web.plutocracy

Hi,
Sorry.I'm interrupted in your affectionate chat.

We couldn't know wha was the first in fog of history -all those branch of c=
ubism,or suprematism in radical
form of black square/cross suprematism(date&antidate).Trace's for understan=
d of Malevich's:Leger's work,futurist and synthetic cubism.But art history =
is not my job,my ambition's to find somebody
in Zombie Town who could at least shake head even he don't understand…Mal=
evich orthodox tradition is far,far from any viscosity,you can't even imagi=
ne how far.Icon's kind of
"proto-photography",similarity's only important thing for icon!Malevich sta=
tement:"I make icon of XX century!"could be announce that
something's new in new revolutionary iconography's finally discovered(Malev=
ich drive away Marc Shagal from Vitebsk,city where both have schools in ear=
ly revolutionary time|about 1918?|-Shagal's cow on the city walls and Malev=
ich strictness).
Malevich's argument's vere convincing for communist ideologists(that's just=
curiosity).
Icon's print of Jesus face on Veronica's veil endless time reprinted…imag=
es of sent just like they look like when they were alive,or from detail des=
criptions(photo-robot)of eye witnesses…etc.
Malevich idea was to establish new universal&omnipotence logo/image with bl=
ack square,or black cross(like swastika,red or white star,red cross,half mo=
on…).
What *viscosity*have to do with swastika?
Icon have nothing to do with Mona Lisa,you…you clever young man.
Icon re-present only persons from bible,and specifically for Serbian tradit=
ion only individually saints(which everybody could recognize).That was Male=
vich idea,and Mr.Lunk really made "Perfect Malevich".
I still don't understand silence around 01 org.work.If is so nice defend th=
em,if I'm wrong attack me!They're web.plutocracy
or something like that?

Cheers
MANIK


~Hi Regina & Eric,

I found this Malevich piece pretty interesting…

I think that trying to pretend that one can have their own copy of a
Malevich on the Internet is admirable in one sense, yet these 'many
steps' removed HTML versions offer no context in respect of the artworks
source. And this was definately not the point of it either. Malevich's
dynamic and Suprematist paintings were for instance influenced by the
three different phases of cubism, Facet Cubism, Analytic Cubism and
Synthetic Cubism. Which of course ware, if our history books are true
(they must always be re-evaluated), spawned by the intensive work of
Picasso and Braque who initiated the cubist movement- they followed the
work of Paul Cezanne.

Paintings are not just about what one sees, they are very much about the
real experience and trhe scale, presence and viscosity, in a formal
sense. If you look at an art image in a book it can inspire you but
nothing beats experiencing a painting in real life, that's when they
really live. Copies are no way as stimulating or interesting in
photographic or Internet format.

I feel that what these new distributable (HTML) Malevich's comment on
our contemporary way of engaging in art in a more conceptual way.
Perhaps it is linking or referencing to how see and experince art now.
It certainly is not about the authenticity of the artwork itself or the
original artist 'Malevich', who painted it. Malevich and the item/object
chosen, both equally respected art icons in their own right, are much
more used as famous architypes, a bit like drawing a moustache on the
Mona Lisa.

Exploiting the context of art declaring that function is now part of the
art as well, and the technology used. That redistribution and
appropriation of it, of famous works, such as this piece, can also be
perceived as re-claiming/claiming an art territory, that traditionally
has been owned by a certain group of high art institutions. This
questions that authority, not by saying this is ART but by saying this
can now be yours and anyone's. Claim it, it yours, do what you will with
it…

I like it :-