have often wanted to leave the last word to writers. Since Antiquity,
with Philostratus, this has been because the critic was supposed
to go beyond the world of appearances by sifting out a meaning
and a moral, whereas the artist was suspected of doing nothing
but representing forms through the use of other forms. Artists
have regularly challenged this idea by imposing their own viewpoint
and winning acceptance for the idea that mediators prevent people
from seeing works and from appreciating them as they ought to
be. Indeed, they have regularly created a crisis for the established
hierarchies. In particular, during the early twentieth century,
avant-garde movements have shaken up not only the established
forms but also the way in which forms are learned, presented,
sold, and commented upon. Thus, as Olga Medvedkova tells us, as
early as 1901 Wassily Kandinsky violently attacked critics, and
more generally all mediators, whom he accused of being parasitic.
As for Elitza Dulguerova, what she reveals to us is the powerful
case of Vladimir Tatlin and his 1916 Futurist exhibition in Moscow,
The Store, which called back into question the rules
governing the arts scene as regards the art economy.
These two quite original research papers reveal to us a major
facet of the critical role played by artists themselves, who are
no strangers to the politics of art and are, rather, active agents
in its implementation.