What is considered art. §3. Art as a sphere of expression. Fine arts. The history of its development in Russia

29.06.2020

Introduction 3

1.The concept of art 4

2. Types of art 5

3. Qualitative characteristics of the arts 6

4. Principles of classification of arts 12

5. Interaction of arts 16

Conclusion 17

References 18

Introduction

Art is one of the forms of social consciousness, an integral part of the spiritual culture of humanity, a specific kind of practical-spiritual exploration of the world. In this regard, art includes a group of varieties of human activity - painting, music, theater, fiction, etc., united because they are specific - artistic and figurative forms of reproducing reality.

Human artistic and creative activity unfolds in many ways. different forms, which are called types of art, its genera and genres. Each type of art is directly characterized by the method of material existence of its works and the type of figurative signs used. Thus, art, taken as a whole, is a historically established system of various specific methods of artistic exploration of the world, each of which has features that are common to all and individually unique.

The purpose of this test is to study all issues related to the arts.

To achieve the goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

reveal the concept of art

consider the concept of art form

get acquainted with the characteristics of art forms

study the principles of classification of art forms

consider the interaction of arts

Art concept

Art is one of the most important spheres of culture, and unlike other spheres of activity (occupation, profession, position, etc.) it is universally significant, without it it is impossible to imagine people’s lives. The beginnings of artistic activity are noted in primitive society, long before the advent of science and philosophy. And, despite the antiquity of art, its irreplaceable role in human life, the long history of aesthetics, the problem of the essence and specificity of art still remains largely unresolved. What is the secret of art and why is it difficult to give a strictly scientific definition of it? The point, first of all, is that art does not lend itself to logical formalization; attempts to identify its abstract essence always ended in either approximation or failure. 1

There are three different meanings of this word, closely related to each other, but differing in scope and content.

In the very in a broad sense concept of "art" ( and this , apparently its most ancient use) means any skill , a skillfully, technically performed activity, the result of which is artificial in comparison with the natural. It is this meaning that follows from the ancient Greek word “techne” - art, skill.

The second, narrower meaning of the word “art” is creativity according to the laws of beauty . Such creativity refers to a wide range of activities: the creation of useful things, machines, this should also include the design and organization of public and personal life, the culture of everyday behavior, communication between people, etc. Nowadays, creativity functions successfully according to the laws of beauty in various areas of design .

A special type of social activity is artistic creativity itself. , the products of which are special spiritual aesthetic values - this is the third and narrowest meaning of the word “art”. This will be the subject of further consideration.

1. Problem-probable dynamics, or opportunity.

However, one should not be carried away by only one becoming and only one action, which distinguishes an object of art from an object of science. We must always remember that in the field of art we are dealing not simply with action as an organic structure of becoming, but that becoming itself arose here in Aristotle as a result of the opposition of categorical reasoning (as well as logical necessity) precisely to problem-probable possibility. Only by taking this possibility in the field of pure reason in the aspect of an organically inherent becoming and integral possibility, do we for the first time obtain a more or less complete understanding of the object of art.

Aristotle writes: “...The task of the poet is to talk not about what happened (ta genomena), but about what could happen, about what is possible by probability or necessity” (Poet. 9, 1451 a 36 - b 1). This means that Aristotle once and for all broke with the subject of art as with factual reality. Naked facts, taken by themselves, do not interest the poet. He is interested in what is depicted in that which is perceived not in itself, but as a source of other possible objects and ideas, or, as we would say, the subject of an artistic depiction is always symbolic, or rather, expressively symbolic, always pointing to something else and calls to another.

Aristotle's thoughts in this regard sound quite categorical:

“The difference between a historian (158) and a poet is not that one speaks in verse and the other in prose. After all, the works of Herodotus could be translated into verse, and yet it would still be the same story in meters as without meters. The difference is that one tells about what happened (ta genomena), the other about what could have happened" (b 1-6).

2. Generalized nature of this possibility.

Finally, according to Aristotle, it is in no way possible for the artistic subject, which he declared to be only one possibility, to be reduced in any way - both in terms of generality and in terms of the persuasiveness of the image. One would think that if the artist is ordered to depict not what is, but what can be, the artist would have a free hand in relation to the image of anything. No, this cannot possibly be, because we will not forget that the entire sphere of possibility is taken from the same theoretical reason, which always operates only with general categories.

"Poetry contains a more philosophical and serious element than history: it represents the more general, and history - the particular. The general consists in depicting what has to be said or done by probability or necessity by a person possessing certain qualities. To this poetry strives, giving acting persons names. And the particular, for example, what Alcibiades did, or what happened to him" (b 6-12).

3. The figurative nature of art.

It is important to note here that the possible, which art treats, is always characterized by some names. Now we would say differently. After all, until now, in principle, we have been talking only about pure, or theoretical, reason, which acts with the help of general categories. But a work of art is not simply a system of logical categories. It is always an image of certain persons with their names and certain actions that occur with these persons. Aristotle has already spoken about action, but he has not yet spoken about the heroes of a work of art. And only now he says that work of art always operates with certain names, that is, with certain heroes bearing certain names. If in a comedy what is important is primarily the plot itself, and the names can be anything, and if in iambiography there are names, but no actions are depicted (b 12-15), then the situation is completely different in tragedy, where a specific plot is given - myth, that is, a certain set of actions, and “names” are given, that is, heroes bearing certain names that belong to them, and since mythology refers to the past, the question of its actual reality is no longer raised. Since something was, it could have been; and therefore tragedy fully satisfies the artistic principle of possibility, not to mention its persuasiveness that follows from here, and, consequently, its unique realism, which not only does not contradict the principle of possibility, but precisely realizes it most clearly.

Here is what we read from Aristotle on this matter:

"In tragedy, names taken from the past are adhered to. The reason for this is that the possible [that is, in this case, the incident] inspires confidence. We do not believe in the possibility of what has not yet happened; and what has happened is obvious , perhaps, since it would not have happened if it were not possible. However, in some tragedies only one or two occur. famous names, while others are fictitious, as, for example, in Agathon’s “Flower”. In this work both events and names are equally fictitious, but still it gives pleasure" (b 15-23).

