Federal State Educational Standard for Higher Professional Education:

Date of approval, order number

Direction

(code and name)

071600 Musical art of variety

Qualification (degree)

(Bachelor Master)

bachelor

OOPVPO (curriculum):

Order No., date of approval

Pop orchestra instruments; pop-jazz singing; musical, show programs

Discipline index according to the OOP curriculum

Labor intensity of the discipline

Semester and number of weeks in a semester

Credit units

Academic hours

Classroom work:

Independent work:

Forms of final control:

Name of section (topic)

Total ac. hour./

Semester number

Forms of control

Auditory lessons

Self Job

Seminars

Pract. zan.

Small group

Section 2. History of aesthetics

Total:

Final control:

test

Section 3. Art as a system of elements: author – work of art – perceiver.

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 5. Morphology of art

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Styles in art

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 7. Art in the cultural system

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Total

Final control

test

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Total

Final control:

Exam, 36

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 12. Leadership of national schools in European art. From era to era.

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 16. Texts about art

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 17. Aesthetics and theory of art of the twentieth century.

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Total

Final control

exam,54

Name of section (topic)

Total ac. hour./

Semester number

Including, ak. hour/credit units

Forms of control

Auditory lessons

Self Job

Seminars

Pract. zan.

Small group

Section 1. Basic theoretical problems of aesthetics

Test tasks, essay writing

Section 2. History of aesthetics

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Total:

Final control:

test

Section 3. Art as a system of elements : author – work of art – perceiver

Test tasks

Section 4. Social functions of art

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 5. Morphology of art

Test tasks

Section 6. Styles in art

Test tasks

Art in the cultural system

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

total

Final control

test

Section 8. Primitive art

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 9. Art of the Ancient East

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 10. Art of Mesopotamia

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Total

Final control

exam, 36

Section 11. New languages ​​in art in historical dynamics

Test tasks

Section 12. Leadership of national schools in European art. From era to era

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 13. System artistic production

Test tasks

Section 14. Storage, restoration and exhibition of art

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 15. Consumption of art. Art and the public

Test tasks, presentation at a seminar lesson

Section 16. Texts about art. Section 17. Aesthetics and theory of art of the twentieth century.

Test tasks,

Total

Final control

The anthology offered to the reader complements the previously published textbook “Aesthetics and Theory of Art of the 20th Century,” and it is assumed that the texts included in it illustrate the points expressed by the authors of the textbook. The anthology consists of three main sections: “Aesthetics as a philosophy of art”, “Aesthetic reflection within the boundaries of related disciplines and scientific directions” and “Main directions in the theory of art of the 20th century”. The first section, “Aesthetics as a philosophy of art,” is presented with fragments extracted from the works of representatives of a wide variety of philosophical movements. Raising the question of the motivation of necessity in such a section, we refer to the representative of phenomenology M. Dufresne, who claims that aesthetic experience is the starting point for the movement towards activity and science. “And this is understandable: aesthetic experience resides at the source, at the point where a person, mixed with things, experiences his kinship with the world; nature reveals itself in him, and he is able to read the great images that she presents to him. The future of the Logos is prepared in this meeting before any language - Nature itself speaks here. Nature is creative, giving birth to man and inspiring him to follow reason. Now it is clear why some philosophical teachings assign a special place to aesthetics: they are directed towards the source and all their quests are oriented and illuminated by aesthetics” 1 .

The first section combines philosophical texts that allow us to get an idea of ​​the so-called “explicit” aesthetics, i.e., those approaches to aesthetic and art historical problems that are presented in the language of philosophy. Thus, H. Ortega y Gasset represents the late period of the “philosophy of life”. Texts by M. Merleau-Ponty, R. Ingarden, G. Späth and M. Dufresne represent phenomenology, the interest in which is growing among modern aestheticians. Russian religious philosophy is represented by fragments from the works of N. Berdyaev, P. Florensky and V. Veidle. Russian philosophical aesthetics of the 20th century is also represented by a fragment from A. Losev’s early work “Dialectics of Artistic Form” (1927). W. Benjamin’s work, which has become extremely popular in recent decades (which cannot be said about the time of its appearance), is adjacent to the problems of the Frankfurt School in philosophy. Modern American philosophy, and in particular institutionalism, is represented by the works of D. Dickey and T. Binkley. Postmodernist philosophy, so popular in Russia today, is represented by fragments from the works of J. Deleuze, J. Derrida and J.F. Lyotard.

The second section, “Aesthetic reflection within the boundaries of related disciplines and scientific directions,” is composed of texts demonstrating an unprecedented expansion in the 20th century in the areas of consideration of aesthetic issues. The section opens with two texts (S. Freud and C. Jung), representing what P.

