Hannelore Fobo, based upon the findings of Evgenij Kozlov (2009)
Century XX >>
CHAOSE ART comes into being without any sketch or plan, evolving from element to element, from figure to figure. The degree of its inner coherence can be higher or lower. This higher or lower degree of coherence does not necessarily correspond to the art’s power of impact. The work of Jean-Michel Basquiat is typical CHAOSE ART – the incongruous elements of the picture are held together only by colour, yet the impact of his work is extraordinary.
In its next stage CHAOSE ART establishes not only formal, but also semantic relations between single elements of the picture. These relations chiefly manifest themselves through the posture, gestures and facial expressions of the depicted figures to each other as well as to the observer, although the figures’ gaze is also of special importance. The spiritual content of the picture increases through the semantic relations within it, and in the gaze the spiritual state is most vivid.
In the highest stage of CHAOSE ART, chaos transcends itself without becoming pure mathematics or serial production. The symphony - the consonance, or harmony - of the work embraces the dissonance – the so-called ugly, the one-sidedly developed. But the very fact that the symphony contains dissonance makes it lively and capable of development. It draws its power from the chaos, and this synthesis produces an invigorating effect on the observer, as well. This synthesis is neither didactic like conceptual art, nor contemplative like abstractionism.
Rather, as the third artistic development of the 20th century and as the main trend of the 21st century, CHAOSE ART has retained the intellectual state of conceptual art without misusing artistic expression as a didactic means; it has adopted the freedom of the pure colour and form of abstractionism without becoming trivial with ornamentality.
The fundamental difference, therefore, is that the elements – the symbols selected, found, created and specially arranged by the artist for his work – do not form any ciphered subtext, but take their own place only according to their aesthetic features. These aesthetic features are, at the same time, their meaning, their message. The message is not expressed through the form – it is the form itself.
Hence, it is impossible to summarise the essence of a work of CHAOSE ART, as summarising would destroy one of its essential qualities – the form. Another way, a more productive way, to explain CHAOSE ART must be employed. If we desire to share our impression of a particular work of CHAOSE ART, we should retell it. We should live life within this work to learn something about its world and to tell about its richness or, as the case may be, its banality – in short, about its distinctiveness.
In case of a work of CHAOSE ART, it is necessary to come as close to its content as a film fan comes to the plot of a film, becoming completely immersed in its atmosphere.
to page 3 >>