What is important here is not only the breadth of Aristotle’s artistic horizon, but what is also important here is that among these discussions about the integrity, community, and peculiar realism of the mythological image, he does not forget to say also about the pleasure delivered by tragedy (eyphraifiein, or, more correctly, it would be translated, “joy ").

In conclusion, Aristotle once again emphasizes the non-factual nature of a work of art, namely its madeness, fabrication, creative design, its masterly imagery, which, according to Aristotle, is always carried out through its effective creation:

“One should not necessarily make it one’s task to adhere to the myths preserved by tradition, in the area of which the tragedy revolves. And it is ridiculous to strive for this, since even what is known is known to a few, and yet gives pleasure to everyone. From this it is clear that the poet should be more of a creator of plots, than meters, since he is a creator insofar as he reproduces, and he reproduces actions, even if he has to depict actual events, he is still a creator, since nothing prevents some actual events from having the character of probability and possibility. he is their creator" (b 23-33).

4. Expression as the aesthetic sharpness of an artistic object.

Now, finally, we come to the Aristotelian understanding of art as a sphere of expression. After all, here it becomes clear by itself that this kind of theory of an artistic object, designed not just for content, but for the masterly design of any content, which also delivers specific pleasure, is precisely a sustained aesthetics of expression, when what is important is not what is objective what exists, and not what is invented by way of subjective arbitrariness, but the virtuosity of the expression itself and the specific pleasure associated with it.

a) In the last of the previous quotes, we were convinced that Aristotle, although he is very fond of well-known and understandable mythological plots, nevertheless believes that the artistry of a work does not depend at all on these well-known and understandable plots. Plots may be completely unknown to the public and completely incomprehensible in their novelty, and yet the public can receive aesthetic pleasure from these plots. And why? Because for Aristotle, what is important in a work of art is not “what,” but “how,” or rather, the complete fusion of both into one expressive and thereby convincing formal-structural imagery. Below we will see how Aristotle defines the very origin of art as the natural tendency of man to “imitate,” that is, to creatively recreate everything around him, and to receive pleasure from this kind of imitation.

b) Now we will cite a very interesting argument by Aristotle in “Politics”:

“Children should be taught generally useful subjects not only in the interests of the benefits received from them - such as, for example, learning to read and write, but also because, thanks to this training, it is possible to convey to them a whole series of other information. The same is true with drawing: and its they study not in order not to fall into error in their own actions or to avoid being deceived when buying or selling household utensils, but they study drawing because it develops the eye in determining physical beauty. In general, it is least proper to look everywhere for only one benefit. people of high spiritual qualities and freeborn" (VIII 3, 1388 a 37 - 1388 b 4).

In other words, an artistic object, according to Aristotle, is equally vitally neutral and vitally useful. Art is a very specific sphere where neither “yes” nor “no” is said, and yet it is always a sphere of possible affirmations and denials. This is the sphere of expressive becoming-actions. Music is especially distinguished by this (Polit. VIII 4-5), as we will see below when considering the essence of music and musical education.

c) That the beautiful is generally higher than the simply physical is evident from Aristotle’s reasoning (Ethic. Nic. III 12) that for a fist fighter it is pleasant to receive a wreath and honors, but it is painful to receive blows during a fight, and courageous actions are performed for the sake of a beautiful goal and for the sake of avoiding shame, although wounds and death are by no means something beautiful or pleasant. Aristotle wants to say here that beauty is effective, but not in a purely physical sense.

“In works of art, perfection (to ey) lies in themselves, and it is enough that these works arise in accordance with the rules that lie in art itself” (II 3, 1105 a 27-28).

“Therefore, art cannot be criticized for the fact that it depicts incorrect, impossible or incredible objects. Of course, it would be better if everything depicted in art were objectively correct, and objectively possible, and objectively probable, but if, for example, a horse with two right legs put forward, then the one who criticizes the painter for this does not criticize the art of painting, but only the inconsistency of its reality. The subject of artistic depiction may even be objectively completely impossible. However, for poetry, the impossible, but probable, is preferable to the possible, but. incredible" (Poet. 25, 1460 b 6 - 1461 a 9; 11-12).

Aristotle presupposes the masterly structure of a work of art when he values in tragedy the very connection of events, that is, what he calls “myth,” and not the events themselves. So, for example, tragedy, according to Aristotle, is possible even without depicting characters, but it is in no way possible without a finished and clearly expressed connection of events. This applies to all other arts.

“Without action, tragedy is impossible, but without character it is possible” (6, 1450 a 24-25). “The same is noticed among artists, for example, if you compare Zeuxis with Polygnotus: Polygnotus is a good characteristic painter, but Zeuxis’s writing has nothing characteristic” (a 27-29). “If someone harmoniously combines characteristic sayings and beautiful words and thoughts, he will not fulfill the task of tragedy, but a tragedy will achieve it much more, although it uses all this to a lesser extent, but has a plot and the proper composition of events” (a 29-33).

Consequently, the artistic meaning of a tragedy lies only in the composition of incidents, that is, in its very structure, and not in the incidents as such. The same thing happens in painting.

“If someone smears the best paints in disarray, he cannot give even as much pleasure as sketching a drawing with chalk” (a 33-36).