Ricoeur calls it “psychoanalytic aesthetics.” Structuralism, inspired by the methods of linguistics and ethnology, occupied an important place in the study of art. As J. Derrida states, “aesthetics passes through semiology and even ethnology” 2 . This direction in the anthology is represented by the names of K. Lévi-Strauss, R. Jacobson and R. Barth. Naturally, the work of the representative of the Russian “formal” school B. Eikhenbaum also found its place in the second section. It is known that today in the world art science Russian formalism is considered the predecessor of structuralism. Next to the article by R. Barthes, devoted to the question of authorship as a key issue in various attempts to build poetics in the 20th century, an article by M. Foucault is published, who is not inclined to formulate the question of the Author as harshly as R. Barthes does, whose methodology, as shown This text testifies to his new views, which are already indicative of poststructuralism. The article by J. Mukarzhovsky indicates that the largest researchers of art, experiencing the influence of formalism and structuralism as the most representative trends in the theory of art of the 20th century, nevertheless turn out to be their opponents at the same time. Starting from the key ideas in the theory of art of their time, they build more dialectical and less contradictory systems. At the time of the formalist renaissance in the Russian theory of art, M. Bakhtin was an even greater opponent of formalism. But, presenting himself as an opponent of formalism, M. Bakhtin thereby turned out to be an opponent of future structuralism, which he admits in his early article “Towards the Methodology of the Humanities,” which he edited later, already in the 60s, during the period of widespread enthusiasm for structuralism, also included in this publication. Since, by criticizing formalism and structuralism, M. Bakhtin was already laying the foundations of poststructuralism, is it any wonder that representatives of poststructuralism in the person of J. Kristeva worked hard to introduce the largest, but at one time underestimated and even misunderstood Russian thinker into the context of the world Sciences. We must pay tribute to Yu. Kristeva, whose article “The Destruction of Poetics” is included in this publication; she highly appreciates the ideas of M. Bakhtin not only because she sees in them an anticipation of poststructuralism, but also because she is aware that this is one one of the most fundamental theoretical systems about art, which has already fertilized and continues to fertilize modern world humanitarian thought.

Thus, the texts included in the second section will help to present a wide range of ideas and concepts characteristic of that direction of the science of art, which in the textbook is called implicit aesthetics, which is actualized within the boundaries of various humanities disciplines. This expansion is due, firstly, to the activation of already existing sciences and scientific directions, and secondly, to the emergence of new sciences and scientific directions.

As for the third section, “Main trends in the theory of art of the 20th century,” it is intended to demonstrate one of the pronounced trends in theoretical reflection on art, associated with the existing gap between philosophical and aesthetic reflection, the tradition of which begins in the Enlightenment, and art criticism proper reflection that sought to develop specific approaches to art. It is no coincidence that among the theorists who represent this direction in theoretical reflection on art, we find the names of the creators themselves, in particular K. Malevich, V. Kandinsky, A. Kruchenykh, V. Khlebnikov, A. Breton, B. Brecht and others. These texts also revealed one of the tendencies of theoretical reflection of the 20th century, namely: many innovative experiments in the art of this century were accompanied by theoretical comments and manifestos. Apparently, the need for this was provoked by the discrepancy between art and the reactions of the public or even society to it, which often turned out to be negative, as J. Ortega y Gasset discusses in his works. This section also includes the works of some theorists - art historians who have had a tremendous influence on aesthetic and art historical thought. First of all, these are representatives of the so-called “Viennese school”, which is represented by researchers of different generations - A. Riegl, G. Wölfflin, M. Dvorak, H. Sedlmayr and others. Since G. Wölfflin’s works are published and republished in Russia, the anthology includes a text by A. Riegl, whose approach to art is still a subject of debate, and yet his books and articles have almost never been published in Russia and continue to remain unknown. This circumstance leads to the fact that A. Riegl’s thesis about the movement of art from “tactile” or “tactile” to “optical” perception as the main one for understanding the logic of the development of art history is known to us as G. Wölfflin’s thesis. A. Riegl traced this logic on the material of ancient art (Ancient East, ancient classics, Roman art). However, then A. Riegl discovered the same logic of changing vision systems in Western European art of the New Age, which allows us to consider him the founder of the cyclical principle in understanding the logic of art history. It is curious that O. Spengler, who laid the basis for the change of great cultures, demonstrated the influence of precisely the art criticism ideas of A. Riegl. Our poor familiarity with sources on aesthetics and art theory of the 20th century (especially foreign ones, which were often simply not translated and not published in Russia) becomes the reason that some original ideas are familiar to us not in the author’s version, but in secondary reproduction. This happened, for example, with the ideas of A. Kruchenykh regarding the “abstruse” word in poetry, which turned out to be famous thanks to V. Shklovsky. One of the most famous articles by V. Shklovsky, dedicated to the key, as O. Hansen-Löwe ​​insists, concept of Russian formalism - defamiliarization, is included in this section. This section includes articles by the outstanding art critic E. Panofsky and the successor of the ideas of the Viennese school of art history E. Gombrich. Both of these articles are devoted to the methodology of analyzing a work of art, namely to such a direction in art history as iconology. This section also presents a text by V. Worringer, who was the first to discover in the previous history of painting a specific artistic system that began to attract attention in the 20th century, namely a system associated with non-objective art. Unfortunately, it was not possible to include in this section the text of F. Schmit, who felt back in the 20s of the last century the need for a cyclical consideration of the logic of the development of art throughout history. Although the name of this theorist is almost forgotten today, nevertheless, like G. Wölfflin, F. Schmit raised the question of the logic of periodicity and progress as determining the development of art. It seems to us that it is necessary to restore justice and pay tribute to domestic theorists. At one time, the question of the need to rehabilitate the cyclic theory of F. Schmit was raised by V.N. Prokofiev 3. F. Schmit's idea is also of interest because F. Schmit considered D.-B. to be his direct predecessor in the creation of a progressive cyclic theory of the cultural-historical process. Vico, who first outlined the foundations of this approach in his work “Foundations of a new science of the general nature of nations.”

