Оlena Аstapova-Vyazmina

First of all, the peculiarities of the objectless and non-figurative art, its tasks, goals, functions, and differences from the other pictorial portrayal schools were considered by the founders of this trend W. Kandinsky, K. Malevich, P. Mondrian. Of course, everyone in his own way defined the significance of the new portrayal type, however, the main question uniting them was the question of sense and meaning, which is implied by objectlessness and non-figuration as it is. It is necessary to point out, that the notions of “objectless art”, “non-figurative art”, abstractionism in the majority of the researches are mostly perceived as identical, it is of course not exactly correct. But without a logical detailed characterizing of these notions in our research we will consider them close in meaning, taking them as synonyms.

It is known that in the objectless art change of the pictorial paradigm takes place. But speaking just about objectless art, the key-word here is still “objectless”, and we’ll try to analyze this “objectlessness”.

M. Foucault investigating peculiarities of the pictures by R. Magritte “It Is Not a Pipe” paid his attention to the correlation between the artist’s picture and the inscription below it, i.e. we have a figure and the text naming it. The picture representing a pipe is not actually a pipe. However Foucault talks on an old habit, not without some grounds, that all the essence of so schematic and so scholar picture as the picture by Magritte is implied in the intention to be recognized, to represent the depicted with the whole ambiguity and certainty. A speech habit is meant to clarify what the picture shows – this is a calf, this is a square, this is a flower [1]. In other words, M. Foucault determined one of the spectator’s basic functions – to see and grasp the artist’s message.

01 Мар 2016 в 09:05. В рубриках: Арт-заметки. Автор: admin_lgaki

Вы можете оставить свой отзыв или трекбек со своего сайта.