5. Philosophical justification for the structural self-sufficiency of art.

Unfortunately, at the moment, due to lack of space, we cannot fully give the philosophical justification for the structural nature of artistry that Aristotle actually has. The first treatise, which follows the Categories in the Organon, is called On Interpretation. The fact is that in addition to being taken in itself, for a person there is always one or another interpretation of it, one or another interpretation of it. This interpretation also applies, of course, to the entire cosmos taken as a whole. But such an interpretation of the cosmos, as we well know, is for Aristotle the cosmic Mind. In the aforementioned treatise, Aristotle defends the rights of human interpretation of being in the face of being itself. Interpretation has a specific nature: not everything that is true in being itself is true in thinking; and the very contradiction that Aristotle prohibits for being itself is quite possible in thinking. Thus, “to be” and “not to be” is an unacceptable contradiction. However, in thinking, in addition to the real and categorical modality, there are also other modalities in relation to which it makes no sense to talk about truth or falsehood. This is the entire sphere of possible existence. It cannot be said about it that it is true, since it does not yet exist, nor that it is false, since at the stage of possibility it is not yet categorically affirmed. And what is especially striking in this treatise is that Aristotle refers us precisely to poetics and rhetoric to consider this kind of being, in relation to which nothing is affirmed or denied.

Aristotle writes:

“Not every speech contains [a judgment], but only that which contains the truth or falsity of something, so, for example, “wish” (eyche) is speech, but not true or false. The remaining types of speech are released here, for the study of them is more appropriate to rhetoric or poetics; only judgment (logos apophanticos) belongs to the present consideration" (De interpret. 4, 17 a 2-7).

Thus, the impossibility of applying positive or negative judgments to art was proven by Aristotle in one of the most important treatises of his theoretical philosophy. Artistic existence both is and is not. It is only a possibility, only problematic, only given and charged, but in no way a system of judgments about being, positive or negative. It is only expressiveness itself, and nothing else.

All the above judgments from Aristotle and about Aristotle may, in the eyes of others, reduce Aristotle’s entire teaching on art to empty and meaningless formalism. This would mean not understanding Aristotle's aesthetics at all. The point is that all this artistic “possibility”, “neutrality” and generally specific modality represent (and we have talked about this many times) not form, as opposed to content, just as, it is true, not content without form, but that namely, in which form and content are identified, in which they do not differ from each other, and in which their being and their non-being merge to the point of complete indistinguishability. How can one then say that Aristotle is interested in art only in its forms and only in its structures?

The entire 17th chapter of “Poetics” is devoted specifically to issues of concrete design of art.

“Tragedy,” says Aristotle, “should be written in such a way that it is clearest, most convincing, and so that the scenes that make it up are most understandable. The most exciting poets are those who experience feelings of the same nature. anger is the one who is truly angry. As a result, poetry is the destiny of either a person richly gifted by nature, or a person prone to fury. The former are capable of transformation, the latter are able to come into ecstasy" (17, 1455 a 30-34).

Where is Aristotle’s formalism when depicting the very essence of a work of art?

Enough has been said above about such “formal” categories of Aristotelian aesthetics as “beginning”, “middle” and “end”. We have already tried to prove that here Aristotle does not have formalism, but only a plastic, sculptural way of perceiving the world. Let's now see what Aristotle says about the concept of period and the aesthetic pleasure that we get precisely thanks to its structural orderliness:

"I call a period a phrase that itself has a beginning, a middle and an end and the dimensions of which are easy to see. This style is pleasant and understandable; it is pleasant because it is the opposite of unfinished speech, and the listener always seems to be grasping something and that something has ended for him; and not having a presentiment of anything and not coming to anything is unpleasant. Such speech is understandable because it is easy to remember, and this comes from the fact that periodic speech has a number, and the number is most easily remembered. That’s why everyone remembers poetry better than prose, since poetry has a number by which they are measured” (Rhet. III 9, 1409 a 35 - 1409 b 8).

Let us ask here, where is Aristotle’s aesthetic formalism when evaluating works of art?

Aristotle, as a moralist, stands against all extremes and everywhere preaches the middle, moderation. But in relation to objects of art, he knows no middle ground and no moderation.

“Moderation must be observed in lower, bodily pleasures, but not in pleasures from the colors of paintings, from listening to music and from subtle elegant smells.” “We do not call those who enjoy sight, for example, colors, or shapes, or pictures, either moderate or intemperate, although perhaps for such people there is normal pleasure, both excessive and insufficient. The same should be said about pleasures of hearing: no one calls those who enjoy melodies and theatrical performances too much incontinent, and no one calls those who enjoy these in moderation temperate, nor do they call lovers of scents who enjoy the fragrance of fruits, roses or smokable herbs "(Ethic. Nic. III). 13, 1118 a 1-9).

Such an attitude towards art cannot be called formalistic when the possibility of immersion in colors and forms, in painting, in music and even in incense is preached. We find the same boundlessness of aesthetic pleasure in art in another treatise, and even in in even more detail (Ethic. Eud. III 2, 1230 b 31).

7. The danger of modernizing Aristotle's teaching on art.

Reviewing all the previous materials on art by Aristotle and trying to analyze them from the point of view of artistic specificity, we actually come across a number of surprises that are usually absent from the presentation of Aristotle’s aesthetics. The very difference between dynamic being and pure being can cause bewilderment for many. After all, it turns out nothing more and nothing less than that artistic being is neither positive nor negative, that it says neither “yes” nor “no,” that it is existentially neutral and that it ultimately has its roots in the subjective area of the creative artist. It is very easy to get confused and put Aristotle’s aesthetics on the same plane with those modern nihilistic idealistic forms of thought that found vivid expression in the epistemology of Mach and Avenarius. Apparently, the author who has done so much to illuminate Aristotelian aesthetics and to consider it in the context of modern European and American theories, V. Tatarkevich, is leaning towards this incorrect position (159). He noticed a lot in Aristotle that goes far beyond the traditional understanding and presentation of Aristotle; he cites many texts from Aristotle that are far from relevant to us. last role(but only we have many times more of these texts). The main thesis of V. Tatarkevich comes down precisely to the fact that Aristotle allegedly taught about the neutral existential sphere of art, in which, according to this author, he differs sharply from all ancient philosophy (excluding Cicero) and in which he is certainly close to our modernity. We also gave the above-developed doctrine of the dynamic-energetic nature of the mind in the philosophy of Aristotle and also cited texts about the primacy of subjectivity over objective being in Aristotle’s theory of art. However, this whole side of Aristotle’s aesthetics should not in the least obscure from us everything else that we find in it.