Thus, it can be argued that in the past century, art historical and aesthetic issues are considered to a greater extent not so much in the traditional philosophical plane, but in the context of science - both that which is strongly influenced by the methodology of the natural sciences, and that which demonstrates the rapid development of the humanities. knowledge. The revitalization of science (the high prestige of natural science knowledge, on the one hand, attempts to use it in the humanitarian sphere, on the other, and, finally, the decisive posing of the question of the independence of humanitarian knowledge as such and its demarcation from natural science knowledge) naturally affected the developing studies of art, in attempts to consider it from a natural science perspective, and with the help of specific approaches used only in the humanities. However, no matter what methods researchers followed when they turned to art, one thing is clear: from now on, the consideration of art must be strictly scientific. The criterion of scientificity in relation to art in the 20th century clearly becomes decisive. Therefore, it is obvious that each system of viewing art that we record can be understood only in its relationship with one or another scientific direction.

The second section opens with texts representing such an authoritative direction for the entire 20th century as psychoanalysis. In a short article, “The Artist and Fantasy,” S. Freud touches on several problems at once: the playful nature of artistic creativity, to prove which S. Freud turns to the function of children’s play and its relationship to fantasy, and the connection between creativity and neurosis, and the conditionality of creativity the artist’s traumas and experiences that took place in childhood, and the attitude of the author’s “I” to the heroes of the work, and even the cathartic effect of art on the perceiver, although S. Freud does not use the term “catharsis”. However, in this article one cannot help but draw attention to the judgment of the founder of psychoanalysis that often works of individual creativity actualize myths that are the dreams of entire peoples, the age-old dreams of young humanity. S. Freud does not develop this topic in detail, since by creativity he means exclusively individual creativity, and by the unconscious only the individual unconscious. However, another, no less authoritative representative of psychoanalysis, C. Jung, whose ideas S. Freud, as is known, did not share, understood the unconscious not as the individual, but as the collective unconscious. He was convinced that any manifestation of artistic creativity, including individual creativity, is a form of actualization of timeless formulas preserved in the memory of peoples in the form of myths and archetypes.

Throughout the 20th century, the discussion about a radical change in the status of the author will be relevant. This question was formulated in the most radical way by R. Barth, who literally proclaimed “the death of the author” in the past century, which we will discuss in detail. However, the change in the status of the author is a leitmotif in many research areas, and psychoanalysis, which also claims to be scientific in the interpretation of art, is no exception. Thus, it seemed to Z. Freud that the creative instinct is associated with neurosis, and, therefore, in order to understand the author’s intention, it is necessary to delve into the personal, intimate experiences of the artist, not excluding childhood trauma. But since neurosis is a disease, then, from S. Freud’s point of view, creativity is correlated with a disease, essentially with a clinical act. In this case, a work of art becomes a means of overcoming those complexes of the artist that cannot be realized in life, because they are incompatible with morality. Consequently, in this case, the work of art is the materialization of the unconscious repressed by the consciousness of the neurotic. Thus, creativity is likened to dreaming. As we are convinced, the methodology of S. Freud’s interpretation of the results of artistic creativity acquires a medical character. However, S. Freud was convinced that it was precisely this circumstance that gave such an interpretation scientific status.

