Tweet
EUROPE AND WE. PROFANE VULGAR
December 16 2014
The problem of the individual and the crowd in the 21st century
Yeghishe Tadevosyan's "The Talent and the Crowd" canvas is one of the
most impressive works in our National Gallery, which our renowned
artist have created in 1909 created. The plot of the work brushed
under the influence of pointillism "pixel" techniques is clear without
unnecessary comments, the "genius", the individual, the personality is
running away from the crowd's noise, mockery and insults. The artist
touched upon this theme also in other works, such as "The Christ and
the Pharisees" canvas. The plot of confrontation between individuality
and the crowd in the European culture, it can be said, has an age-old
history, but it has found a great popularity in the 19th century. The
reason probably is that the "common equality" (truly) advocated by the
bourgeois-democratic revolutions, the egalitarianism ideas collapsed,
and it appeared that the "third class" coming to power was nothing
better of the first two: clericalism and aristocracy. Moreover, there
was again a demand for aristocracy, but this time, not by virtue of
origin, but by the "spirit", meaning first of all the perceptions of
life different from the crowd. "The Poet and the Crowd," so is called
European high values-holder Russian poet Alexander Pushkin's poem.
However, such "aristocrats" have always existed. Socrates, for
example. There was a moment when the democratic crowd demanded the
death penalty for the Athena's, the so-called "yerkrapahs" (who in
all times, sometimes become a calamity, and sometimes a scapegoat).
Socrates was strongly against this death penalty. The crowd's verdict,
however, was executed, but some time later, the people of Athena
regretted, forgetting, however, that the philosopher had warned them
about it. Moreover, Socrates speeches and warnings began to irritate
the citizens of Athens, they accused the philosopher that he allegedly
is perverting the youth and generally, expresses profane ideas and
also sentenced to death. In the elitism, therefore, there is also a
positive element. The matter is not about the state elitism when the
state and political figures do not know, and as a rule, are reluctant
to know how their citizens live with, whereas they, the representatives
of this "elite" are living by momentary pleasures, not thinking even
about their personal future. Such an "elite" is usually composed of
a limited, ignorant and "rapacious" people. The matter is actually
about "aristocracy of spirit", which was a driving force in European
societies for centuries, regardless of whether it was persecuted or
worshiped. Armen Petrosyan, the permanent author of "Aravot" has a
publication on this subject entitled "The Armenian fortune. Armenian
tragedy, lack of aristocracy," in which, the scientist specifically
noted on this matter, Georgians have an advantage over us. It is indeed
the case, although we regularly ridicule our neighbors allegedly every
second person there thinks of himself a "prince". Let it be so. It's
better people think of themselves a prince rather than like us,
thinking of being a "good guy". Because the one having the ambitions
of a prince (even if he does not noble roots) will definitely eat the
meal with knife and fork, while the "good guy" has to do it by champing
like a cow. Is it a trifle thing? A philistinism? Maybe. But everything
starts from trifle. The one having ambitions of a prince would dare to
oppose the crowd, while the "good guy" - never, he is always next to
"the people". And when the above-described "elite" manipulates the
crowd, the very "aristocrat" should warn the people. The "elite"
may tell tales about justice, bright future and national ideals,
while the "aristocrats" should not be held captive to these rumors,
should not please the crowd rather than to be obligated to identify
the real intentions of the elite. To the point, about justice. When
Socrates was condemned, one of his pupils was annoyed that he was
unjustly condemned. In response to it, the philosopher asked, "What
is advantageous to you that I am sentenced to death just or unjust?"
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/12/16/168189/
December 16 2014
The problem of the individual and the crowd in the 21st century
Yeghishe Tadevosyan's "The Talent and the Crowd" canvas is one of the
most impressive works in our National Gallery, which our renowned
artist have created in 1909 created. The plot of the work brushed
under the influence of pointillism "pixel" techniques is clear without
unnecessary comments, the "genius", the individual, the personality is
running away from the crowd's noise, mockery and insults. The artist
touched upon this theme also in other works, such as "The Christ and
the Pharisees" canvas. The plot of confrontation between individuality
and the crowd in the European culture, it can be said, has an age-old
history, but it has found a great popularity in the 19th century. The
reason probably is that the "common equality" (truly) advocated by the
bourgeois-democratic revolutions, the egalitarianism ideas collapsed,
and it appeared that the "third class" coming to power was nothing
better of the first two: clericalism and aristocracy. Moreover, there
was again a demand for aristocracy, but this time, not by virtue of
origin, but by the "spirit", meaning first of all the perceptions of
life different from the crowd. "The Poet and the Crowd," so is called
European high values-holder Russian poet Alexander Pushkin's poem.
However, such "aristocrats" have always existed. Socrates, for
example. There was a moment when the democratic crowd demanded the
death penalty for the Athena's, the so-called "yerkrapahs" (who in
all times, sometimes become a calamity, and sometimes a scapegoat).
Socrates was strongly against this death penalty. The crowd's verdict,
however, was executed, but some time later, the people of Athena
regretted, forgetting, however, that the philosopher had warned them
about it. Moreover, Socrates speeches and warnings began to irritate
the citizens of Athens, they accused the philosopher that he allegedly
is perverting the youth and generally, expresses profane ideas and
also sentenced to death. In the elitism, therefore, there is also a
positive element. The matter is not about the state elitism when the
state and political figures do not know, and as a rule, are reluctant
to know how their citizens live with, whereas they, the representatives
of this "elite" are living by momentary pleasures, not thinking even
about their personal future. Such an "elite" is usually composed of
a limited, ignorant and "rapacious" people. The matter is actually
about "aristocracy of spirit", which was a driving force in European
societies for centuries, regardless of whether it was persecuted or
worshiped. Armen Petrosyan, the permanent author of "Aravot" has a
publication on this subject entitled "The Armenian fortune. Armenian
tragedy, lack of aristocracy," in which, the scientist specifically
noted on this matter, Georgians have an advantage over us. It is indeed
the case, although we regularly ridicule our neighbors allegedly every
second person there thinks of himself a "prince". Let it be so. It's
better people think of themselves a prince rather than like us,
thinking of being a "good guy". Because the one having the ambitions
of a prince (even if he does not noble roots) will definitely eat the
meal with knife and fork, while the "good guy" has to do it by champing
like a cow. Is it a trifle thing? A philistinism? Maybe. But everything
starts from trifle. The one having ambitions of a prince would dare to
oppose the crowd, while the "good guy" - never, he is always next to
"the people". And when the above-described "elite" manipulates the
crowd, the very "aristocrat" should warn the people. The "elite"
may tell tales about justice, bright future and national ideals,
while the "aristocrats" should not be held captive to these rumors,
should not please the crowd rather than to be obligated to identify
the real intentions of the elite. To the point, about justice. When
Socrates was condemned, one of his pupils was annoyed that he was
unjustly condemned. In response to it, the philosopher asked, "What
is advantageous to you that I am sentenced to death just or unjust?"
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/12/16/168189/