If Aristotle really preached this kind of theory, then V. Tatarkevich would be absolutely right that Aristotle is not at all an ancient, but a contemporary art theorist. But a close study of Aristotle indicates that this “Machian” element must be able to accurately and unconditionally be combined with the general ancient ontology of Aristotle, and its specificity of a work of art must be combined with the general ancient teachings about art, nature and being. The mind that Aristotle teaches about not only does not contradict this dynamic-energy concept, but, as we have proven many times, here Aristotle had unconditional unity and none of his ontology suffered from this at all. To actually characterize the state of affairs, we will not now go into theoretical discussions, to which we have already devoted many pages, but will touch only on two narrower questions, where it is easiest to observe Aristotle’s general ancient inclination towards a passive understanding of the human subject, despite that, according to Aristotle, it is in the human subject that what should be called art is rooted.

a) If we asked ourselves the question of how such a first-class philosopher of antiquity, and, moreover, an exceptional encyclopedist, felt the entire inner element of art, then we would be amazed at the lethargy and passivity of the corresponding attitudes. In Aristotle, here, too, as elsewhere in antiquity, the term enthoysiasmos, “enthusiasm” appears, which, however, is not enthusiasm in our sense, but rather some kind of passionate excitement, affective inspiration. Aristotle defines this: “Enthusiasm is an affect of an ethical order in our psyche” (Polit. VIII 5, 1340 a 11-12), and ethos, “ethos” here should be understood not in the sense of ethics, but in the same way as the French and English in modern and modern times understand the term “moral”, that is, in a broad psychological sense. This enthusiasm, which the philosopher talks a lot about in relation to music, is in fact regarded by him very moderately and soberly. Enthusiasm and ecstasy are, of course, useful. About one insignificant poet, Maracus of Syracuse, Aristotle says (Probl. XXX 1, 954 a 38-39) that he “would have been a better poet if he had been in ecstasy.” But Aristotle rejects all extreme forms of enthusiasm, considering it a disease. Such ecstasies as those of Hercules, who killed his children, or Ajax, who killed sheep instead of Atrides, have for Aristotle all the signs of illness. In the same treatise (a 36-38) a purely physiological explanation of ecstatic states is given. For example, the Sibyls and Bacids act on the basis of painful predispositions from nature. Black bile, unhealthy diet, etc. are the reasons for this “enthusiasm.” Aristotle classifies many philosophers as such “melancholics,” including Empedocles, Socrates and Plato (953a 27-32). Instead of these unnatural states, Aristotle gives very sound advice to writers, like the one we find, for example, in the 17th chapter of the Poetics:

“When composing myths and processing their language, it is necessary to present events as closely as possible before your eyes. Under this condition, the poet, seeing them completely clearly and, as it were, being present at their development, can find the appropriate one and best notice the contradictions” (1455 a 22-26 ).

This is very calm and common sense advice, putting questions about inspiration on a very realistic and psychological basis.

b) The question of fantasy is also realistic. We find traits of passivity in this sense in Plato as well. This is especially true for Aristotle, who is trying to give a sober psychological analysis here. Under the influence of ecstasy, people often mistake the images of their own imagination for reality: “They say that the images of the imagination (phantasmata) really existed and that they remember them” (De memor. 1, 450 b 10-11). In general, fantasy is much weaker than real sensory sensations. In Rhet. I 11, 1370 a 28-29 Aristotle directly states: “Imagination (phantasia) is a kind of weak sensation.” However, this passivity should not obscure another, very important side.

c) The fact is that Aristotle, objecting to Plato on the issue of ideas, as we already well know, in fact does not at all deny the existence of ideas, but only places them immanent in things, in reality. This immanentism, on the other hand, cannot be understood crudely. This only leads to the fact that the idea, taken together with the thing, receives a more complex semantic pattern, becomes an expressive form, without ceasing to be pure meaning. Here is the solution to Aristotle's “whatness,” or “form,” “eidos.” We see the same symbolism in Aristotle and in his psychology. He thinks of the soul as the pure form of the body, but it exists “not without the body” (De an. II 2, 414 a 5-22), being, therefore, the semantic expressiveness of the body (415 b 7-27). Sensory perception has pure eidos, but not without matter (417 b 28 - 418 a 6). The same teaching, finally, applies to thinking. According to Aristotle, thinking is in the same conditions as sensory perception, that is, it is a passive state under the influence of the thinkable (III 4, 429 a 13-15). But the thought itself is precisely such that it does not cause affection, and therefore the mind itself, strictly speaking, remains outside of suffering. It contains eidos, and is the potency of everything imaginable. As a thinker of everything, he does not contain any admixture. He is only the potency of a completed thought. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the body, since otherwise it would be warm or cold and would have some kind of organ. It is the place of eidos, and above all potential ones. Developed thinking already creates an entelechy of thought; here - entelechial eidos (429 a 15 - b 10). But the mind is not only pure and active. He is also suffering because he is not always thinking. Since the mind is in itself, thinks itself, being independent of anything sensory, it is a thought about a thought, and, therefore, finds its expression in self-consciousness (in this case, thinking and the thinkable are identical, 430 a 3-5). Since he thinks differently, being, as it were, affected by this other, he finds his expression in figurative thinking, or, better, in intuitive thinking carried out through a special mental representative of thinking.

Here Aristotle repeats the same involuntary antinomy, which we can state in other problems: the soul is not a body, but not without a body; sensation is not movement, but not without movement. In relation to the mind, Aristotle directly says: “The soul never thinks without an image” (aney phantasmatos) (III 7, 431 a 16-17), and images introduce into thoughts that very “change”, or, in our interpretation, “expression ", what the corresponding light environment contributes to the color in general.

“The thinking principle thinks of eidos in images” (413 b 2).