On this issue, C. Jung became S. Freud's opponent. Perhaps it was C. Jung, and not R. Barth, who first formulated the “death of the author” in one of his reports in 1922, the text of which is included in this anthology. It would seem strange, since art researchers associate the high status of the author with psychology. Thus, J. Bazin captures the contradiction associated with the methodology of art history. Obviously, the researcher asserts, that in art the individual psychological factor plays a colossal role. “Meanwhile,” he writes, “science is a way of identifying general principles, and therefore history as a science is called upon not to be content with listing individual observations, but to reveal the causal relationship between various particular facts. Apparently, it should ignore random events - but these are precisely the results of individual creativity par excellence. The individual principle, as it were, falls into the sediment of historical research and no longer belongs to the sphere of history, but to another science - psychology” 4. However, as evidenced by the representative of one of the trends in psychology, C. Jung, the situation is not so simple. In fact, polemicizing with S. Freud, who placed emphasis on the personal content of artistic creativity, K. Jung formulates: “The focus on the personal, provoked by the question of the personal motives of creativity, is completely inadequate for a work of art to the extent that a work of art is not a person , but something super-personal. It is a thing that has no personality and for which the personal is therefore not a criterion. And the special meaning of a genuine work of art lies precisely in the fact that it manages to break out into the open space from the narrow spaces and dead ends of the personal sphere, leaving far behind all the temporaryness and fragility of limited individuality 5 . With Copernican radicalism, C. Jung for the first time removes the author from the pedestal on which the previous culture and, in particular, the culture of the New Age had managed to place him. According to K. Jung, the main character in the creative process is not the personality of the artist. The determining force of the creative process is an anonymous force, against which the artist’s creative will is powerless. It seems that it is not the will of the author, but the work itself that dictates to the artist to capture images. “These works literally impose themselves on the author, as if leading his hand, and she writes things that his mind contemplates in amazement. The work brings with it its form: what he would like to add of himself is swept aside, and what he does not want to accept appears in spite of him. While his consciousness stands weak-willed and empty in front of what is happening, he is overwhelmed by a flood of thoughts and images that did not arise at all according to his intention and which would never have been brought to life by his own will. Even if reluctantly, he must admit that in all this the voice of his self is breaking through him, his innermost nature is manifesting itself and loudly declaring things that he would never dare to say. He can only obey and follow a seemingly alien impulse, feeling that his work is higher than him and therefore has power over him, which he is unable to contradict." 6 .

Naturally, here too K. Jung does not disagree with Z. Freud: this element, before which the consciousness and will of the artist turn out to be powerless, becomes the unconscious. But if in this case the artist is not the master of the situation, does not control the creative act and is powerless to control it, then, therefore, is it any wonder that the created work contains much that the artist himself is powerless to realize. It turns out that “the artist, intending to say something, more or less clearly says more than he himself is aware of.” 7 How can we not state that K. Jung comes to the same conclusions made by representatives of hermeneutics, be it W. Dilthey or H.G. Gadamer. So, H.G. Gadamer, arguing that aesthetics is an important element of hermeneutics, writes: “The language of art presupposes an increase in meaning that occurs in the work itself. This is the basis of its inexhaustibility, which distinguishes it from any retelling of the content. It follows from this that in the matter of understanding a work of art, we do not have the right to be content with the proven hermeneutic rule that the interpretative task given by one or another text ends with the author’s intention. On the contrary, it is precisely when the hermeneutic point of view is extended to the language of art that it becomes clear how much the subject of understanding here is not exhausted by the subjective ideas of the author. This circumstance, for its part, is of fundamental importance, and in this aspect, aesthetics is an important element of general hermeneutics” 8.

