Just as traditional art actively opposed the modernist experiments, asserting its identity-formal and aesthetic principles, many of contemporary artists and critics cannot call into question such categories as genre, work, author's strategy, language of the statements and boundaries of art. In spite of the fact that the declaration of the author's death was enunciated almost 50 years ago, art still remains the art of an author and defends the theoretical principles, which methodologically do not correspond to modern culture. However, there are forms of relationships of the artist, the surrounding context and the observer, which are described completely in other categories and pretend to be new forms of art. The most interesting material for such forms is information environment. Traditionally, a reaction to the statement of an artist considered not to belong to his work even if such a reaction is much more powerful than the statement itself. But in keeping with the theme of Roland Barthes (the author died in order to be reborn in the reader's head), the observer perceives any phenomenon together with the context. In addition, observation can be a creative act not implying the presence of the author, because culture as non-personalized environment is capable of producing events, which can be estimated aesthetically and rationally. As an example, the article tells the story of architect Dmitry Chechulin and the posthumous fate of the buildings he built. Those buildings gave rise to a cultural context, the ability to produce new phenomena that have independent value. The Palace of the Soviets was implemented as a swimming pool "Moscow". The project of the Aeroflot office was transformed into the Government House (White House). The project of the skyscraper in the centre of Moscow-into the hotel "Russia". The fate of Chechulin demonstrated death of the subject, and the birth of the medium, able to communicate with simulative culture. But this interpretation was not available to the author. One would assume that the author is the one who conceived and interpreted the situation. However, no one can claim it to be the only correct "awareness''. Different observers with their interpretations are also included in the total field of the phenomenon, even those who, in accordance with traditional views, will consider a reaction to the statement of the artist belonging to the product itself.
