The crisis of the genre and the symptoms of style: The problem of monumentality in the new Russian art

Авторы

  • Alexander O. Kotlomanov Санкт-Петербургская государственная художественно-промышленная академия им. А.Л.Штиглица https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1917-2510

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu15.2019.106

Аннотация

The current state of monumental art in Russia is analyzed in the context of global art and cultural trends. Examples of the newest Russian monuments that, in the philosophy of culture are symptoms of historical trends, is emphasized. The goal is to clarify this symptomatology for subsequent determination of the current situation in accordance with the theory of style. In the second half of the 20th century, monumental sculpture was in a state of crisis. There was a gap between aspirations of modern art and tastes of society. In critical publications, the idea that monuments separate us from history and soften our attitude to its tragic pages had been slipping. As a result, alternative versions of monuments and memorials were developed. The most interesting examples are counter-monuments, which suggest a controversial attitude to the topic, in contrast to the traditional monument, where such meaning is expressed unequivocally. The counter-monument raises the question shifting the response to the sphere of public debates. Thus art participates in the live course of history and calls us to think. The idea of such an alternative is ambiguous and raises questions. It is not clear to what extent these projects are related to the general context of art. Can they really compete with traditional monuments? And, finally, is this attitude to the monumental form relevant in contemporary Russia? The text attempts to answer these topical issues of contemporary theory and practice of art.

Ключевые слова:

style, genre, monumentality, monument, Russian art, Russian sculpture, modern art, modern sculpture

Скачивания

Данные скачивания пока недоступны.
 

Биография автора

Alexander O. Kotlomanov, Санкт-Петербургская государственная художественно-промышленная академия им. А.Л.Штиглица

кандидат искусствоведения, доцент

Библиографические ссылки

References

1. Causey, Andrew. Sculpture since 1945. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

2. Senie, Harriet. Contemporary public sculpture: tradition, transformation and controversy. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

3. Moore, Henry. Writings and Conversations. Edited by Alan Wilkinson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

4. Lapp, Alex. “Memories of a Monument: The Competition for a Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner, London 1953 — a Discussion of the Powers of Sculpture that Never Existed”. In Memory & Oblivion. Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art held in Amsterdam, 1—7 September 1996, edited by Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel, 1051–7. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

5. Matt, Gerald, Kunsthalle Wien, und Stadt Wien, Hrsg. Judenplatz Wien 1996. Wettbewerb Mahnmal und Gedenkstätte für die jüdischen Opfer des Naziregimes in Österreich 1938–1945. Wien: Kunsthalle Wien, 1996.

6. Widrich, Mechtild. “The Willed and the Unwilled Monument. Judenplatz Vienna and Riegl’s Denkmalpflege”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, no. 3 (2013): 382–98.

7. Whiteread, Rachel. “Carving Space: Interview with David Sylvester”. Tate, no. 17 (1999): 40–7.

8. Rauterberg, Hanno. Holocaust Memorial Berlin: Eisenman Architects. Baden AG: Lars Müller Publishers, 2005.

9. Barris, Roann. “Architectures of memory and counter-memory: Berlin and Bucharest”. Radford University. Accessed September 1, 2018. http://www.radford.edu/~rbarris/research/Architectures%20of%20Memory%201.pdf.

10. Young, James. “The counter-monument: memory against itself in Germany today”. Critical inquiry 18, no. 2 (1992): 267–96.

11. Young, James. “Memory and Counter-Memory: The End of the Monument in Germany”. Harvard design magazine, no. 9 (1999): 1–10.

12. Miles, Malcolm. “Remembering the Unrememberable — the Harburg Monument Against Fascism (Jochen and Esther Shalev Gerz, 2009)”. Dokumentas, Straipsnis leidinyje: Meno istorija ir kritika, no. 6 (2010): 63–71.

13. Macintyre, James. “From Beckham to Lapper, the ever-changing cast”. The Independent, August 7, 2008. Accessed September 1, 2018. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/from-beckham-to-lapper-the-everchanging-cast-887463.html.

14. Hirschhorn, Thomas, and Mark Rappolt. Where do I stand? What do I want? London: ArtReview Ltd., 2007.

15. Hirschhorn, Thomas, Lisa Lee, and Hal Foster. Critical laboratory: the writings of Thomas Hirschhorn. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2013.

16. Kantor, Anatolii. Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo XX veka. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973. (In Russian)

17. Voeikova, Iraida. Khudozhniki-monumentalisty. Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1969. (In Russian)

18. Lebedeva, Viktoriia. Sovetskoe monumental’noe iskusstvo shestidesiatykh godov. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. (In Russian)

19. Bazaz'iants, Stella. Khudozhnik, prostranstvo, sreda. Monumental’noe iskusstvo i ego rol’ v formirovanii dukhovno-material’nogo okruzheniia cheloveka. Khudozhnik i gorod. Moscow: Sovetskii Khudozhnik, 1982. (In Russian)

20. Poliakova, Nataliia. Skul’ptura i prostranstvo. Problema sootnosheniia ob”ema i prostranstvennoi sredy. Moscow: Sovetskii Khudozhnik, 1982. (In Russian)

21. Turchin, Valerii. Monumenty i goroda. Vzaimosviaz’ khudozhestvennykh form monumentov i gorodskoi sredy. Moscow: Sovetskii Khudozhnik, 1982. (In Russian)

Загрузки

Опубликован

27.03.2019

Как цитировать

Kotlomanov, A. O. (2019). The crisis of the genre and the symptoms of style: The problem of monumentality in the new Russian art. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Искусствоведение, 9(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu15.2019.106

Выпуск

Раздел

Изобразительное искусство

Наиболее читаемые статьи этого автора (авторов)

1 2 3 4 5 > >>