However, how does C. Jung explain this invasion of the creative process by an autonomous and impersonal complex? Where does it come from? According to K. Jung, in this case the unconscious part of the psyche is updated and comes into motion. It is curious that when K. Jung explains the genesis of this force beyond the will of the artist, he almost merges with the cultural-historical school in psychology (L.S. Vygotsky). After all, the activity of the artist’s autonomous complex is accompanied by a regressive development of conscious functions, that is, a slide to lower, infantile and archaic levels 9 . But what does this regression mean as a mechanism of artistic creativity? It means the insignificance of the personal content of creativity, that is, the very “death of the author.” Therefore, K. Jung argues this way. The source of artistic creativity should be sought not in the unconscious of the author’s personality (read: not where S. Freud is trying to find it), but in the sphere of unconscious mythology, the images of which are the property not of individual individuals, but of all humanity. As we can note, S. Freud also came close to this conclusion, as evidenced by the lines from his article quoted above, he approached, but still did not develop his observation in the same way as C. Jung would do. The images of the collective unconscious, or prototypes (archetypes), are formed by the entire previous history of mankind. This is how K. Jung himself characterizes them. Arguing that, unlike the individual unconscious, the collective unconscious was never repressed or forgotten, and therefore did not form layers of the psyche under the threshold of consciousness, C. Jung writes: “In itself and for itself, the collective unconscious also does not exist, since it is only possibility, namely the possibility that we have inherited since ancient times in the form of a certain form of mnemonic images or, anatomically speaking, in the structure of the brain. These are not innate ideas, but innate possibilities of representation, setting certain boundaries for even the most daring fantasy, so to speak, categories of imaginative activity, in a sense, a priori ideas, the existence of which, however, cannot be established otherwise than through the experience of their perception. They appear only in creatively designed material as regulating principles of its formation, in other words, we are able to reconstruct the original basis of the prototype only by figurative conclusion from the finished work of art to its origins” 10. Actually, revealing the action in the creative act of impersonal forces, K. Jung concerns himself not only with creativity itself, but also with the impact of the result of creativity, i.e., the work. K. Jung even uses the expression “the secret of the influence of art.” Only provoking an archetype in a creative act allows a work to be transformed into something universally significant, and the artist, as someone who thinks in prototypes, elevates personal destiny to the destiny of humanity. Bearing in mind the social significance of art, K. Jung writes that it “works tirelessly to cultivate the spirit of the time, because it gives life to those figures and images that the spirit of the time lacked most of all.” 11 Perhaps this thesis is revealed in detail and more deeply by K. Jung’s like-minded person, E. Neumann. Repeating the idea of ​​K. Jung that the invasion of the collective unconscious into the creative process seems to be the invasion of something alien, E. Neumann draws attention to the emerging special state of consciousness, which he calls transformation. In stable eras, the functioning of the collective unconscious is controlled by the cultural canon and attitudes such as civilization. The cultural canon is a complex formation that includes individual psychology, ideology, and cultural orientations. Its emergence is apparently connected with the need to form imperatives of consciousness and behavior, so important for the survival of large human groups. However, in addition to the positive function of the cultural canon, one can note its negative side. The emergence of a cultural canon is associated with the suppression of some part of the psyche, and, therefore, the individual’s “I” in this case cannot manifest itself freely. This circumstance contributes to the formation of an “underground sphere” in the psyche with its inherent dangerous emotional charge and destructiveness. One day, destructive forces may come out of the “underground”, and the “twilight of the gods” will take place, that is, the cultural canon that contributes to the survival of civilization will be destroyed. Once upon a time, culture erected a grandiose bastion of myth, religion, rituals, rites and holidays against the destructive forces of chaos. But in modern culture all these mechanisms have been lost. Therefore, their functions were transformed into the functions of art, which significantly increased its status in the culture of the 20th century. However, despite the fact that art performs such functions, its compensatory nature still remains uninterpreted. The fact is that in order to overcome the one-sidedness and narrowness of the cultural canon, which pursues practical goals, the artist becomes a marginalist, an anarchist and a rebel. F. Nietzsche complains about this, comparing poets of the past with modern ones. “Strange as it may sound in our time, there were poets and artists whose soul was above convulsive passions with their ecstasies and rejoiced only in the purest subjects, the most worthy people, the most tender comparisons and resolutions. Modern artists in most cases unbridle the will and therefore sometimes are the liberators of life, the same ones were tamers of the will, tamers of the beast and creators of humanity, in a word, they created, remade and developed life, while the glory of today is to unbridle, to unleash , destroy“ 12 . An illustration of the destructive activity of the artist can be, for example, the theory and practice of surrealism. Moreover, its leaders, and above all A. Breton, admired S. Freud, as evidenced by the texts. Thus, in the second manifesto of the surrealists, A. Breton comments on S. Freud’s thesis from his work “Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis” regarding overcoming neurosis by transforming it into a work of art” 13. However, A. Breton is inclined to present the artist’s rebellion as even more radical. After all, he likens the artist to a terrorist. Thus, in his manifesto one cannot but shock the following statement: “The simplest surreal act is to take a revolver in your hands, go out into the street and, as randomly as possible, shoot at the crowd” 14. Of course, this is shocking.

The anthology offered to the reader complements the previously published textbook “Aesthetics and Theory of Art of the 20th Century” and it is assumed that the texts included in it illustrate the points expressed by the authors of the textbook. The anthology consists of three main sections: “Aesthetics as a philosophy of art”, “Aesthetic reflection within the boundaries of related disciplines and scientific directions” and “Main directions in the theory of art of the twentieth century”. The first section, “Aesthetics as a philosophy of art,” is presented with fragments extracted from the works of representatives of a wide variety of philosophical movements. Raising the question of the motivation of necessity in such a section, we refer to the representative of phenomenology M. Dufresne, who claims that aesthetic experience is the starting point for the movement towards activity and science. “And this is understandable: aesthetic experience resides at the source, at the point where a person, mixed with things, experiences a uniqueness with the world; nature reveals itself in him, and he is able to read the great images that she presents to him. The future of the Logos is prepared in this meeting before any language - here Nature itself speaks. Nature is creative, giving birth to man and inspiring him to follow reason. Now it is clear why some philosophical teachings assign a special place to aesthetics: they are directed towards the source and all their quests are oriented and illuminated by aesthetics.”

Aesthetics as a philosophy of art.
The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset included in the aesthetic reflection of the 20th century a consideration of the phenomenon of massification and an analysis of the consciousness of the figure of an ordinary man, or a man of the masses, so widespread for this era, aggressive towards what the philosopher calls “new art”, or towards avant-garde art. Although the philosopher’s key work in this direction will appear only in 1930 (it is called “The Revolt of the Masses”), nevertheless, already in the 1925 work “Dehumanization of Art”, included in the anthology, the theme of massification turns out to be not only the background of the aesthetic processes he identified, related to formation new elite and new aesthetics. Ultimately, the new art and new way his perceptions in European art of the early twentieth century are formed from the need to resist the process of massification. This initial impulse of the new art, associated with resistance to mass taste, makes, as X. Ortega y Gasset proves, all new art both unpopular and marginal, which in the 19th century romanticism happily avoided, which initially faced precisely such a conflict.

