аспекти

Artistic image and signal! What is the connection between these concepts that are so distant at first glance? Is it possible to prove the hypothesis of the signal nature of the work of art? There is no doubt that these new, as well as undeveloped questions will increasingly insistently excite art theorists. Aesthetics cannot stay away from the intersection of sciences. The border areas of knowledge have become the ground for the most serious scientific discoveries of our time. Aesthetics has ceased to be far from the needs of society. Aesthetic education, according to the decisions of the XXII Congress of the CPSU, acquires a necessary general character, art receives new exceptional functions of organizer and transformer in the formation of modern aesthetic taste in every member of socialist society. Thanks to the profound revolutionary changes and new technical means of social communication, the artist received an extremely numerous and extremely diverse in social, national and individual needs and capabilities audience, art has penetrated into every home, to every individual. Public regulation and management of the process of formation and development of aesthetic taste is required. In this regard, the study of the laws of public information is of exceptional importance. The artistic image can be considered as a signal of a special kind, which is still very poorly studied by cybernetics. In this regard, aesthetics can not only receive a lot, but also give a lot to this famous ultramodern scientific discipline. This can be done both by way of a precise general definition of the artistic image, and by way of some private definitions, the disclosure of individual aspects of the artistic image. Of the general definitions, the most synthetic and closest to the requirements of modern thinking seems to us to be the definition of Todor Pavlov, given in "General Theory of Art".1 Here we do not set ourselves the task of interpreting or updating Todor Pavlov's formula.

In this article I will touch upon only some issues from the history of Bulgarian drama, related mainly to its striving to generalize, to reach the foundations of historical truth. Of course, a number of problems of the complex historical development of our dramaturgy will remain outside the scope of the article. I will begin with the already well-known fact that our national dramaturgy lags behind our poetry and prose. Our poetry has such representatives as Hr. Botev, P. K. Yavorov, Hr. Smirnenski, D. Debelyanov and N. Vaptsarov, in the field of prose Iv. Vazov, Al. Konstantinov, Elin Pelin, Yor. Yovkov and others have worked, and our best dramas have been created by writers for whom dramatic creativity has sometimes been, so to speak, a second or third passion.

Marx's monumental style was admired by people of the rank of Engels, J. Marx, P. Lafargue, W. Liebknecht, Lenin, F. Mehring, and others. In their memoirs and notes, one finds extremely important observations and assessments of Marx's style, but without any attempt at analysis. Mehring merely sets the task: "The language of Karl Marx deserves a detailed study; this would be an important contribution to the study of Marx's personality and his work." 1 Exactly sixty years have passed since then, but the question still remains open. Why is the problem of style unanimously overlooked among the countless studies of Marx's literary heritage? Of course, as Mehring points out, this is not a primary task compared to propaganda and the further development of Marx's ideas. And although it is true in its essence, this explanation is already outdated and incomplete. According to Engels, when a new teaching is spread, for the sake of ideas, at first they do not pay attention to the form or attribute it to accidents, to the peculiarity of the creative personality. Later they begin to identify the thinker with his teaching, evaluating them as a whole. Finally, they reduce the ideas to the scale of the work, and the personality to the sum of the qualities necessary to carry it out. And so in the final stage they remain: Marxism as a revolutionary-proletarian teaching, Marx - the founder of scientific communism, and Marx the man - drowns in biographies. Therefore, the return path from the personality to the immanent features of its creativity encounters exceptional difficulties. But not so much because of a lack of biographical data, but as a result of the systematic underestimation of the principle of dialectical unity between the personality and its creativity. And they do not complement each other, but exist through each other. Marx did not construct his doctrine speculatively - the objective premises were prepared by history - but he created it. He is its creator. But not only with his genius and colossal erudition, but also with his will, his heart, his love for the proletariat, his contempt for the bourgeoisie, with his whole personality. On what grounds then is a titanic personality reduced to a function of intellect and class struggle?