“Since, admittedly, there is not a single thing that exists separately from (its) sensory perceived quantities, then the conceivable is given in tangible eidos, both the so-called abstract objects and those that are associated with states and affections of sensed objects. Hence, the one who does not perceive anything sensually can neither recognize nor understand anything, and when he mentally contemplates, it is necessary for him to simultaneously contemplate a certain image of the imagination (phantasma), since this image exists like images of perception (hosper aithemata), with the exception of [the latter's] matter. Just as imagination differs from affirmation and negation, so truth or falsehood is one or another combination of thoughts. But how do primary thoughts differ from sensory images? Of course, they are not [simply] other images, but they are. - not without images" (III 8, 432 a 3-14).

The mind is “pure” (III 5, 430 a 18, etc.), “eidos of eidos” (III 8, 432 a 1), is not something moving (III 9, 432 b 26-27) and is not even a soul at all (II 2, 414 a 4-14), and on the other hand, energetically it is impossible without sensuality. Here is a complete repetition of the problems that we state in general view in Metaphysics: eidos are not facts, but they have real significance only in things where they receive their final expression. And just as there energy is the semantic expressiveness symbolically given in things, so here thinking is symbolically given in sensory images, the same semantic expressiveness.

d) It is not difficult to notice what a subtle stamp of passivity lies on all this symbolic descriptive aesthetics of Aristotle. Fantasy for him is a very balanced, calmed connection between pure thought and sensual imagery, which transforms pure thought into pictorial figurativeness and expressiveness, and transforms sensual imagery from blind and deaf into transparently symbolic and artistic. This connection, of course, is elementary: every aesthetics postulates it on the very first page of its study of the psychology of art. Socrates demanded the same, as we know, from artists; Plato consciously used "sensibility" in constructing his "probable myth" in the Timaeus; Plotinus will also remember his pure Mind by bodily signs, etc. etc. But all ancient aesthetics understands this fundamental connection in an internally passive, contemplative, “classical” way; Aristotle, in contrast to the dialectical constructions of Platonism in the field of self-consciousness (the mature form is in Plot. V 3) and in contrast to Stoic-Epicurean naturalism ("outflows", "atoms of the soul", etc.), gives an expressive and semantic description of fantasy , gives an expressive phenomenology of this general antique passive-plastic consciousness of the artist.

Art (Latin experimentum - experience, test) - imaginative understanding of reality; the process or result of expressing the internal or external (in relation to the creator) world in an artistic image; creativity directed in such a way that it reflects interests not only of the author himself, but also of other people. Art (along with science) is one of the ways of cognition, both in the natural sciences and in the religious picture of perception of the world. The concept of art is extremely broad - it can manifest itself as extremely developed skill in a particular field. For a long time art was considered a form cultural activities, satisfying a person’s love for beauty. Along with the evolution of social aesthetic norms and assessments, any activity aimed at creating aesthetically expressive forms has acquired the right to be called art. On the scale of the entire society, art is a special way of knowing and reflecting reality, one of the forms of artistic activity of public consciousness and part of the spiritual culture of both a person and all of humanity, a diverse result creative activity of all generations. In science, art refers to both the actual creative artistic activity and its result—a work of art. In the most in a general sense art is craftsmanship (Slovak: Umenie), the product of which gives aesthetic pleasure. Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as: “The use of skill or imagination to create aesthetic objects, settings, or activities that can be shared with others.” Thus, the criterion of art is the ability to evoke a response in other people. TSB defines art as one of the forms of social consciousness, the most important component human culture. The definition and evaluation of art as a phenomenon is a subject of ongoing debate. During the Romantic era, the traditional understanding of art as skill of any kind gave way to a vision of it as “a feature of the human mind along with religion and science.” In the 20th century in the understanding of the aesthetic, three main approaches have emerged: realistic, according to which the aesthetic qualities of an object are inherent in it immanently and do not depend on the observer, objectivist, which also considers the aesthetic properties of an object immanent, but to some extent dependent on the observer, and relativistic, according to which aesthetic the properties of an object depend only on what the observer sees in it, and different people may perceive different aesthetic qualities of the same object. On the latter view, an object can be characterized according to its creator's intentions (or lack of any intentions), whatever function it was intended to serve. For example, a cup, which in everyday life can be used as a container, can be considered a work of art if it was created only for applying an ornament, and the image can turn out to be a handicraft if it is produced on an assembly line.

In its first and broadest sense, the term "art" remains close to its Latin equivalent (ars), which can also be translated as "skill" or "craft", as well as to the Indo-European root "composing" or "to compose" In this sense, art can be called anything that was created in the process of deliberately composing a certain composition. There are some examples that illustrate the broad meaning of this term: “artificial”, “art of war”, “artillery”, “artifact”. Many other commonly used words have similar etymologies. Artist Ma Lin, example of Song era painting, circa 1250 24.8 H 25.2 cm art antiquity knowledge

Until the 19th century, fine arts referred to the ability of an artist or performer to express his talent, to awaken in the audience aesthetic feelings and engage in the contemplation of “graceful” things.

The term art can be used in different senses: the process of using talent, the work of a gifted master, the consumption of works of art by an audience, and the study of art (art criticism). " Fine arts“is a set of disciplines (arts) that produce works of art (objects) created by gifted masters (art as an activity) and evoke a response, a mood, conveying symbolism and other information to the public (art as consumption). Works of art are deliberate, talented interpretations of an unlimited variety of concepts and ideas with the goal of communicating them to others. They may be created specifically for a specified purpose or represented by images and objects. Art stimulates thoughts, feelings, ideas and ideas through sensations. It expresses ideas, takes many different forms, and serves many different purposes. Art is a skill that can inspire admiration. Art that evokes its harmony positive emotions and mental satisfaction can also cause a creative response from the perceiver, inspiration, incentive and desire to create in a positive way. This is what the artist Valery Rybakov, a member of the Professional Union of Artists, said about art: “Art can destroy and heal human soul, corrupt and educate. And only bright art can save humanity: it heals spiritual wounds, gives hope for the future, brings love and happiness to the world."

