NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Critical Article of Branislav Jakovljevic The article Unframe Malevich! : Ineffability and Sublimity in Suprematism by Branislav Jakovljevic is a good example of critical review elevating the obscure paintings of Kazimir Malevich to the height of extraordinary breakthrough, in the field of art. It is not a secret that Malevich is best known painting Black Square is nothing but a piece of black painted canvas in frame. Nevertheless, according to critic, this dubious work of art has as much value as works of Michelangelo or Rubens. It needs to be said that the only reason why Malevich paintings gained so much popularity in 20 th century, is because they were being critically acclaimed by experts like Jakovljevic. It is because of this that many people think of Kazimir Malevich as an outstanding artist, while any 3 -year-old child could produce the same. Jakovljevic understands well that Malevich works cannot be thought of in terms of art, in true sense of this word.
Therefore, in his review the accents are shifted towards philosophy: Clearly, Malevich de-aestheticizes color and transforms it into a pure theoretical concept. He does that by all means necessary: not stopping at his own, often penetrating ideas, he incorporates into his writing fragments of thinly disguised philosophical systems, engages in laconic interpretations of artistic styles, develops grand metaphors, plays with neologisms, comments on the politics of the day, and prophesies (Jakovljevic). Who could have thought that painting a black square is nothing less of creating a new worldview? This situation reminds us a story of a king, who used to walk naked, while no one could believe his own eyes, preferring to think that king was simply wearing a dress, made out of very thin material. It took a simple peasant to exclaim: The king is naked! , upon seeing this spectacle.
The same happened with various critics, after they were being asked to discover a true meaning of Malevich art. Jakovljevic is one of them; he betrays his own sense of artistic finesse, in order to appear sophisticated. Black and white squares are not geometrical symbols for the body, but complex intersections of the conceptual and the concrete that support and feed off each other says critic, but I doubt very much whether he understands these definitions. This is the classical case of graphomania, as a style of artistic criticism. Jakovljevic uses sophisticated words, in order to hide, even from himself, a simple fact that nothingness is best discussed in terms of nothingness.
In other words - no argument can arise if there are no preconditions for this to happen in the first place. We can have different ideas about what constitutes artistic beauty and we can argue about them. However, it is pointless to discuss art, which originates out of ones sick perception of reality. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Malevich paintings might be the subject of interest for the psychiatrists. One of the most important fallacies of Jakovjevic's critical review is that he discusses Malevich paintings out of historical context. For him, artists creations have value in itself: Malevich painted Black Square in 1915.
He immediately presented this work as a breakthrough and a milestone in his artistic career as well as in the history of art in general. It seems to have had the power of a revelation. In what now looks like a masterly stroke of avant-garde self-mystification, he reported that he could not sleep, eat, or drink for an entire week after he finished the painting (Jakovjevic). Nevertheless, it cannot escape readers attention that Malevich most famous paintings were being produced not long before the outbreak of Russian revolution. It is not a secret that 95 % of Communist leaders in Russia, at the time, were Jews. Malevich is also a representative of chosen people.
Many historians nowadays associate Communist revolution in Russia with hysteria of madness, when millions of people were being murdered because they belonged to the wrong social class. It is very symbolic that Malevich art promoted madness, prior to the tragic events of 1917 in Russia. Still, critic omits this fact, as if Black Square properties were of purely artistic nature. Even though that Jakovjevic tries to maintain academic neutrality in how he discusses the significance of Malevich works, it is obvious that he admires the artist. According to him, those who failed to appreciate the artistic value of Malevich kitsch, are simply not progressive enough: Unfortunately, outside of Russia the renewal of interest in Malevich's visual work has not been accompanied by a comparable reconsideration of his theories (Jakovjevic). This statement shows that critic has a certain political agenda, which prevents him from remaining unbiased in his conclusions.
The issue of artistic taste cannot be judged in terms of politics, but it is quite appropriate to use the category mental health, when we discuss such taste. Jakovjevic defines any of such attempts as politically incorrect. For him, the situation when people are forbidden from having its own opinion, which might be different from the opinions of experts, is very natural. Such position, of course, cannot be considered as fully legitimate.
Jakovjevic rightly suggests that Malevich has founded a new school of painting Supermatism. As artist himself describes it: I approach non objectivity as monochrome-white Suprematism by replacing the goal of objective goods with non objectivity. No one will find in it a compensation -- not a giving God, nor prayers, nor objects, nor master, nor servant -- all that for which society now lives (Malevich). However, the fact is that the majority of critics do not consider this school as something unique. They tend to think of it as the branch of Primitivism, which is appropriate, given the fact that Malevich has never been qualified even as a painter. There is another definition for this kind of art Degenerative.
