A French romantic writer once made a somewhat strange statement. He said, perhaps with the idea of ​​defending his way of writing theatre, that performance in the auditorium. At the time he observed this, the theory of reception had not yet been heard of. Jaus and the school of Konstanz had not yet been born, it was not known what kind of pragmatism it was, and I think no one ever thought of laying the foundations of a school of the spectator. But perhaps about his art, which is, after all, nothing more than the art of looking.

It is not enough to be able to go to all theatrical premieres and obey all public rituals, although a theatrical performance means, among other things, this. If you are an art lover, you will not have a personal art gallery at home or the most beautiful art albums published by the most prestigious publishers in the world in your library. It is not enough to be able to visit the largest museums in Europe or other countries. You have to do it with some art. The art of watching. And this art is learned.

In one of his last books, the late George Banu, who also loved the theater and visual arts, to which he devoted considerable books, fortunately also translated into Romanian, wrote about art and the virtues of appearance almost, about the dialogue that is established between a work of art, be it a theatrical performance, a painting or a sculpture, and the person who looks at it. This dialogue presupposes certain rules, rules that are not dogmas at all, but rather art itself. In my opinion, Andriy Pleshu does the same thing in the book Masterpieces in dialogue, appeared in good, excellent graphic conditions, early summer 2023, from the publishing house of Bucharest Humanitas.

This apparition, which I discovered between the covers, confirmed to me an impression which I had long had, but which I am only now confessing for the first time. It is about the similarities between these two great Romanian intellectuals. Both are (unfortunately, since January, for George Banu, the verb is inflected in the past tense), before any generous beings. Both of them were and are real writers, they produced high-quality literature on their pages, although they never boasted that they would do it. George Banu expressed doubts about his writing skills in the book Monologues of impossibilitybut his name appears in General dictionary of Romanian literature (and I am proud to have written this chapter), Nicolae Manolescu has written many pages on the literary art of Andrii Plešu in Critical history of Romanian literature.

Both Andrii Pleshu and George Banu were teachers, and both knew that there was an art of teaching, and both George Banu and Andrii Plesu had extraordinary knowledge to address layman. Otherwise, in Preparatory word therefore, about which I want to report today, Andriy Pleshu even writes a short eulogy to a layman whom he considers cultural salt. Both George Banu and Andrey Plesu are media personalities who conducted magic courses in their own way, marked by didacticism, on Radio Romania or Romanian Television. Andriy Pleshu in the 70s, v Telecyclopediaat the time, I think, when the show was hosted by Dumitra Udrescu and Adolf Oprescu, George Bana on the radio in a cycle edited by Doina Papp, or on TVR in a multi-episode film, artistically directed by Dominic Dembinski.

Masterpieces in dialogue restore at least part of the texts written and spoken by Andrii Plešu on radio and television. Most turn old black and white on a TV screen into printed words on a white page. I bring back from the archive several theoretical considerations grouped in the first part of the book – Opening of fine arts – (but I don’t know how to do it, because under Plesh’s pen theory has charm), I subject to a friendly, not sophisticated, comparative analysis of two great artists, two of their great creations (this is in sequence Masterpieces in dialogue), invites his reader to several Stops in museums of the worldemphasizing the idea that one is visit and completely different take a look to eventually offer us a set Footage from the history of the look. All this happens under the aegis of dialogue. About the dialogue between masterpieces (nothing was born ex nihilosimilarities and differences have a certain skepticism, art as literature, as theater means continuous space), or the dialogue of the viewer with the work of art. The viewer must learn to let go visited a masterpiece as well as a museum. And this one should does not provide any restrictions. This in no way amounts to an anti-democratic act. Andriy Pleshu writes after analyzing the picture with exemplary details A man in a blue shirt Van Eyck: “…each viewer must be allowed to follow his own gropings, his own emotions, his own questions. However, in the realm of art, when all is said and done, the miracle is just beginning.”

Art, its democracy excludes too categorical views. For example, Andriy Pleshu clearly loves Renaissance art, which by no means means that he does not love the Middle Ages and sees in it long sleep of the spirit. “Thus, the world of the Middle Ages is not a monotonous, gray sight, mature, but picturesque, colorful to the point of confusion, full of bright contrasts.” Andrii Pleshu approves of secular art, but also praises the cathedral, whether Gothic or Romanesque. Life and death go hand in hand, so “the theme of death is the inevitable theme of a living person.” – Read the entire article and comment on Contributors.ro