, sweeping line, or quick hatch marks, or explosive movement of a loaded palette knife are all just words, that repeat in every text of art history or poetic recreation of the artistic process, making the idea of all this not only not unique, but also sentimental (trying to achieve preconceived feeling based on noted responses from words). The more than classic Hopper line that “if I could say it in words, I wouldn’t have to paint it” is suits my point.
    So… I don’t know. I’m usually in the minority when it comes to disregarding the sentimental and romantic. I don’t like when it appears anywhere. I think it deadens our sentiment rather that trains it.

    Also, I have really dragged my pencil across paper, or slammed paint at a canvas so much, and so regularly, that by no means do I think of any of the pleasures of doing. I have begun to think and feel the pleasures of creation; of trying to recreate as accurately (not necessarily realistically) as you can the subject. This applies most of all to landscape where when you can you achieve in representing (feeling), at least a little bit, the marvel of what you see before you, you have come a little closer to nature.
    Let’s close this topic. To each his own, and all tends to change with experience, practice, and time, and it is not worth arguing about or discussing. We are free to strive for whatever we wish. As for the bit about the dancing, drinking, and such, we can do whatever helps us work. I will not argue this. However, drinking is never good when working. Most artist drunks worked sober. Ever wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  44. But let’s sort of continue with the landscape idea. I assumed, that landscape and still life is a weak, and boring genre, according to you. Since Cezanne, painted primarily in those two genres, you find in him fault. These genres, most focused with the development of purely painterly issues. It is not a coincidence that all major changes in painting style and approach in history, came from landscape. To clear up something I found strange: “modernist kitsch”, is an incorrect term, because what is modernist, cannot be kitsch. This is simply the way it works. Kitsch goes against the modern, always.

    Let’s not judge paintings based on our new friend Google Art Project. The opportunity to see every painting live is not one everyone may have, but your link to the MoMA’s Cezanne collection, one that I have had the luck, to visit rather often, does indeed need to be seen with one’s own eyes. I will ignore the comment about the “dull” colors, because it is something which might stem from this very problem of not seeing Cezanne in life. Maybe one day you will walk into a room of Cezanne’s work, and it will have its proper effect; the INCOMPARABLE brilliance of color harmony and compositional build and thoughtfulness that is one of only a great master. And most importantly: ENDLESS VARIETY. As to the boring subject matter, I think you have to understand that “concept” is not something that really has a place in the representative realistic art world. It is about image, about the emotive qualities of an image, one that CANNOT be expressed in words. Brushwork is something you have to forget about. Not my words. Delacroix. It’s too personal, to judge, and even worse to imitate.

    One must see connections in art. Of all the artist mentioned, everyone except Sorolla, Sargent, and Zorn, and to a lesser extent Mucha, are a) post-modern and b) DIRECTLY stemming from Cezanne. Yes, the accented picture plane, the application and general construction of a compositional system. Without Cezanne, they would be nothing, in fact, they wouldn’t even exist. But let’s look at them separately. Ghenie, a painter with promise but one that deals with subjects that are and represented in a fashion that is too personal. He is also highly repetitive in mood. You can’t tell one painting from the other, meaning a destruction of each paintings individual quality. Thus it is all imitative, and not worth mentioning in terms of color (the main problem). If color was used, the mood of the paintings would leave the realm of the incomprehensible, and enter something more readily felt by viewers. Kanevsky is a joke. He is a Saville clone. Saville herself focuses a little too much on the subject, and the problem of the lack of unity with pictorial ideas. Also, they are too photographic, too conceptual, though I must admit, not as repetitive as the other folks.
    Everyone heretofore mentioned focuses on shock, on the grotesque, on the incomprehensible, on the grim and dark, in a way that is too theatrical and unrelatable. Let’s not make art more elitist that it already is. After all, it’s just a thang.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Subject matter can be neither boring nor interesting, it can’t even be good or bad. This is a common misconception. It can be relatable, or unrelatable. Art’s job is not to interest. It’s one of Tolstoi’s flaws of artistic perception. They are to interest, to shock, to be poetic, and to imitate. Now think of how much of that applies to the artists mentioned here. Yet, Cezanne does none of this. The Realist dream team also doesn’t, but Zorn actually, opposite to what you mentioned, is the one that lacks variety the most of these 3. His paintings tend to become confusing and definitely repetitive.

    However, I found it quite strange, that not a single big artist was mentioned. Where are the giants? Surely they cannot be Sargent, Zorn, or Sorolla. Speaking of which, this whole idea of “fuck it” attitude in painting, this emotive expanse that is so often mentioned: where is it? You mention the 2 most refined painters of the late 19th century. Not a single unplanned thing. Massive concentration. Dignified and pompous beyond belief. But aside from this, surely you must have one artist in your arsenal of beloved painters, who is one of the greats. Where was Rembrandt? Velasquez? TITIAN!!!? Raphael? Watteau? To name a very small number. Where were they?

    To conclude this little segment, I think the problem lies a little in perception. In this case, it is not the fault of Cezanne or Titian, or Matisse, that they cannot convince you of a new reality. It is YOU failing to realize that the CREATION of this separate reality, a NEW feeling, is one of the main goals of art, a world, that is tangential to our own and one that is beyond what you are used to seeing. Beyond what is simply the obvious, shocking, imitative, mass-produced and externally “realistic” work that is loved by too many who don’t know, and by none who do.

    ReplyDelete
  46. hueshift höhöh, rohkem nagu huishift mumeelest, on ju nii?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The guy that wrote the "article" is too cool to like the "mainstream" artists like Cezanne, Matisse, Rembrandt, Velasquez, Titian, Raphael, Watteau or the likes.

    ReplyDelete