Content
Introduction. Aesthetics and theory of art of the 20th century: alternative types of discursivity in the context of cultural transformation (N.A. Khrenov)
Section I Aesthetics as a philosophy of art
Ortega y Gasset X. Dehumanization of art
Merleau-Ponty M. Eye and Spirit
Ingarden R. Two-dimensionality of the structure of a literary work
Shpet G. Problems of modern aesthetics
Dufrenne M. Aesthetics and philosophy
Berdyaev N. The crisis of art
Florensky P. Reverse perspective
Veidle V. The Dying of Art
Losev A. Dialectics of artistic form
Benjamin V. A work of art in the era of its technical reproducibility
Dickie D. Defining Art
Binkley T. Against aesthetics
Deleuze J., Guattari F. Risoma
Derrida J. The truth about painting
Lyotard J.-F. Answer to the question: what is postmodernity?
Section II Aesthetic reflection within the boundaries of related disciplines and scientific directions
Freud V. Artist and fantasy
Jung K. On the relationship of analytical psychology to poetic and artistic creativity
Bakhtin M. Towards the methodology of the humanities
Eikhenbaum B. Theory of the “formal” method
Lévi-Strauss K. "Bolero" by Maurice Ravel
Jacobson R., Lévi-Strauss K. “Cats” by Charles Baudelaire
Bart R. From work to text
Bart R. Death of the Author
Foucault M. What is an author?
Mukarzhovsky Ya. Intentional and unintentional in art
Kristeva Yu. Destruction of poetics
Section III Main directions in the theory of art of the 20th century
Riegl A. Late Roman art industry
Worringer V. Abstraction and spirituality
SHKLOVSKY V. Art as a technique
Malevich K. Publications of the Vitebsk period (1919-1922)
Kandinsky V. About the spiritual in art
Khlebnikov V. Our basis
Breton A. Second Manifesto of Surrealism
Panofsky E. Iconography and iconology
Gombrich E.H. On the tasks and boundaries of iconology.

Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Aesthetics and Theory of Art of the 20th Century, Reader, 2008 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

Art acts as a cultural phenomenon as an integral socially functioning system that solves its own value, moral, spiritual and symbolic problems. This phenomenon is precisely called artistic culture. Artistic culture includes: art itself/as a system of works and the sphere of production of artistic values; system of relevant institutions providing conditions for production, storage, distribution, distribution and consumption works of art; personnel training and management system. Art, as one of (according to Marxism) forms of social consciousness, interacts with other forms of social consciousness: with morality - the connection is multidimensional, non-linear, debatable; with politics (for example, socialist realism, ideologized, biased); with philosophy (philosophical parable, story); with religion (icon painting, religious hymns); with science and technology (fiction, cinema, television); with the legal field (detective); with economics (mass culture).

According to its purpose, art mainly serves: 1. to excite pleasure, 2. to understand reality (based on the theory of reflection), 3. for educational purposes. Wolf, Baumgarten, Hegel interpret art primarily as an activity of cognition, albeit a lower one (the highest level is the comprehension of truth by science). Art, therefore, from this point of view, is a means of enlightenment and education. Associated with this cognitive and heuristic function are: the philosophical and worldview aspect

“the mysteries of existence are examined and solved, models of the world order are created, the meaning of life is searched) and the future is anticipated. According to Boileau, the main purpose of art is education, its main subject is beauty public life, goodness and state expediency. Through its educational function, it shapes the structure of a person’s feelings and thoughts. It inspires, purifies and ennobles - it shapes artistic tastes, values ​​orients a person, affirming the aesthetic significance of the world. Art awakens the artist - the creator - in a person. A suggestive effect is also possible - for example, music and dancing, songs are used as a means of preserving and strengthening courage. The function of arousing pleasure has a number of interrelated aspects of compensatory properties: - distracting (hedonic - playful and entertaining); - comforting; - contributing to the restoration of harmony in the sphere of spirit, lost in the sphere of reality. Art gives people a specific pleasure: aesthetic. For an artist, this is one of the manifestations of freedom: the play of free forces, which can bring extraordinary joy.

