Moscow, Trubnikovskiy lane, 22 building 2
+7(495) 772 2736
+7(499) 530 2727
Wed-Fri 15:00 – 20:00
Sat 12:00 – 18:00
14/11 - 30/12/2012
The exhibition, which united the most outstanding representatives of three generations of contemporary Russian art, is devoted to reproduction, multiplication and variation of artistic statement, which legitimised the reproduction of the unique.
The exposition accentuates one’s attention on the issue of authenticity of reproduced works and their value for collectors. It also demonstrates the great variety of means of reproducing images and explores the new meanings which occur from such emphatic extension of the space of presence of an artwork.
Avdey Ter-Oganyan. “Henri Matisse. The Italian Woman. 1916”, 2006
Ter-Oganyan has repainted “The Italian Woman” by Matisse twice: in the early 1990s, when he was working on the series “Paintings for a Museum”, in which he demonstrated to the public the well-known masterpieces of post-modernism, which were absent from the Russian museums, in his own personal interpretation; and in Paris in 2006, when after a two-year gap he returned to painting. As the artist was opening a new page of his biography (life in the forced emigration), Ter-Oganyan wanted to return to the state when he, a young provincial man from the Rostov-on-Don, full of hopes, fears and ambitions, arrived to conquer the artistic scene of the capital.
That makes the object of repetition not only the work of Matisse but also the artist himself, “the provincial author-copyist” as he presented himself at the beginning of his artistic career.
Avdey Ter-Oganyan. “Yves Klein. Anthropometries 74 and 75. 1960”, 2006
In 2006 in Paris Avdey Ter-Oganyan repeated the famous performance of Yves Klein. He covered the naked girls with ‘yves kleinish’ blue pigment and made imprints on the canvases with their bodies. At the moment all works from this series, with the exception of the two canvases presented in this exhibition, remain in private collections.
Erik Bulatov. “What? Where? When?”, 2006
Bulatov, who works very slowly and produces only one or two paintings a year, would never be able to satisfy all those who wish to own his works. The technically reproduced graphics helps to solve the problem because it can serve as a backup and simplified way of making possible for this artist to be present in exhibitions and collections.
Andrei Monastirsky. “Untitled”, 1990 (reprinted in 2012)
The photographs of the allegoric figures of soviet republics which form the sculptural group of the fountain “Friendship of Peoples” in VDNKh were taken at the unexpected angles from their back in 1990 and had a rich artistic biography of their own. In 1994 they became a part of the big installation “Mosquitos” which was shown at the Ludwig Museum in Aachen. The small-sized prints (50 × 70) were exhibited in a single row on the white wall. In 1996 Monastirksy made from the same but slightly enlarged prints (110 × 80) a work named “Fountain” which became one of the most famous installations of the artist, which travelled in different years to Antverpen, Amsterdam (Stedelijk Museum), Documenta 12, Tallinn and Moscow Museum of Contemporary Art. The installation consisted of the photographs, which were glued to the upright stands and formed a “sacred circle”, in the middle of which there was white flour. The work is printed for the first time in the technique of plasticized photography.
Igor Makarevich. “The Moscow Kolkhoznik №5 and №12”, 2012
It is not the first time Makarevich “saves” anonymous works by forgotten workers of social realism by elevating the trash production into the rang of high art, for example, the “Closed Fish Exhibition” in 1990. In that exhibition he, together with Elagina, has been retelling a dull production subject-matter with the rough language of conceptualism. This time his translation is much closer to the original, which has luckily been preserved and can be demonstrated. There is one oddity: the original and the copy swap their places and it is the latter, in spite of the common laws, which can claim authorship and uniqueness.
Vladislav Mamyshev-Monroe. From the series “Life of Wonderful Monroes”, 1995
The works by Vladislav Mamyshev-Monroe from this series are multiply reproduced and widely well-known. They can be found in almost every single museum or private collection of contemporary Russian art. In this particular case, however, viewers are confronted with a “non-canonical” version of easily recognizable works. The images from which these portraits were printed, differ from the classical shots in either the pose of the character or any other unremarkable detail. One is left to decide what is it: a new edition or a new work?
