Malevich, Kazimir – Black Square Hermitage ~ part 14 (Hi Resolution images)

Explain the meaning! Or is there none?

Its simple, you look at the square and it looks like a turned-off monitor or even a brand new iPad. Aleevich genius – he foresaw progress. Why paint pictures when you can watch movies?

Dont you think the resolution is too low for such a masterpiece?

If you add a spindle on the left side, it turns out to be... a window!

I dont understand either!

The eyes are resting.

cheburator4,
вот-вот, а то как же детали-то рассматривать)

That is not part of the circle... You can even see the brushstrokes.

The most famous painting among modern schoolchildren!

А по моему этот квадрат зеленый!

Yes, in high resolution its simply a masterpiece! I just get better results on my printer (the strokes are more dense).

Ive also been trying to understand the deeper meaning of this painting... but nothing comes to mind.

I suspect that the authors real last name is Debilevich.

In my opinion, its very simple. A respected person once said that this is a masterpiece, and everyone else started repeating him to show that they also understand art. Im just an ordinary person, and I dont need to be dishonest, so Im being honest: personally, I dont see any masterpiece here. Its just something very basic and unremarkable.

Gentlemen, with such a riot of colors, this is truly a masterpiece!!!

Please explain the essence of what makes a painting a masterpiece in a way that an ordinary person can understand.

Regarding the high resolution – clever. As for everything else: painting is a language that you need to learn, just like the alphabet. No one laughs at hieroglyphs even if they dont understand them. For those interested, here’s a tip: conceptual art.

In my humble and subjective opinion, the essence of this paintings masterpiece status lies in its fame. Some might argue that fame is priceless, right? ;)

GENIUS IS ALWAYS SIMPLE. AND COMPLEX!

And I think that the artist first painted something on the canvas, but then didnt like it and covered their artwork with black paint. And there you have it – a MASTERPIECE!

Emptiness of the soul

But the king is naked!

Its not that black after all.

The hustle and bustle around the sofa.

Nothing valuable, nothing beautiful, nothing intelligent... in a word, its a black square. It would be a shame to just throw it away.

Oh, I think Im familiar with that argument. You clearly dont understand anything about art. Mr. Zhenya, youre bringing up a slightly flawed example. I dont necessarily need to understand both paintings and hieroglyphs. What matters is that it appeals to me, and that I can at least understand what the person intended to convey (if they even intended to convey anything) or what they were feeling when they created it. Look up the definition of masterpiece in a dictionary: a unique, unparalleled creation (pay attention to what comes after the comma). Its something understood exclusively on an individual level. I dont see anything in that square except for a geometric shape; absolutely nothing. Or do you think no one else could ever paint such a square?

When I listen to Pavarotti, I understand that perhaps another voice like his might be born, but no one will ever be able to sing like him. Thats a masterpiece. Or take the Moonlight Sonata. Perhaps someone might be able to play it as beautifully as Kempff does (though I doubt it), but no one has ever or will ever write such a piece. Thats a masterpiece. And many people, even those who are not familiar with opera or classical music, would agree with that. Why? Because it resonates with them. I agree with Ivan Orlov.

The man made fun of [someone/something]! ... he decided to see how the crowd would react... somewhere someone is laughing! ))))

It may not have much meaning, but its undoubtedly one of the most famous paintings in our country. At least, almost everyone knows about its existence. And naturally, the author – his last name is forever associated with this black absurdity. Not many people have cemented their legacy in history using such a trick...

мне кажется что дело в простоте

No black paint was used here. Thats what makes it a masterpiece. Even without blackness (as in evil), the world with its colors tends towards chaos.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have carefully read all of your comments. Previously, I thought in a similar way. But after reviewing them again, it seemed to me that Malevich wanted to convey to us the feelings of a deaf-mute-blind artist, if he were to express them on canvas. Who agrees with me?

Great! If you lack the intelligence to understand a painting, then the painting is blamed for it, not your brain. Gentlemen, but if you dont understand Lobachevskys geometry, is Lobachevsky also to blame?
I dont necessarily have to understand either paintings or hieroglyphs. I just need to like them.
Well, if its not necessary for you, then dont be upset that you dont understand! It should please you is not about art.

The date is also incorrect. This painting was created in the late 1920s or early 1930s.

The square youre referring to is likely the one in the State Tretyakov Gallery (GTG). The other, which is dated 1913 by Malevich but generally believed to have been painted in the 20s, is probably the one in the Russian Museum. See: http://gallerix.ru/storeroom/334728896/N/1494615739/
Wikipedia also states that this square (or THIS one) is the first: Wikipedia
Heres a photo of another square, which is the blackest of all:
hermitagemuseum.org

As always, Wikipedia is lying, which is not surprising.

