So. Closer to Dmitry Vorontsov, and we shall try "to tell" - to dot a little...
The man on an engraving is holding the uplifted left hand in effective "angular"
gain, his head is dropped, we can't see his face, his foot is leaning …on the
apparatus. Perhaps, he has put his head into a basin with water, and his left
hand searches for a soap bar? Or low pitching a head, he goes fast to the spectator
on a strange bicycle? Or he looks with effort in the microscope - kaleidoscope
which construction is so unusual? But the artist facilitates the task: the character
has put his head in an enormous meat grinder, and his left hand … Yes, but in
these circumstances it is necessary to realise how a meat grinder functions. What
a curious thing is a scene of the direct action!
Or. Three middle-aged men with scientific appearance bent over the object of
examination. They look quite concentrated. What do they study, by their expression?
A rare flower? A map of a war act? Or we see the guys from the UFO ship during
the analysis of an early planet's naked nature? No! The passionless artist chose
a skull, hardened on a mount, as an object of analysis. So. Whether Dmitry Vorontsov
is dehumanisator? You see: not massive characters at all but rather gloomy subjects
are the principals of these two engravings' "sense" composition. Subjects, exhibits,
plants - they all yield maliciously concentrated suggestion. Sometimes similar
exhibits do well without human presence. For example, there is something looking
like "composite astrolabe" on the engraving which represents the instruments of
the celestial investigations. The apparatus with two telescopes and angle gauge
needn't the human presence, it indifferently studies its own sky.
In our opinion, there are three (among other) paradigms essentially influenced
on the modern actor: 1) his craft and relevant technique, 2) spirit of the epoch's
art, 3) problem of the personal myth which (whether it is desirable or not) appears
even in neutral compositions. Is the dehumanisation a spirit of epoch or is it
the problem of the personal myth? Here there is a composition. The circle with
a pentagram in centre and other polygons (classical, taken from Bohme and his
followers - representing the Universe around of the microcosm) is supported by
the man on knees. In the foreground there is a large spider, which centre is on
the overturned triangle of "ground" space element. The spider has great sharp
paws - and two of them pierce the body of the atlant man. The idea is common,
as everyone another - idee ce... It is possible to change a symbolic circle to
something else, it is possible to leave only the spider in a white space of a
sheet... But then it will be abstract and will not show the futility of human
gains to the spectator, and so on.
Whether the artist should impose to us cheerful or gloomy conceptuality? It
is difficult to say. Anyway, it is hardly necessary to insert a common reason,
taken from the outside, into the drawing. In Dmitry Vorontsov' engravings the
meat grinder, the skull, the spider - all these objects exist in their ominous
uniqueness, and it does not correspond at all with the emotional ambivalence of
the given objects.