ART

I. in the broad sense of the word, denoting a high level of skill in any field of activity, non-artistic and artistic, i.e. the perfect execution of this work thereby acquires a direct aesthetic. meaning, because skillful activity, wherever and however it manifests itself, becomes beautiful, aesthetically significant. This also applies to the activities of the artist-poet, painter, musician, whose creations are beautiful to the extent that they capture the high skill of their creator and evoke an aesthetic feeling in us. admiration. However Ch. distinctive artistic creativity consists not in the creation of beauty for the sake of arousing aesthetic pleasure, but in the figurative mastery of reality, i.e. in the development of specific spiritual content and in specific. social functioning.

Trying to determine the meaning of the existence of art as a special sphere of activity, fundamentally different from art in the broad sense of the word, theorists throughout the history of aesthetics. thoughts went in two ways: some were convinced that the “secret” of I. lies in one of his abilities, one calling and purpose - or in knowledge real world, either in the creation of a fictional, ideal world, or in the expression internal the world of the artist, either in organizing communication between people, or in self-directed, purely playful activity; etc. Scientists, discovering that each of these definitions absolutizes some of the inherent qualities of information, but ignores others, affirmed the multidimensionality and versatility of information and tried to describe it as a set of different qualities and functions. But at the same time, information was inevitably lost, and appeared in the form of a sum of heterogeneous properties and functions, the method of combining which into a qualitatively unique one remained incomprehensible.

Marxist-Leninist aesthetics considers I. as one of the main. forms of spiritual mastery of reality. Based on cognition. abilities of societies. human, I. stands alongside such forms of societies. consciousness, as a science, although it differs from it in its subject, in the form of reflection and spiritual development of reality, in its social function. Common in both science and art. consciousness – the ability to objectively reflect the world, to cognize reality in its essence. In this, religion is the opposite of religion (although at certain stages of historical development they were closely related), since religion. consciousness reflects reality incorrectly and is unable to penetrate into the objective essence of things.

Unlike science, which theoretically masters the world, I. masters reality aesthetically, embracing the world holistically, in all the richness of living manifestations of essence, in all feelings. the brightness of the singular, the unique. But, at the same time, in its best works it is a revelation of the truth, a deep penetration into the essence of societies. life. Aesthetic A person’s relationship to the world manifests itself in society in a variety of forms and, in particular, in any objective activity in which creativity is more or less freely revealed. nature of work. This, in particular, explains the presence of arts. element in certain products of material production. However, I. is historically formed as a special, specific. an area of spiritual production designed to master reality aesthetically: it generalizes, identifies and develops aesthetics. society's relationship to the real world.

Arts consciousness does not have the goal of giving any special knowledge; it is cognizant. is not associated with any private sectors of material production. or societies. practice and does not aim to highlight any special chain of patterns in phenomena, for example. physical, technological or, on the other hand, specifically economic, psychological. etc. The subject of I. is “everything that is interesting for a person in life” (Chernyshevsky N.G., Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 2, 1949, p. 91), it masters the world in all the richness of its manifestations, since they turn out to be the object of practically concrete interest of people. Hence the holistic and comprehensive nature of the arts. consciousness, facilitating the individual in realizing his “tribal essence” (Marx), in the development of his social self-awareness as a member of society, defined. class. I. is designed to expand and enrich the practical-spiritual experience of a person; it pushes the boundaries of the “direct experience” of individuals, being a powerful tool for the formation of people. personality. Specific social function I. lies in the fact that it, being a form of awareness of reality, condenses in itself the infinite variety of spiritual experience accumulated by humanity, taken not in its general and final results, but in the very process of living relationships between societies. a person in peace. I.’s work embodies not only the result of knowledge, but also its path, a complex and flexible process of comprehension and aesthetics. processing the objective world. This is the most important difference. the peculiarity of the “artistic... exploration... of the world” (see K. Marx, in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 12, p. 728). Since in I. the world appears mastered, meaningful, aesthetically processed, the picture of reality in the grand scheme of things is truly classical. I.'s work has orderliness, harmonious logic, and beauty, even if it involves the reproduction of base or ugly phenomena of life. This is not brought into the objective world by the arbitrariness of the subject, but is revealed by the artist in the process of spiritual mastery of reality (man creates “according to the laws of beauty” - see K. Marx, From early works, 1956, p. 566). Perceiving I.’s work, a person, as it were, performs creativity anew. mastering the subject becomes involved in the practical-spiritual experience enshrined in I., which evokes a special feeling of joy in the spiritual possession of the world, aesthetic. , without which neither the creation nor the perception of art is unthinkable. works.

The awareness of societies also has a long history. the role of I. The understanding of I. as a means of social education was outlined already in antiquity (Plato, Aristotle) and in classical. aesthetics of the East (for example, in China - Confucius). According to ancient thinkers, I. has the ability to customize definition. image of the human psyche, making him a full-fledged member of civil society, a useful servant of the state. Middle-century philosophy interpreted this role in a false theological way. sense; The Renaissance opposed it to the idea of the importance of personality in the free and comprehensive development of the individual (Campanella). Enlightenment aesthetics clearly revealed the meaning of the arts. consciousness in practice social struggle, emphasizing the moral-educational (Shaftesbury) and social-mobilizing function of I. (Diderot). The most important role for understanding India as an active society. Representatives of Germany played a force in the struggle for human liberation. classic aesthetics (Goethe, Schiller, Hegel), who understood freedom as “freedom.” However, she posed this problem idealistically, which led to the opposition of “fettered life” to free art (Kant). On the contradictions thereof. idealism indicated Russian. revolutionary democrats who saw in I. a “textbook of life” and saw its function in the “sentence” of its phenomena (Chernyshevsky).

Marxism-Leninism set about educating. roles of I. on history. soil. Being a tool for understanding reality, information is an active force in societies. self-awareness, in a class society - class. Knowledge of the world in I. is inextricably linked with its aesthetics. assessment, being social in nature, necessarily includes the entire system of views of societies. person; arts a work is capable of organically expressing its aesthetic. content of philosophy morals, society and political ideas. I. advanced, responding to arriving. development of humanity, plays a progressive role in spiritual development people, in their comprehensive ideological and emotional. growth. A measure of freedom in the exercise of this will educate him. roles are determined by specific social conditions. The exploitation of man by man inevitably leads to a one-sided and sometimes ugly manifestation of ideological education. functions I. Only socialist. provides I. the opportunity to freely form each member of society in all its richness life relationships and subjective abilities.