In recent times, the art exhibitions of mentally disabled artists became very fashionable. These artists would understand Malevich concept of non-objectivity better than anyone else. Nevertheless, for anybody in its sober mind, it is virtually impossible to think of such exhibitions as nothing but a freak shows. Very often, in his review, Jakovjevic goes as far as suggesting a pure nonsense: Malevich was keenly aware of the stubborn persistence of signification.
The abolition of figuration in painting does not automatically annihilate the object. Abstraction comes only halfway to full non objectivity (Jakovjevic). Here critic contradicts his own words. He says that painting can still revolve around certain idea, without containing anything for the viewer to focus his attention on. This is a groundbreaking thought, but it cannot be considered as a very original.
The obscurantism, as philosophical doctrine, goes back to the beginning of 19 th century and, while being a product of suicidal degenerates, it could never gain peoples recognition. It used to be fashionable back than, among European aristocrats to gather in exclusive salons, do drugs and to philosophize about nothingness. They would be the ones who could appreciate Malevich art fully. It is remarkable that, after having realized that there were enough idiots who liked his kitsch, Malevich continues with producing more paintings that do not contain anything. For example, his work White on white is analog of Black Square, except it is white: In 1918, he painted White on White. Another milestone; another breakthrough -- from polychrome to monochrome-white Suprematism.
If Black Square was a revelation, then White Square was the ultimate act of painting -- and the herald of its end (Jakovjevic). If we follow critics logic, then we would be able to uncover a deeper meaning in just about anything. For example, catching fish can be referred to as metaphysical interrelation between the properties of bio-sphere. Jakovjevic uses too many sophisticated words that are totally deprived of any meaning, in this particular context.
It is important to understand that his critical review, while giving a factual insight on Malevich art, does not explain the true motives behind it. This is because these motives have nothing to do with artists strive to enrich philosophical thought by his absurd statements. Malevich true goal was much simpler to become famous as artist, while being deprived of artistic talent. The only way to accomplish it was to make a shocking statement.
The last century, before the downfall of Roman Empire, was signified with staging huge gladiators shows in Coliseum, by the emperors who sought public support. The only way to attract marginalized population to these shows, at the time, was making them more shocking and graphic. Only a direct onslaught on peoples senses could vitalize them for a while. Malevich paintings cannot have any real meaning, just like there was no meaning in killing people and animals, during gladiators shows. In any degenerative society, people can only be entertained, while being shocked. Therefore, Malevich spiritual depravity, which is expressed in his works, needs to be addressed for what it really is.
His paintings are not art they are the symptom. To give the reader a full prospective on the subject, Jakovjevic could have mentioned that Malevich works have been exhibited many times as the examples of degenerative art. Yet, he does not do it, even though that he is aware of it. Instead, he praises them to the sky. This is a usual trick of critic, who has a certain political agenda. His task is to make people think that it is utterly unacceptable to rely on their own judgment, while assessing the works of art.
This is because critics are more competent in these matters. Malevich describes Supermatism as New nonobjective action of man outside any culture, outside of the boundaries of practical or any other tasks of achievements (Malevich). Nevertheless, he liked being well within the boundaries of public attention. While talking about non-conformity, he enjoyed taking pleasure in very conformist pursuits, like drinking himself into a stupor. Rich people pay huge amounts of money for Malevich art at auctions.
However, it is only because of art critics like Jakovjevic, who do their best, in order to make people to appreciate useless garbage against their own will. Therefore, Jakovjevic praising of Malevich is not only morally wrong, but it is also socially dangerous. All socio-political principles, upon which modern society is based, derive from ancient Greek concepts of democracy and beauty. These concepts are totally opposite to the concept of non-objectivity. This is why promoting mental depravity, as the form of art, is socially unacceptable.
Bibliography: Feinstein, Herrick Heirs Of Kazimir Malevich Commence U. S. Lawsuit Against the City of Amsterdam to Recover 14 Valuable Artworks. 2001. Herrick. Com. 7 Jan. 2007. web Kazimir Malevich.
Black Square. 2000. Russian Paintings. Net. 7 Jan. 2007. web Jakovljevic, Branislav Unframe Malevich! : Ineffability and Sublimity in Suprematism. 2004.
FindArticles. Com. 7 Jan. 2007. web Stuttaford, Andrew A Degenerate Exhibition - London, England art Exhibit that Portrays Totalitarian Europe During 1930 - 45. 8 Apr. 1996. FindArticles.
Com. 7 Jan. 2007. web
Free research essays on topics related to: artistic, make people, paintings, political agenda, critical review
Research essay sample on Critical Article Of Branislav Jakovljevic
