Talk:Monochrome painting

message: This article is poorly written and reads like a term paper, tying together artists under a theoretical construct that is simplistic, unnecessary and unfounded. I have studied this "period" of art history (though the period covers about 100 years or so) and it is my opinion that the subject "Meditative art" is not supported by either a strong theoretical or aesthetic similarity between these artists, or by any significant scholarship I am aware of. The important artists covered by this article, and the important groupings to which they belong, are all covered by pages on Wikipedia. There's no need for this one.
Palladian 07:11, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
until recently i was mostly responsible for this page, and i agree with most of this criticism.
in order to justify the overlap of artists mentioned in this article with their own articles on wikipedia, i hope to provide more specific examples of relevant works which are by necessity overlooked in more general surveys of these artists.
the title "meditative art" is unfortunate, but i dont know how to change it. it is a remnant from the original tree outline of articles which needed to be written. the heading was "meditative art [monochrome painting]"; most surveys of modern art would have these two labels reversed in importance; many would not even use 'meditative art.'
that there is no 'significant scholarship' on this topic was most of the impetus for starting this article. i wrote it out of a sense that it was needed; i that found very little writing focussed on monochrome painting either in books or on the web, yet at the same time, i found it briefly mentioned very frequently in history books and art magazines. accepting that my writing style was awkward and that my knowledge of the topic was not in-depth enough to be anywhere near authoritative, i merely hoped to encourage more discussion and to provide a framework for a better resource of knowledge specifically dealing with this topic. In this regard i am very grateful for recent contributions to the article by others. 
Decembertexture 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've given this article considerable attention in the last two months. It needs expansion and depth in each section and an image or two, but really it is a subject worthwhile working on. I'd like to see a Still painting, or a Resnick painting or a Pousette-Dart contrasted with a textured Ryman. Modernist 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely needs more pictures. 70.109.124.172 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs depth

message: it'slikely that you're more qualified than i to make these changes, and you are certainly free to do so, so please do. respecting copyright, especially with regard to images, is the only real concern.
Decembertexture 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: agreed

message: maybe something about op art or about a relevant op artist; it might be a good addition. anyone?
Decembertexture 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: op art?

message: This article has vastly improved, Modernist 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement

message: *Varvara Stepanova: Lecture on Constructivism, 22 December 1921.In: Peter Noever: Aleksandr M. Rodchenko - Varvara F. Stepanova. The Future Is Our Only Goal. Munich: Prestel, 1991, pp. 174-178. "From here, Constructivism proceeds to the negation of all art in its entirety, and calls into question the necessity of a specific activity of art as creator of a universal aesthetic."
*"I reduced painting to its logical conclusion and exhibited three canvases: red, blue, and yellow. I affirmed: this is the end of painting." - Alexander Rodchenko.
*Rodchenko, A. and V. Stepanova (1975) [1920] 'The Programme of the Productivist Group', in Benton and Benton (eds), pp. 91-2. "1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art. . . . 6. The collective art of today is constructive life."
*Pam Meecham and Julie Sheldon. "Modern art: a critical introduction". Routledge, 2005, p 148 : "Rodchenko was disillusioned with easel painting which he in fact 'gave up' in 1921 to concentrate upon the relatively mechanised processes of photography, photomontage and graphic design. For him 'art has no place in modern life', but photography, particularly experimental photography as opposed to 'connoisseurial photographs', was the ultimate anti-bourgeois, anti-art practice."
*J. M. Bernstein. "Against voluptuous bodies: late modernism and the meaning of painting". Stanford University Press, 2006, p. 247 :"The anti-art moment of modernist works, the moment that Duchamp and Rodchenko attempt to make complete, enacts art's desire to be world and not art; but only as art, as semblance, can art evince that desire, perform it."
*Larry Shiner. “The Invention of Art: A Cultural History”. University of Chicago Press, 2003, p. 256.“If the provocations of Tzara seem merely naughty and those of Breton overly esoteric, the anti-art declarations of the Russian constructivists were potentially of greater social importance, given constructivism's roots in marxist theory and its opportunity to help build a new society.” (...) ""The spell of painting was broken and ""construction"" had taken its place for artists such as Aleksandr Rodchenko, Vavara Stepanova, and Lyubov Popova, who combined it with socialist commitment to become leaders of the First Working Group of Constructivists. One of their early manifestos declared: 1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."
Armando Navarro (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of a link to another article does not imply some kind of equivalence. It only implies that further reading may be of interest. Therefore I don't think there is that much harm done by linking some articles in the "See also" section to "Anti-art." But to make it more clear, maybe a note could be put after the link, stating that there is no implied equivalence or even a necessarily strong connection. Or perhaps that such linkage is disputed. The point I am trying to make is that the way out of our dilemma lies in nuanced language, carefully placed. Anyone agree? Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References which support that anti-art be mentioned in the article 

message: The image of the painting Voice of Fire in this article isn't a picture of the original painting, but rather a Photoshop recreation. I'm not sure how it made its way into this article, but simply recreating a painting seems like blatant forgery to me. I've replaced the image with a low-resolution picture of the original artwork. —Nick (T/C) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice of Fire 

message: Malevich realized his first Black Square in 1915, not 1913. see here: MoMA and here: Hermitage Museum. Coldcreation (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malevich, Black Square, 1915 

message: Surely there was some significant reaction in the critical community along the lines of, "This isn't merely bad art, but not in fact art at all."  Don't get me wrong; I understand the argument of why this is a legitimate genre of painting, much as some guy sitting on a stage smoking a cigarette or spinning a top is recognized as performance art.  Still, one thinks there must be a sizable negative critical reaction, if only amongst the establishment art critic community, that deconstructs this sort of deconstructionism, no?  [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:5B1:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a reactive critique of the movement