Yuri Albert. “I am not Lichtenstein”, 1991 and 1994
Yuri Albert has tried to multiply this work twice. In 1991, at the time of the birth of private enterprise in the field of printing press, 40 serigraphy works on whatman paper were printed with the transgression of the technology, which most likely no one knew at the time, and using the printing ink, which was blended with the unknown mixture. Half of the printing run was taken by the typographer; another part was sold and given away as gifts and the rest (almost third) happily forgotten. It was forgotten because in 1994 Albert made “the right” edition, which now everyone knows because it was present in the numerous exhibitions and settled in many private collection with an exception of this particular one, which belonged to the artist. Instead, the remains of the first “wrong” edition were found.
Nina Kertselli. “The House of Phosphorus”, 2012
These prints are the “production failure”, result of the artist’s mistake as Nina Kertselli used the wrong paint because she did not know Turkish (this took place in Turkey). Thus, instead of the multiplied work a unique graphic opus was created, where the artist drew with the marker pen the contours of architectural composition over the paint.
Diana Machulina. “Visualization”, 2004
Diana Machulina: The mass-produced images from the covers of famous musical albums drawn by hand constitute the “individualized public”; something serial; something, which was appropriated and became the artist’s own. The history of the 20th century has to do not only with the technological progress but also with the resistance to it, the desire to produce something by one’s own hands and to own an object, which in the era of technical reproduction exists in one edition only. In this particular case this is my conscious choice to return to the ancient technique of engraving at the time when printing has become possible. The same refers to the choice of material — vinyl record — which makes impossible even the common to engravings edition of 300. The soft vinyl is pressed under the printing press and the matrix dies, creating the single print.
Vladislav Krasnoshchek. From the series “Psychodelic Walk”, 2011
Krasnoshchek makes film photographs and employs lithography — a complicated technology, which makes every print unique and impossible to repeat and especially to be multiply reproduced by optical means. Such photographs can only be multiplied if the existing print is transferred into digital. In this particular case the most expensive and time-consuming way of digital printing has been chosen, which determined the minimal possible amount of the prints (3+1).
Nina Kertselli. “Memories are true in their sense of constancy”, 2012
Kertselli, who has been drawing on the paper for all of her life (even using the oil pigment) has finally overgrown this “childish” phase. The present work is the first experiment of the artist to use the classical technique of “oil on canvas”. This transition, however, did not change the artistic method. That explains why the painting turns out to be a combination of out of control and expanding number of small “diary” sketches, which capture the suddenly appearing images, which are obviously too private to be easily analysed.
MishMash. “The List”, 2009
Although MishMash group tends to highlight and accentuate the individual in any stone found on the street, to put a specially made hat on it, to give it its own number and so on, this stone would always remain for them a part of some multitude, an element of a certain row of things, which has no graspable end and in a way recommences from work to work.
Andrey Kuzkin. From the series “Blood Lessons”, 2012
Andrey Kuzkin did not aim to limit the numbers of his graphic series. This happens by itself and is linked with the nature of the chosen material: the blood, used instead of paint, was taken by the artist from his own vein.
Anrey Kuzkin: I used in this series blood instead of the red paint because I consider the relationship between a sheet of paper and a drop of blood to be fundamentally different than between the sheet and a drop of paint. One can say it is more serious and responsible both for the one who attempts to express something by its means and for the one who looks at it.
When I used bread to make sculptures I talked about this material being unifying, universal for all people.
Blood is also a sort of an absolute material by means of which one can talk about absolute notions, talk for the whole generation becoming aware of oneself as a small part of the whole biological species, which has consciousness and is put in the situation of impossibility to perceive existence.
A drop of blood at the biological level contains in itself the information about milliards of predecessor who like me were faced with the issue of life. These figures slowly turn into ornament and fill the white emptiness around the millisecond cosmological explosion and myself, whom I represent here in the image of these blots. The arrangement of blots on the sheet of paper is as accidental as is the phenomenon of life itself and the presence of consciousness.