Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The concepts of “creativity” and” art “can be interpreted broadly as “the ability to create”, and you can specifically evaluate Malevich and his “Black Square”. In my opinion, if there were no self-expression in one form or another, it would be impossible to talk about a person and his personality in principle. It always seemed to me that these categories are inseparable: I think, so I create. And if we assume that I do not create, then I am a vegetable (but you can argue with this-nature can be a very skilled creator).
And here are the arguments about the conditional Malevich: is it art and, if so, why do we need such art?.. This is an extremely opportunistic issue.�
YES, it would change – �for some people, it would be worth their career, the meaning of life, or life itself (I remembered the movie “The Pianist”)… and NO, it has not changed — some of them do not understand the meaning of the” Black Square ” and will not understand it and this does not affect them in any way. As well, however, as nuclear physics or any other specific field of knowledge that is not familiar or interesting. Only here, in the event of a global catastrophe, most of the modern knowledge and technologies will be lost, and art, as a reproduction of reality in images, will remain.