The Art of the Future page 3

A conversation between (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov and Hannelore Fobo, 1991

Искусство будущего стр. 1 стр. 2 стр. 3 стр. 4
Die Kunst der Zukunft Seite 1 Seite 2 Seite 3 Seite 4 Kommentar (deutsch)
The Art of the Future page 1 page 2 page 3 Page 4

E-E: : I believe that the main task now is to vocalise it. When something is said, the energy of information begins to flow; it has entered life, and all that has not been comprehended begins to be understood.

Of primary importance is not whether or not the information was recorded and read. This is secondary. The primary thing is for the energy to be born and disseminated. As there are no limits to energy, it is able to travel freely around the Earth. A new period of development has thus begun. There is an expression, ‘the idea is in the air’; that is to say, it has been born and it exists. Whether it will be recorded, thought about and talked about is not so important.

H: It is essential that someone speak it out for the first time..

E-E: It is not that it be spoken that is essential, but that it should arise, or be born.

H: Isn’t it born the moment it is spoken?

E-E: Speech is secondary. It is simply a form of expression intelligible to people.

H: So, could it simply have been born inside you?

E-E: No, I do not think the idea was born the moment it occurred to me. I suppose that the idea – as the saying goes – was already in the air.

H: You mean it already existed.

E-E: Yes, probably. Perhaps that is why it should be spoken out – actualised – in an intelligible way. We are returning to our starting point: art that is actualised – made by hand – cannot be anything but classical in form. It is true of all art, contemporary and future – and of all the ‘isms’ that already exist, along with those that are yet to appear. This view marks, in essence, the beginning of a new era in art.

H: So what do you have to say for those who are not aware of the ‘art of the future’ within themselves?

E-E: They will start feeling it, right from this very moment. And, accordingly, they will develop it within themselves – and, because they will have understood it and they will be striving for it, it will develop within them in a natural way.

H: And ‘isms’ will become totally meaningless?

E-E: They are not important to me. But I speak only for myself, I don’t know how it will be for others. It is of absolutely no significance what ‘isms’ are to exist within art; the names themselves are not significant. It is not the artist’s job to define what he or she does. It’s the job of other people who engage in their own creation – art critics, for example. Let them think about it. For the artist as an individual and as a creator, these categories are of no importance. They constitute the second aspect of art, the second aspect of the scheme.

H: How should we approach a work of art? What should both the observer and the critic pay attention to?

E-E: I think that at present everything has to remain as it is. I find it difficult to imagine a way for people to approach art in a completely new way. But on the other hand, what is interesting is that different people looking at the same picture see the picture differently. And then a critic comes along and says it has such and such a specific meaning, explaining the picture in terms of that which is secondary in art – in this case actualising it in a verbal manner – which, by the way, is also the classical approach to explaining everything.

However, the essential thing is not what people read, not what they think about what someone has thought before them, but their personal development– people feeling and seeing the inner world of the artist for themselves, perceiving it as something great and powerful. It means people become confident in their own creation, confident in the art that exists within themselves. Perhaps the observer will think in a different way to the artist, but this is not important. As an individual being, each person is so unlike every other that there is no sense in copying something made by someone else. One should develop as differently from others as possible. Perhaps that’s why ‘the art of the future’ exists: to develop the individual within each person to the greatest extent possible. Whereas today it is whatever someone writes or says that automatically sets the standard.

H: Because today it is not common to base your appreciation of a work of art on your own feeling and perception.

E-E: But one should rely on this alone, as it is the fundamental human faculty. Those who do not understand this are mistaken.

H: If a picture is the result ...

E-E: The picture is created to give birth to the observer’s inner world and to produce an impulse for them to develop this world as much as possible. That is what art exists for.

H: That is to say, whatever gives the observer something is good for him.

E-E: Yes, of course.

H: And whatever does not move him can be left aside.

E-E: This process is completely natural. If people are not moved by something, it means that it does not relate to them. On the other hand, when something suddenly moves them, they will perceive its effect. Art has only one purpose: to develop that which moves the person to the greatest extent possible, in an unfathomable variety of forms; this will be the new art – that is to say, ‘the art of the future’.

H: Can you explain the difference between something that is a masterpiece and something that is not?

E-E: What distinguishes a masterpiece is that it has been invested with an enormous amount of the artist’s energy and a great deal of the artist’s inner state. These have been incorporated in maximum quantity, as much as is possible. This energy and power of the artist’s inner state can provide masses of people with the strongest impulse to advance inwardly. I haven’t put this very elegantly, but it is essentially true.

The Art of the Future, page 4 >>

Evgenij Kozlov about the Art of the Future