The object of art, like other forms of social consciousness, is the world as a whole and in detail. The subject is the aesthetic aspect of reality. In art, the principles are intertwined: personal, national, international, universal (both in content, and in form, and in the way of thinking). Nationality is an aesthetic category that expresses the roots of art, the nature of the relationship between the personality of the creator and the people's soil. The people are the object of artistic creativity, but they are also the subject. The people are the creator, bearer, custodian of language and culture, in the field of which only the process of artistic creativity can take place. But he is also a consumer, the final recipient of art, a bearer of the field of public opinion that develops around a work of art and determines its perception. As for the features of artistic development, then as an external driving force art recognizes (and not without reason) social Reality, general cultural traditions and forms of social consciousness (philosophy, science, religion, law, politics, morality). But there is, of course, a certain internal orientation of the personality (its internal installations, possibly due to some supernatural principle). And perhaps the role of the latter exceeds in some cases the influence of the former. Tradition and innovation - between these poles lies the art of every era. Tradition is memory, but culture is selective - it selects from the past only what is relevant today. Traditions are ancient, new and recent. Two types of relationships between tradition and innovation manifest themselves in contemporary art- modern and retro. The art of any previous century can be comprehended either in its real-time form of creation, or as it is seen in modern art, and from the standpoint of different directions, that is, from the standpoint of the ideal of the past or present. In the artistic process there are many mutual influences: intraspecific and interspecific, on different levels, strong and weak. A major artist always absorbs and integrates the creativity of both predecessors and contemporaries (in many cases unconsciously). There may be interactions (including on the basis of competition) in the sphere of concepts and form: these can be borrowing, imitation, parody, epigonism, quotation, reminiscences (borrowing with some modification), paraphrases, allusions, variations (including international and intranational ).

There is, although little developed, the category of direction in art (sometimes identified with a movement, school, method, style). It manifests itself through a set of works that reflect certain principles of creativity, through program manifestos and declarations that reflect these principles. In general, this can reflect a system of conceptual ideas and stylistic features that are stable for a historical period and a certain group of artists. An important question is whether there is progress in art? Based on Jungian methodology, a neo-mythological school was born, aimed at searching and establishing certain eternal foundations of culture and art: Roheim G., Fry N., Campbell I., Kluckhorn K. (based on the teachings of C. Jung about archetypes and the collective unconscious). “Eternity looks through the windows of time” (A. Ketler). True art may indeed be enduring. But not everything in art lasts forever. The periodization of the artistic process should take into account: generation (contemporaries, peers), century, period, era, stage. Art exists in its specific forms: literature, theater, graphics, painting, sculpture, choreography, music, architecture, applied and decorative arts, circus, art photography, television, cinema. The source of this diversity was found in the variety of expression abilities of the subject of creativity and the perception abilities of the recipient, and in the difference in tastes and means used by artists, and in the aesthetic diversity of reality, etc. Before analyzing this problem, let us consider the question of the origin of art.

Kinds of art - real forms of artistic and creative activity, differing primarily in the way of material embodiment of artistic content (verbal for literature, sound for music, volumetric-plastic for sculpture, etc.). Behind these external differences are hidden deeper, internal meaningful differences, which ultimately determines the need for means unique to each type of art for materializing its special content. The specific nature of the artistic information contained in each type of art is evidenced by the fact that the content of a work of one type of art cannot be adequately conveyed in the language of another type of art. Being the science of the most general laws of man's artistic exploration of the world, aesthetics in terms of the study of the arts is designed to explore the laws operating in all types of arts, while simultaneously showing how they are refracted in each of them.

When we talk about different types of arts, the question inevitably arises about the different language of these arts, about the forms of imagery characteristic of each of them. A composer creates his work using the sounds of a specially organized musical series, a painter creates with color and line, an architect with volume and planes, a poet and writer with words. Figurative language is a common, defining feature of art. But an image in painting and, say, a musical image, while having a number of common features, also have important differences. They ultimately determine the specifics of each art form, its boundaries and possibilities.

Exists different classification types of art. Such types of art as painting, graphics, sculpture, visually depict certain forms of reality. These types of art, associated with visual perception and creating images of the visible world on a plane and in space, are called fine arts.

If we turn to music, then the perception will be different. Such experiments were done many times: they played a piece of music unfamiliar to the audience and asked what it was about. we're talking about. In all cases, without exception, there was no complete coincidence of answers. If one listener said that the work was about a winter morning, then another believed that it was about first love, although the majority often had the same assessment of the emotional mood of the music: sad, cheerful, solemn. Music belongs to the non-visual arts.

It is possible to subdivide types of art depending on how they are perceived: by sight or hearing. Arts designed for visual perception would be painting or sculpture. Music is an art that appeals to the ear.

With dance or theatrical art the situation is more complicated. Choreography, and ballet in particular, is first and foremost a spectacle. However, it cannot be fully perceived outside of music. But in a dramatic theater it is equally necessary to see the actors and the scenery and hear the word spoken on stage. Therefore, arts such as choreography or theater are also called synthetic. These also include cinema and television.

One can divide the arts into objective ones, when the works are separated from their creators, like buildings in architecture, paintings in painting, statues in sculpture, and into those in which the work of art is the very activity of their creators: dance, theatrical performance, musical performance, artistic reading . They can be called “activity”, sometimes they are called performing.

Static and spatial are arts whose works are created in such a way that by their nature they do not change and are located in a certain space - paintings, sculptures, buildings. Those same arts, the works of which each time seem to arise anew and unfold in time, like a theatrical performance or music, dance, are called dynamic or temporary. At the same time, theatrical performance or dance can more accurately be called space-time arts, since they exist in both space and time.