This square was painted in the late 1920s or early 1930s, and I am confident about this. The very first Black Square was created in the early summer of 1915 and is currently held at the Tretyakov Gallery (http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/ru/collection/_show/image/_id/378). This square is also the most damaged, as Malevich apparently painted over the Suprematist composition with black paint. The second Black Square was created in 1923 by the artists students and is part of a triptych (along with the Circle and the Cross). Like the entire triptych, it is currently held at the Russian Museum (http://kazimirmalevich.ru/cms.ashx?req=Image&imageid=8a087b77-1c5c-42f6-b310-dda43df332a1&key=main).

The condition of the first Black Square was already poor by the late 1920s, so the directorate of the Tretyakov Gallery asked Malevich to create a copy for his personal exhibition, which he did. The third Black Square is also currently held at the Tretyakov Gallery.

The square presented here was kept in the artists family until the 1990s, after which it was purchased and donated to the Hermitage Museum. It is believed that the artist created it for the Artists of the RSFSR over 15 Years exhibition held in 1932.

Убедительно. Информация исправлена.
ЧК, спасибо огромное!

не за что :)

It is often said that all the worlds masterpieces might be hidden behind black paint. However, Orthodoxy believes that black is the absence of color, unlike white, which encompasses all the colors of the rainbow. So, in essence, it represents emptiness.

If you lack the intelligence to understand a painting, the fault is blamed on the painting itself, never on your own mind. Gentlemen, but if you dont understand Lobachevskys geometry, is Lobachevsky himself to blame?

This is an incorrect analogy. In the case of the painting, people admit they dont understand it and ask for an explanation, but no one can provide one because there is simply no meaning there. However, in the case of Lobachevskys geometry or hieroglyphs, even a regular person may not understand them, but they acknowledge that there *is* meaning, they just dont grasp it. But this square has no inherent meaning to begin with.

It depends on what one understands by meaning. A conscious rejection of meaning can also be a form of meaning. Incorporating the artwork into the context of Russian art history, and indeed, Russian history in general, as well as the biography of the artist himself, also imbues it with meanings. The uniqueness of a painting lies not in the absence of meaning, but in the fact that the field for interpretation is practically limitless; it doesnt lack meaning, quite the opposite – it has an abundance of it. And each individual chooses the interpretation that aligns with their intellectual development and knowledge in this area.

I would call this work An Ode to Piaro. Well done, Kazimierz, five points!

Malevich, derived from the word маляр (painter), and the painting itself are similar in that respect.

The Black Square is something very simple and yet incomprehensible.

In one of his Vitebsk letters, Malevich wrote: There is yet another theme emerging about the Suprematist quadrilateral (preferably a square), which we need to consider: who is it and what does it contain? No one has thought about this, so I, immersed in contemplating the mystery of its black space, which has become a kind of new face of the Suprematist world, will create it myself, driven by creative inspiration. I see in it what people once saw in the face of God, and all nature has imprinted the image of its God in a form similar to that of a human being. But if someone from ancient times were to penetrate the mysterious face of the black square, perhaps they would have seen what I see in it.

People truly wont understand anything if they dont learn about that era and the artistic trends of the early 20th century. You say there is no meaning in the painting, but does anyone know about a movement like Futurism? Im not just talking about Mayakovsky or Semyonov. Futurism is a phenomenon that goes beyond purely literary creation. Supporters of Futurism rebelled against the prevailing Symbolism at the time, but even Futurists sought to create life and myths. They simply chose a different path. Representatives of Futurism sought a new form, striving to deconstruct meaning in order to reach an ontological plane of existence and create their own myth about the world.

Therefore, Malevich himself (as you understand, he was also a Futurist) was looking for a new, impersonal plan. Thats why Black Square is not just a geometric figure; it is a manifesto of Futurism. Even the leading art critic of that time, Benoit (Im sorry, I forgot his first name and patronymic), writes that this is the icon that the gentlemen Futurists place in place of the Madonna.

So, once again, I turn to you commenters: to understand the meaning of something brilliant, one must first be knowledgeable about the subject being discussed.

I saw this masterpiece, and it didnt make any impression on me. It seems like you could paint a circle or a triangle just as easily, and what lies beneath is left to the viewer to interpret – or not interpret at all.

phenomenal nothingness. Where is the artists skill? Children in kindergarten draw like this. But their drawings have meaning, while this is just a meaningless jumble.

When the soul is empty, it reflects that emptiness in its creations. To create, one must possess an inner vision and be able to see. Fullness and beauty give rise to artistic images filled with meaning and beauty. Emptiness cannot create an image, and a distorted soul is incapable of creating beautiful art. Its sad that people admire emptiness. Is there so much fog in their eyes that they cant even see the void?

