top of page


I’m not stable. Just started a new book (pity that not so many contemporary Russian literatures translated to English) and lost all my thought for the last part of the course. Not all… but… ideas I had before seems to me not important anymore…

Why Russian soul exists on the border the laughter and tragedy? Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tarkovsky, Paradjanov, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Malevich and Kandinsky ... works of Russian artists full of both – enjoinment and beauty of the composition and rhythm, the happiness of the moment on one side, pain with tears on another side. I think that only this what makes the difference in culture – the level of representation both - laughter and tragedy in life and art.

My problem, as I can see it now, is a problem of the beginner – when you what to put all the problems of the Universe on one sheet of paper. A solution to this – to practice on the simple forms and discuss only one subject at the time. For instance, Tarkovsky takes one subject matter, he introduces it and opens it by visual range with a bold and sharp composition. Viewer falls into the subject by the emotional intention of the shooting approach. So to say, the medium is an essential element of the experience.

While working on the course I experimented and practised, remembered and learned, researched and created all for choosing the right medium of work and the right approach for me. Now reviewing all that I’ve done I can highlight the most interesting pieces for me and point out a direction which seems for me most fruitful.


After reviewing all works I see that at the end they are very academic and this not because I like it, no, the course still want to “see” – a tree, a person, clouds or still life… but, for instance, this is also a piece of meat:

even though it is not representative.

In other words, why University didn’t challenge me in a way – “try to express the tree or cloud with not figurative methods”. We are focusing on the object which we know how they look and only after learning to copy them we are trying to change this process of art creation and representation of the object. But far more important, as I can see this process, is to dig in own soul and imagination for “representation”. Reality gives us a ready solution for images, yet in non-objective things, there are no right or wrong, there are only experience and stories.

A learning process the same as a history and starting point is a renaissance. First, we would study anatomy and composition, ways and methods of Michelangelo and Raphael, then a long period of waiting (read as “work”) and then we would start breaking a form and quite fast we would come to the abstraction. In terms of history, one process was four hundred years long and the other only a hundred years. But it doesn’t mean that we need to follow this process in the same proportion.

Abstraction is the biggest discovery of art. Non-objective art, non-figurative art, non-representational art all of this contain the secret of the creation. I believe if we would start from this point without previous knowledge we would be clean out of history – purity and world inside a man can exaggerate and create more than we can see in reality.

“Forms are moving and being born, and we are making new and new discoveries.
And what we have discovered, in order not to close.
It is absurd to drive our time in the old form last time.” (Malevich, 2014:11)

Coping the reality artist like similar to child block his creativity and innocence of the eye. I know many good painters and only some great artist. I see the process of creation and education as two opposite processes. Education – professors tell you what to do and guide you. On this stage artist start building around him walls with stereotypes and myths. Creation normally starts after education and not a fact that it will be the creation and not copy of naturalism again.

“The art of naturalism is the idea of the savage - the desire to transfer the visible, but not the creation of a new form.” (Malevich, 2014:13)

To finish this thought, I what to be focused on abstraction rather than figurative art. But at the same place, I’m not denying realism. It can take place as a support of the abstraction.


From the early works, I was interested in a combination of digital and analogue. In digitality, I was missing reality and in reality, was not enough modernity.

At first, I trained with direct integration of screens

Then I experimented with drawings on the iPad

After that was a combination of both

Multiple combinations

Drawing on Plein air was transferred to the iPad, reworked and printed on the coloured paper

On paint on paper was added projection, photographed and reworked on the iPad.

The photo was reworked on a computer, in parallel oil paint photographed and moved to the computer, all reworked and printed.

Original painting transferred to the digital, reworked in reality, and interpreted in digital

Self-identification in social media, created in digital, reworked in reality.

At this stage, digital became real but in a way that it cannot exist without first. Digital became real and this the real became modern. Modern - means in a way it executed and displayed.

Bibliography and references

1. Kazimir Malevich (2014) Black Square, SPb. : Alphabet, Alphabet-Atticus (In Russian) [online] At: (Accessed on 31.07.19)

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page