The syncretic and predominantly ritual-magical nature of the “works” of primitive art of the late Paleolithic era (30-20 thousand years BC), despite the lack of actual aesthetic principles, nevertheless allows them to be classified as facts of art. Ancient sculptures, figurines of animals and people, drawings on clay, rock “frescos” are distinguished by their vividness, spontaneity and authenticity of the image, testifying to knowledge and mastery of the language and means of conventional reflection on a plane, and the ability to work with volumes. The definition of primitive art as “realistic”, “naturalistic” or “impressionistic” essentially fixes the “consanguineous” connection between the distant initial and subsequent stages of the development of art, its modern forms and typological characteristics.

Various interpretations of the concept of art reflect various aspects its social nature and species specificity. Thus, ancient aesthetics placed emphasis on the mimetic, “imitative” moment, emphasizing educational value And moral value art. In the Middle Ages, art was seen as a way and means of communion with the “infinite”, “divine” principle: it is seen as a bearer, albeit imperfect, of the image of spiritual, “incorporeal” beauty. The Renaissance returns and develops the ancient idea of art as a “mirror,” “imitation of beautiful nature,” joining Aristotle rather than Plato. German classical aesthetics (Kant, Schiller, Hegel, etc.) considers art as “a purposeful activity without a goal,” “the kingdom of appearance,” “the play of creative forces,” the manifestation and expression of the existence of the “Absolute Spirit,” and makes significant adjustments to the understanding of the relationships of art with empirical reality, science, morality and religion. Russian aesthetics of realism insists on the idea of an organic connection between art and reality, considering it the main subject of “everything that is interesting for a person in life” (Chernyshevsky N.G. Complete collection of works, vol. 2. M., 1947, p. .91). Modern “postmodern aesthetics,” questioning and denying the traditions and values of the “old,” humanistic culture, tries, in the spirit of “new mimesis” (J. Derrida), to reinterpret the relationship of works of art with what lies beyond the edges of the “text” and is classified as “ reality".

Identifying the relationship between art and reality does not exhaust the problem of determining its essence. The specifically universal nature of art is covered and revealed by a number of approaches that presuppose and complement each other; among them it is customary to distinguish the theoretical-cognitive (epistemological), value (axiological), aesthetic-sociological (functional). Considering art in epistemological terms, which is what Plato emphasized, or within the framework of the function it performs, with which he began his analysis Greek tragedy Aristotle, the theorist, one way or another determines the value of artistic knowledge and activities. In turn, the value approach cannot neglect the sociological characteristics of the essence and function of art. To understand the specifics of art special meaning have theoretical-cognitive and value aspects, and the place and role of art in public life adequately grasped and revealed through aesthetic-sociological analysis. Kant, having analyzed “judgments of taste,” convincingly showed independence (albeit relative) epistemological aspect. Question about social essence art arises only within the framework of a discussion of its communicative capabilities and functions. After all, art in the proper sense of the word itself creates an audience that understands it and is able to enjoy beauty.

Historically, art arises when a person goes beyond the satisfaction of his immediate physical needs, practical-utilitarian interests and goals and gains the opportunity to create universally, freely, producing things and objects that give him pleasure in the very process of activity. The emergence of art is associated with the satisfaction of the need, first anticipated and then realized, for the production and reproduction of the strictly human character of one’s life activity, and oneself as a universal and universal being. Art reveals, exposes and presents illusively, in “appearance”, that which is hidden - as a goal and mode of action - contained in the objective-social content of human activity, which is the objective source of the individual’s activity. At the same time, art affirms the potential possibility of the universal development of the social individual explicitly - as a real possibility and actual force, without losing sight of the fact that it is realized under the dominance of the “kingdom of necessity.”

Art, by its very nature, is ahead of the norms and ideas of its time, in in a certain sense capable of setting a goal. In the world of artistic imagination, a person seems to soar above the necessities, not fitting into the framework of mandatory compliance with “existence”. In this sense, art creates “possible “dynamic” being” (Aristotle), a world of “expediency beyond any purpose” (Kant). External circumstances do not have absolute power over the internal norms of human attitude towards reality, which art develops “ideally”. Therefore, a work of art is a projection of spiritual aspiration, search for feelings, fantasy of desires, for it is born from a person’s need to transform his sensory attitude to reality, which supplies this need with all required material. Art does not disdainfully turn away from the fullness of life’s manifestations (and in this sense there is nothing “forbidden” for it), but at the same time it does not demand, as L. Feuerbach noted, that its works be recognized as reality. The power of art is manifested in its certain freedom from the factual side of life. It was precisely this feature that Hegel had in mind, who represented the history of art as the “self-movement” of the aesthetic ideal embodied in images, and Belinsky, who saw in “longing for the ideal” an illusory form of expression of urgent needs peculiar to art. public person. The ideal as a given and a possible reality receives its objectively true embodiment and justification in art. Reflecting and expressing reality from the standpoint of the highest needs of a developing person, art shows how the present enters the future, what in the present belongs to the future

In principle, art is created by the individual and speaks to the individual. No area of human creative activity can compete with it in the completeness of reflection of the entire diversity of human sensations. This also applies to the artist, the author of the work in which he “expresses himself,” often confiding to the reader, viewer the most intimate secrets of his heart, mind, soul (cf. Flaubert’s words about the heroine of his novel: “Emma is me”). The possibilities of art in revealing the motives of human behavior, action, and experience are unprecedented. By removing already known, fixed meanings of facts, phenomena, events, the artist exposes and reproduces them inner meaning in an individually unique appearance and form, which significantly and obviously differs from a theoretical scientist (for more details, see: Leontyev A. N. Problems of mental development. M., 1965, pp. 286-290). Being a creative and partial act, art expects an adequate response. In the process of perceiving a work of art, as a rule, a deeply individual, uniquely personal act, the fullness of the universal, general nature of the reader, viewer, and listener is revealed. All kinds of deviations due to differences in the level of development of taste, imagination, general and emotional culture of recipients do not cancel this norm of truly artistic perception.