The ultimate degradation of art. Theres nothing left but a single dot or a blank canvas, or perhaps just an empty frame.

http://i082.radikal.ru/1212/47/fd61ec08c7ae.jpg

Once again, Im convinced that artists fall into two categories: those who can draw and those who cannot. Those who can actually draw create works like The Volga Boatmen, Rooks Have Arrived, Morning in a Pine Forest, The Sistine Madonna, and so on. But if they cant, they simply invent cubisms, abstract art... and other – isms. And its even simpler now: you draw a square, color it black or red... The main thing is to explain it pretentiously and promote it well. And there are plenty of people, even among the wealthy, who want something arty regardless.

I wonder who will prove that this artwork is hanging correctly, and not upside down or in some other incorrect way.

Knowing that ordinary people often misunderstand the concept of artistic merit, and considering the painting Black Square by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich, I dared to believe that this problem – the problem of misunderstanding – did not apply equally to the entire creative community. To those whose opinions are listened to; whose views are considered an undeniable, authoritative truth for many. The only justification for the imposed opinion about the inaccessibility, simplicity, and universal understanding of the work done by K. Malevich in creating Black Square could be PR. A desire, for the sake of attracting attention, to preserve the aura of mystery. Much has been written about the significance of Black Square and the influence of the Suprematism system born from it on artistic culture; many studies have been conducted.

A. Benua, a contemporary of Malevich, an artist and art critic, wrote:
The Black Square in a white frame is not just a joke, not just a challenge, not just a random little episode that happened at the house on Mars Field, but it is one of the acts of self-assertion of that principle which bears the name of vileness and desolation, and which boasts that through pride, arrogance, and disregard for everything loving and tender, it will lead everyone to destruction.

Following this critical assessment by a master, many figures in culture, arrogantly flaunting their superiority, began to dismiss anything that didnt fit into the cultural environment they were creating, which often raises doubts and borders on pseudo-culture and pseudo-art. With the appearance of Malevich, how frightened were those who shaped and continue to shape the image of salon painting?

With the emergence of Black Square, they realized that their sentimental, ordinary-person-oriented philosophy of mermaids and rugs with swans was coming to an end. These facts are a direct attack on their material well-being. Greed, malice, hatred, levers of power – everything was used to make people forget about this work as quickly as possible, so that for almost a hundred years, people wouldnt understand what had happened. Understanding the merits of Black Square makes it easy to evaluate any creative work and assess the merits of the author.

Those who have attached themselves to art are acutely aware of their limitations and the threat to their ability to pull the wool over the eyes of trusting ordinary people. If societys demands for evaluating works of art and the merits of their authors increase, artificial stars from various factories will become just ordinary Christmas ornaments. But in order to raise these requirements, one must want to stop being a barbarian. Malevich, by writing Black Square, gave everyone an accessible opportunity to understand art and its development trends.

Kazimir Malevich is a name that is more than significant in the history of modern art. It is a symbol and banner of all avant-garde creativity. His theoretical research are referenced by practically all directions of the latest art; his Black Square concentrates within itself everything profound, with which the spiritual searches of authors and researchers of the aesthetic world of modernity are filled.

The name of Malevich is put forward today as the foundation of a new, modern direction in art history, cultural studies, and even philosophical thought – a direction that is full of extraordinary depth and significance. All of this has already become an absolute, an axiom that does not require any proof. It is knowledge with which it is impossible to disagree, in which it is shameful to doubt, and which is simply indecent to discuss.

Unfortunately, our average person, due to flawed upbringing, is accustomed to perceiving art only when its presented with a literary veneer; otherwise, they are unable to understand that at the core of these seemingly different works lies the same underlying principle – simply put, the same black square.
For them, in music, Peter and the Wolf makes sense, while in painting, Again a Two is comprehensible.

Im just going to say one thing: Well done, Sanych from Orsk! Let this arrogant Ylot try to prove that the painting is hung exactly as Kazimir Malevich intended. The irony is – Malevich painted it!

Malevichs Black Square is not a constructive geometric figure, but rather its depiction on a plane using artistic means, the laws of painting, accumulated practical skills, and talent. It is not a symbol, but a pictorial, ideal representation. The Black Square is the most realistic, representational painting among all that you know; its subject is simply a flat (without visual distortion), black square (achieved through layering to achieve the color black) – a geometric figure. Depicting it on a plane turns out to be not simple and is very creatively interesting. With their reasoning, many dilettantes and opportunists in art lead creative peoples thoughts into mysticism, Kabbalah, primitivism, etc. It is understandable that if most ordinary people understood where art (the artist) lies and where primitivism (the desire to become an artist) lies, their priorities would shift. However, it is precisely this moment that stimulates the activities of enthusiasts in understanding creative processes. If instead of a geometric figure there was a nude woman – would you understand then? You are simply talking without reading or considering previous opinions. The Black Square employs all the artistic techniques used by artists of all times and eras to create their masterpieces. The Black Square is not a symbol or a sign! All those who claim they can paint it in 5 minutes are as far from art as I am from the Moon. Picasso was right when he said that realism had exhausted itself, and that through millennia of perfecting skills, peoples consciousness has been brought closer to a cosmic perception of reality. Malevich pointed out this path! By creating the Black Square, he showed the path of artistic development, and those who do not see it are blind! Today (a hundred years later), we are at the very beginning of this journey.

