естетика

Every science is a science precisely because it studies, explains, and determines first and foremost what is common (a property, an essential relationship, a law) in the things and phenomena it studies. A science that is incapable of discovering and determining what is common in the object of its research is not and cannot be a science. This is, so to speak, an axiom confirmed by the entire development of all sciences without exception—philosophical and specific, natural and social, scientific-research and scientific-applied. Aesthetics as a science is no exception to this general rule. At the same time, everything that is general is general precisely because it is given in dialectical unity with the particular and the individual. The general, which does not constitute the deep and ever deeper essence of particular and individual things, but exists as pure, bare generality in and of itself and for itself, ceases in fact to have the character and significance of the general and becomes some kind of abstract, metaphysical and ultimately mystical idea, which in various idealistic theories acquires the meaning of a transcendental divine principle or some kind of transcendental value, etc. Something that is not common to at least two things (objects, phenomena) is not and cannot be common and therefore is not and cannot be any scientific concept, category, or law.

We have before us a truly interesting, passionately and vividly written book. The author boldly raises some fundamental questions of aesthetic science that have often been sidestepped in recent times. The central problem that has completely absorbed Burov's attention is the relationship between "the subject and content of art." Everything else is subordinate to this problem. What is said about the function of art is an illustration of the main thesis about the peculiar subject and content of art. In the first chapter, Burov criticizes the widespread view that the subject of art is the whole world and that its specificity arises not from the subject, but from the form of reproduction of life (the figurative form). Of course, the reflection of life in the "form of life itself," in a living, concrete, individual image, is a very important feature of art. But imagery is also inherent in science, photography, and the practical activities of people. After offering an interesting and accurate critique of Kant and Schiller on the one hand, and of some Soviet theorists on the other, Burov comes to the following conclusion: Imagery is not an essential specific feature of art. It explains nothing and must itself be explained. The whole point is in the specific subject matter of art, which gives rise to the specific figurative form. What is this subject matter? All true art

One looks for a motto for the article. One does not find it.... There is no unifying word, thought, phrase from and about this congress (if one does not consider the profound maxim of Alek's hero: "The world is wide - there are all kinds of them"). The fault is not in the multi-topic nature of the congress, although there was such a thing - seven topics were announced for the sectional sessions. Indeed, one general congress topic was also announced: "The State of Aesthetic Problems Today". But as can be seen, it only outlines the boundaries of the congress's subject matter. It did not set a task for the congress to try to solve. Moreover, it could not set one. The entire course of the congress, the spirit of the discussions, the style and organization of the sessions spoke perfectly clearly that it was not the type of scientific congress whose task is to solve problems. That is, to establish what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong - to search with the possible for the given moment of their selection is quite characteristic and deserves to be cited: 1) The concept of classical and contemporary concepts of art; 2) Art and the sacred (i.e. religion); 3) Functional and artistic value; 4) Art and modern technology; 5) Art and psychology of the depths (psychoanalysis); 6) "Non-finite and completion (of the work), norms, standards, etc.; 7) Research methods and new concepts, information theory, semantics, etc. 80 scientific accuracy the regularity of the phenomenon under study. This ambition was alien to the congress as a whole. As it was obviously conceived and as it was realized, its goal was not to move towards the solution of the problems, not even to clash opinions, but to show them. The congress was a colorful forum of opinions, a crowded bazaar of theories and hypotheses, an exhibition-demonstration of the current state of aesthetic thought in the world, which was sometimes boring. And this is the first, so to speak, slight shock that the scientific worker from the socialist side experiences when he comes across such a congress. What for us, with all its difficulty and complex historical relativity, is a main concern, passion and duty - namely to we select, in the click of ideas, to the correct idea - for them it obviously goes to the second and third plan. For us, a scientific congress is a struggle for scientific truth, for them - an opportunity to express opinions. Behind the first stands the deep conviction that truth is achievable, ergo - obligatory; behind the second - that it does not exist or if it exists, it is unattainable, and even if it is achievable - sometimes and in part - it is not obligatory. The pathos of scientific search burned weakly at the Fourth International Congress of Aesthetics. And this is not surprising, considering the eclectic-relativist, tinged with agnosticism and even mystical atmosphere of the congress - we repeat, of the congress as a whole.

Dimitar Blagoev belongs to those creative personalities whose work we remember not only on anniversaries and celebrations. With all the enormous achievements of modern thought in various fields of human knowledge, the traditions and testaments of these notable personalities retain all their vitality and timeless significance. Generations from different eras turn to their work to draw knowledge and wisdom, lessons and inspiration in their efforts to realize high social and cultural ideals. Therefore, such historical figures are not only our teachers, who have given us a true compass for orientation in the complex problems of life, but also our living contemporaries, suggesting to us the direction to the great truths.

There is hardly any other view of art that is more unanimously rejected than that of naturalistic aesthetics. According to the general conviction of specialists, art would commit suicide the moment it decided to put its harsh principles into practice. It would lose its soul - creativity. This conviction goes so far that today it is enough for a work of art to be called "naturalistic" to be considered compromised. Unlike other artistic concepts that have aroused sharp reactions at their appearance, but over time have imposed themselves on public opinion or, conversely, have been rejected only when they degenerated into fruitless norms that stifled the free flight of creative imagination, naturalism, both as an aesthetic and as an artistic practice, has been the subject of the most fierce attacks from its birth to the present day. Perhaps the basis of this constant hatred lies in its latent vitality, its comparatively easier adaptation to the criteria of elementary taste, or simply its not always clear distinction from another method of which it became the historical successor - realism. For it is a fact that when it appeared in France in the last century, naturalism was closely related to realism, that these two concepts were often used as synonyms. Their common struggle against the false classicism of official bourgeois art, against romanticism, against the ideal of universal beauty and the glorification of the past, their common cult of nature, truth and science, their love for the prosaic sides of reality, which until then had been considered unworthy and unacceptable as objects of artistic reproduction, quite naturally turned them not only in the eyes of the general public into manifestations of the same aesthetic concept, which is indifferent whether it is called "realism" or "naturalism". No one thought that there was anything essential that could distinguish the art of Flaubert from that of the Goncourt brothers and Zola, or the painting of Courbet and Millet from that of Manet and Degas. All were equally accused of lack of idealism, of vulgarity, of apotheosis of the ugly, of indecency, of blind copying of nature.

One of the most interesting problems of contemporary art - its relationship with science - is imposed on today's aesthetics. The old functional relationship between art and society is no longer a mystery to anyone, but in the second half of the twentieth century the socio-social factor of science acquired a relative weight that it had never had before. The past century was a time of remarkable upsurge in the field of social and natural sciences. The genius of Marx and Engels transformed philosophy, political economy and history, placing them on a truly scientific basis. Archaeology also became a science. Darwin's epochal discoveries in the field of geology, Mendeleev's in chemistry, gave a strong impetus to the development of natural sciences. After experiencing Romanticism in the second half of the century, several aspects of rapprochement between artistic creativity and science began to emerge. What these aspects had in common was the use of scientific procedures in the preparatory stage preceding the creation of a work (primarily fiction). Naturally, this process was in organic harmony with the growing credit of the aforementioned sciences.