Synthesis of arts(Greek synthesis - connection, combination) - organic unity artistic means and figurative elements of various arts, which embodies man’s universal ability to aesthetically master the world. The synthesis of arts is realized in a single artistic image or system of images, united by the unity of concept, style, execution, but created according to the laws various types art. Historically, the development of the synthesis of arts is associated with the desire to embody in art the ideal of a holistic personality expressing an idea social progress, the greatness and power of creative genius. In the history of world art, three main forms of synthesis of arts have emerged, replacing the syncretism of folk art and a clearly demarcated system of art forms that arose in antiquity.

Synthesis of plastic arts. Its basis is an architectural structure (building, architectural complex, etc.), complemented by a work of sculpture, painting, decorative art that meets a specific artistic and architectural solution. Architecture organizes outdoor space. Combined with architecture, sculpture, painting, decorative arts organize inner space(interior) and help establish figurative unity between it and the external environment; between nature, into which the structure is “inscribed,” and the premises (home, park, temple), into which the person is “inscribed.” The synthesized arts in this case retain their relatively independent figurative meaning. Synthesis is achieved here thanks to a single concept and style. In this case, the phenomenon that is commonly called synthetic art does not arise. An example of this synthesis can be medieval cathedrals (Reims, Intercession on the Nerl), architectural complexes of the 17th - 18th centuries. (Versailles, Arkhangelskoye). IN modern era it is developed in the ideas of the so-called “great synthesis” - the creation of an object environment with the help of architecture, color, monumental painting, decorative and applied art, the best way meeting the harmonious development of man, his physical and spiritual needs.

This idea is realized in the experience of Soviet architecture and design, as well as in the experiments of progressive artists of the West (Le Corbusier, F. Léger, O. Niemeyer, Mexican monumentalists).

Theatrical synthesis of arts. It is carried out in the process of acting performance of a dramatic work written by a writer and staged by a director, using music, scenery, pantomime, choreography, etc.

In the theater, according to Brecht’s precise description, “not everything should be done by the actor himself,” but “nothing should be done outside of connection with the actor.” Here, the synthesis of arts is achieved not through a mechanical “fusion” of different arts, but thanks to the synthetic nature of theatrical art itself.

The disclosure of the figurative content of a dramatic work, the intention of the director, composer, artist is carried out by identifying, in the process of the actor’s performance, the artistic and figurative possibilities inherent in the play, the music written for the performance, in the scenery and costumes created by the artist. The role is to assist the actor in this task and ensure the unity of the performance. Many art theorists saw in the theatrical synthesis of arts powerful tool formation of a holistic personality, capable of taking the viewer beyond the boundaries of what is depicted on stage, awakening in him socially significant feelings and thoughts (Aristotle, Boileau, Diderot, Lessing, Stanislavsky), linked the development of theater as a synthetic art with the idea of ​​​​a revolutionary transformation of society (Brecht, Meyerhold) .

The specificity of the cinematic synthesis of arts is associated with the development of the characteristics of film art and the film image. In cinema, for the first time, a synthetic artistic image receives comprehensive development. It arises on the basis of montage principles and is embodied in the polyphonic construction of film works.

It was in the art of cinema that the principles of editing and polyphony reached their most complete development. In the film image, plastic image, sound, color, spatial and temporal characteristics of reality are fused in a dialectical unity, and not “in the form of a kind of “concert” of accompanying related “combined”, but independent arts” (Eisenstein).

In aesthetic concepts that developed at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. and oriented either towards modernist form-creation, or simply towards the search for new means of expression, ideas about the synthesis of arts are often associated with the desire for so-called absolute art. The synthesis of arts is identified either with the creation of mythologized, symbolic art, supposedly revealing the “prototypes” of things rooted in the “absolute” or with the creation of a special type of “musical drama” uniting all the arts, or with a certain “synthetic” painting that surpasses all arts, or with the “derealized and dehumanized” art of the elite, designed to embody absolute aesthetic values ​​(Nietzsche, Ortega y Gaset).

Synthesis of plastic arts - Summer garden St. Petersburg, architects Zh.B. Leblond, M.G. Zemtsov, I.M. Matveev; Pavlovskoye, St. Petersburg.

Theatrical synthesis - rock opera "Juno" and "Avos", composer A.L. Rybnikov, words by A.A. Voznesensky, artists N. Karachentsov; musical "Notre-Dame de Paris", author Hugo V.M., music by Koshan R.; "Pugachev" drama by S. Yesenin, director Yu. Lyubimov, music by V. Vysotsky, actors A. Demidova, V. Vysotsky, V. Smekhov.

Cinematic synthesis - “Cruel Romance” based on the work of A.N. Ostrovsky, director E. Ryazanov, poems by M. Tsvetaeva, B. Akhmadulina, actors N. Mikhalkov, Guzeeva; “My affectionate and gentle beast” based on the work of Chekhov A.P. "Drama on the hunt", music by Doga E., actors Yankovsky O., Belyaeva G., Markov L.; “The Idiot” based on the work of Dostoevsky F.M., director Bortko, actors Mashkov V., Mironov E., Basilashvili O.