You shouldnt try to prove that black is white. Only someone with the last name Malevich could write such nonsense. No one can prove to anyone that this is a work of art. And it shouldnt be among works of high art!

Its all very simple: in a hundred years, Malevich would have called this painting The Soviet Union. Thats my opinion.

You have to be incredibly dense not to understand art, and even more so, to start lecturing about it while having an hysterical fit. :)

For a long time, I couldnt eat or sleep; I didnt understand what I had done. – K. Malevich.

Einsteins theory of relativity
Lobachevsky geometry
Malevichs Black Square
Jewish folktales about the Emperors New Clothes.

The Bible is just as much a fairy tale for fools as this garbage is. I agree with the comment by smola above.

I like the painting; you have to know how to understand it, just like everything else in life.

Malevich. The Mystery of the Black Square. The Black Square, arguably the most recognizable painting in avant-garde history, has captivated the interest of people who appreciate and love art for many years. With each passing year, new versions, myths, and legends emerge regarding its origins and hidden meaning. Recently, a researcher working on paintings at the Tretyakov Gallery, named Ekaterina Voronina, revealed that there are two more color paintings beneath the Black Square canvas. This discovery was made during an examination of the painting using state-of-the-art equipment. However, it is still impossible to say what is depicted in these two paintings; further scientific expertise is needed. Nevertheless, this fact did not greatly surprise Malevichs admirers, as there are claims that he had many works painted on top of one another. This was likely due to his poverty, which made it difficult for him to afford new, blank canvases.

However, the newly discovered artworks are only part of what was found on the canvas. There was also an interesting and unusual inscription that piqued everyones interest: An extraordinary battle of Negroes in a dark cave, and researchers claim that it was written by Kazimir Malevich himself.

An idiot drew it. A crowd of idiots are scratching their heads, wondering why and what was the artist trying to say... But the most interesting thing is that there are a few clinically insane idiots who will pay exorbitant amounts for this nonsense.

Whoever wants to become famous should quickly paint TWO squares – and double the fame will be theirs!
... Its time to ban all sorts of junk from being displayed in Russian museums. Selling it to the Americans would be a deal of the century!

The archetype of the avant-garde is black as pitch, square, and Russian. And this was an affront to what was then understood as art. In December 1915, Kazimir Malevich first presented his painting Black Square, measuring 79 by 79 cm, to the public at a Futurist exhibition in Petrograd. The black space is surrounded by a white border. On the black surface are faint lines and cracks that appear mysterious: craquelure.

The image, with which Malevich freed art from the ballast of objectiveness, was placed at the highest point of a corner, slightly tilted, just as icons were traditionally hung in a Russian home.

Malevich first depicted the Black Square in 1913 as an equivalent of non-being on the curtain for the Lunapark theater stage in St. Petersburg for the December premiere of the Futurist opera by Matiushin and Khlebnikov, Victory over the Sun. This iconic invention of using pictorial space as a contrast between extinguishing black and infinite white, between object and space, between matter and infinity, is considered the birth of Suprematism. It was not meant to be perceived as emptiness, but rather as a feeling of non-objectivity.

Two Black Square paintings from 1915 and 1923 are now in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow and the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg. There is no counting the number of copies and creative arrangements, as well as books, essays, and scientific works dedicated to this century-old phenomenon. In the 20th century, it was followed by German and Dutch artistic movements such as Bauhaus or De Stijl with Piet Mondrian. It was about Suprematism, brought by the Russians into art, the first direction in art reduced to simple geometric forms, which serves the highest principles of human knowledge.

In the Soviet Union, avant-garde trends were banned, and from 1935 onwards, Malevichs works were not exhibited at all. Only during Perestroika in the late 1980s, under Gorbachev, when the Iron Curtain fell and state cultural policy changed, was the great avant-gardist remembered. Today, his grave is located in the village of Nemchinovka in the Moscow region, where sculptor Nikolai Suetin depicted a white cube with a black square.

Oh, I cant stand it when people who clearly dont understand anything suddenly write that this isnt art or something like that. Guys, please educate yourselves first. No one is obligated to love or hate this artist. But when you write a comment, it would be helpful to have some understanding of the subject matter. By the way, if anyone is interested, theres an amazing article on this topic: https://artifex.ru/живопись/казимир-малевич-картины/

The painting was stolen three times. But every morning, the guard would return it to its place... A joke.