The “imaginary being”, the “possible reality” of art is no less (often more) valid than the objectively existing world that served as the starting point for contemplation and representation; and in form it is an image of the whole in the “shape” of an artistic representation, where a generalization is built through the transition from one specificity to another, and in such a way that image-making necessarily acts as meaning-making (see Artistic image. Typical). So, through art - a special type of spiritual and practical mastery of reality - the formation and development of the ability of a social person to creatively perceive and transform takes place. the world around us and yourself according to the laws of beauty. Unlike other spheres and forms of social consciousness and activity (science, morality, religion, politics), art satisfies the most important human need - perception, knowledge of real reality in developed forms of human sensuality, i.e. with the help of the specifically human ability of the sensual (“aesthetic ”, visually expressive) perception of phenomena, objects and events of the objective world as a “living concrete whole”, embodied in works of art through creative, “productive” imagination. Since art includes, as if filmed, all forms of social activity, its impact on life and people is truly limitless. This, on the one hand, deprives all sense of art’s claim to any kind of exclusivity other than that dictated by its species essence. On the other hand, having a transformative effect on many public spheres and institutions, art retains its inherent characteristics and relative independence. Historically, art develops as a certain system of specific types. These are literature, music, architecture, painting, sculpture, decorative and applied arts, etc. Their diversity and differences are recorded and classified according to criteria developed by aesthetic theory and art history: according to the method of reflecting reality (epistemological criterion) - pictorial, expressive; according to the way of being of an artistic image (ontological criterion) - spatial, temporal, spatio-temporal; according to the method of perception (psychological criterion) - auditory, visual and visual-auditory. However, this is relative. A work that is primarily “fine” is at the same time “expressive” (for example, a pictorial portrait or landscape, acting, etc.), and “expressive” also includes a “figurative” element (such as, for example, “Pictures” from the exhibition” by M. Mussorgsky, dance or architectural image). A classification based on the principle of a dominant feature does not take into account the fact that each type of art uses and represents (in different proportions) all forms and means of artistic “language” - figurativeness, expressiveness, symbolization, temporal and spatial characteristics. Literature occupies a special place in this system of art forms, as the most “synthetic” form artistic imagery. Types of art are a dynamically developing system: in a given era, one of the types prevails and becomes dominant (epic and tragedy - in Ancient Greece, architecture and icon painting - in the Middle Ages, cinema and television - in the 20th century). With the development of science and technology, the improvement of communication means, new types of art arise; so, in the beginning 20th century cinema appears, and at the end of it - artistic photography, using the principle of “collage” (a technique developed by Braque and Picasso) and claiming the status of a new visual art.

The question “what is art?” acquires relevance and urgency with the advent of postmodernism, which puts many “old”, classical ideas under, including about the aesthetic, about the artistic, and therefore about art. For postmodernists, they retain their significance only as “transcultural, transtemporal values.” Ancient ideas about realism are being revised. The idea of priority of the so-called is defended. tangible, rather than illusionistic objects, representing an original means of interaction between artistic expression and experience everyday life. Corresponding to this principle, “postmodernist” artistic practice are considered (more precisely, they are presented) as a new and unpredictable step in the rapprochement of art and life, supposedly merging into a “one-time experience.” This approach to art is completely in tune with and adequate to the modernist rejection of a holistic picture of the world, which is in reality discrete and incomplete. However, such a decisive break with the past, the classical heritage is unlikely to be more powerful than the spiritual and practical power of art itself, which continues to amaze and give pleasure to new generations of people.

Based on the creative reproduction of the surrounding world in artistic images. Moreover, in a broad sense, art can mean highest level mastery in any field of activity, even not directly related to creativity (for example, cooking, construction, martial arts, sports, etc.).

Object(or subject) art is the world in general and man in particular, and the form of existence is a work of art as a result of creative activity. Artwork - highest form result of creativity.

Purposes of art:

distribution of spiritual benefits;
author's self-expression.

Functions of art.

Cognitive. Art acts as a source of information about the world or a person.
Educational. Art influences moral and ideological development individual.
Aesthetic. Reflects a person’s spiritual need for harmony and beauty. Forms the concept of beauty.
Hedonistic. Close to the aesthetic function, but does not form the concept of aesthetics, but provides the opportunity for aesthetic pleasure.
Prognostic. The function of trying to predict the future.
Compensatory. Serves to restore psychological balance; often used by psychologists and psychotherapists (fans of the program “Dom-2” compensate for the lack of their own personal life and emotions by watching it; although I would not classify this show as art).
Social. It can simply provide communication between people (communicative), or it can call for something (propaganda).
Entertaining(for example, popular culture).

Types of art.

Types of art are different - it all depends on what criterion to classify them by. The generally accepted classification considers three types of art.

fine arts :
- static (sculpture, painting, photography, decorative, etc.);
- dynamic (for example, silent films, pantomime).

Expressive arts(or non-figurative):
- static (architecture and literature);
- dynamic (music, dance art, choreography).
Spectacular art(theater, cinema, opera, circus).

According to the degree of application in everyday life art can be:

applied (decorative and applied);
graceful (music).

By creation time:

traditional (sculpture, literature);
new (cinema, television, photography).

According to the time-space relationship:

spatial (architecture);
temporary (music);
spatio-temporal (cinema, theater).

By the number of components used:

simple (music, sculpture);
complex (also synthetic: cinema, theater).

There are many classifications, and the definition and role of art is still a cause for constant debate and discussion. The main thing is different. Art can destroy the human psyche or heal, corrupt or educate, oppress or give impetus to development. The task of human society is to develop and encourage precisely the “light” types of art.