|WIKIPEDIAFACEBOOKRSS FEEDBLOCKSHOTSABOUT USMAIL|
|ENGLISH | GERMAN|
C U R R E N T
I N I T I A T O R S : BORIS LURIE STANLEY FISHER SAM GOODMAN
FRONT EAST: DIETMAR KIRVES | FRONT WEST:CLAYTON PATTERSON
DE RUVO, Frederica
GILMAN, Esther M.
HALLMANN, Blalla W.
KUZMINSKY, Konstantin K.
SALMON, Naomi T.
WOYTASIK, Natalia E.
NO!artoccupies the strategic juncture where artistic production meets socio-cultural action. NO!art targets are the hypocritical intelligentsia, capitalist culture manipulation and consumerism. NO!art aims total unabashed self-expression in art leading to social involvement. Boris Lurie
ART IS NOT A MIRRORto reflect the world in, but a hammer with which to shape it. Vladimir Mayakovsky
BY RETURNINGto the past . . . he purchased sufficient security, to confront the chaos of the future. T.S. Eliot
THE NEW LANGUAGEof art is not the all embracing language of the establishment but the meta language of total negation; a negation which transcends even revolutionary action . . . Art must be beyond all establishment, even the revolutionary establishment . . . a language of opposition resistance and protest. Herbert Marcuse
THE PRICE FOR COLLABORATION IN ARTis as in the concentration camps excremental suffocation. It is not by submission, coolness, apathy, boredom that great art is created no matter what the cynics tell us. The secret ingredient is what is most difficult to learn - courage. Boris Lurie
NO!arthas continued way beyond 1964 and also prior to 1958. The "cutting-off" date 1964, as espoused by the art historian is entirely artificial. Such cutting-off dates are common to art historians, done for cataloguing purposes, and what is more, for accreditation of monetary value in the art market. The cutting-off dates also have a devastating effect on the production of artists, who are, by those means, being convinced that what they produce after a cutting-off date is secondary in importance, and do not belong any longer to the "new times". Quite valid, in my opinion - yet the art market hated it, for practical reasons of creating confusion about monetary value. That is, in my opinion, the main and real reason for art historians and critics insisting on this untrue measure. Boris Lurie