Iconographic description of a contemporary Russian critic consists of paradoxes. However, critics create the foundation for future generations of art historians. Therefore it is necessary to comprehend both positive and negative feelings arising from the first encounter with the post-modern art space (1990–2015), created not only by artists, but also through the efforts of curators. There the question arises: what would be a warrant of truth? What traditions of Russian avant-garde can be traced in contemporary art? Where does the necessary expansion of terminology in art: from the canonical to non-­canonical language, from standard to improvisation lead? How can we estimate the curators work at the “Manifesta-10”? Of course, the new generation has grown absorbing the traditions both of Russian and foreign art studies. The situation occurs, when critics are stronger thinkers than presented artists, but the reviews of exhibitions still follow the formula: nothing unless good. Being professor of Saint Petersburg University, who has great experience in working with young generation and director of Dyagilev Museum of Contemporary art, I might recall Aristotle and his dialogues at the Lyceum about the meaning of life and soul and ask the same question: how art helps us to live, to feel, to think? Another question asked by Confucius could be addressed to artists, curators and critics: Isn’t it him who knows that it will not work out, but still attempts to do it? Is it possible, that in spite of high intellectual level we are interested in the “light” version of artistic work?

 PDF