Изкуството

To get some idea of ​​the "murky whirlpool of problems" in which the aesthetes of the United States and Canada have found themselves today, it would be enough to leaf through the latest issues of the representative American quarterly "The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism." It is the organ of the American Society of Aesthetics. Its editor is the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Professor Thomas Munro, the universally recognized leader of contemporary American aesthetes. In the March issue, in an article entitled "A Criterion for Art Criticism in Contemporary Art," Lester D. Longman says: "It is not clear what we value most in art today. . . Since we fear that any clearly defined Criterion in art would seem dogmatic, we prefer anarchy in critical thinking."

A book, the result of a strenuous theoretically sought-after path by a harmonious and prolific author, a book written sincerely and with temperament, in a language freed from the dogmatic template, justifiably arouses interest. Moreover, the author is already known for his independent positions, his erudition and his polemical fervor. This book outlines the period when people were emerging from the shell of dogmatism, but new paths had not yet been found. In order to assess what the author has achieved and to defend it, one must proceed from a direction that characterizes the current stage in our aesthetics. And since basic principles are still controversial, the considerations expressed are also of this nature.

Iv. Astakhov, A. Egorov and other Soviet aestheticians are at the forefront of the struggle for a truly Marxist formulation of the question of aesthetics and beauty, against the subjectivist deviations of the "socialists" - a large group of theorists who have also gained popularity in our country. Our "socialists" were recently opposed by Acad. T. Pavlov (newspaper "Nar. Kultura" from 8. VI. vol. 2001). The systematic, although not large, work of Iv. Astakhov brings more clarity to the formulation of the questions. EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE AESTHETIC but ... WHAT IS THE AESTHETIC? The author makes an analogy with a thought of Belinsky, who wrote about his time that everyone talks about nationality, but "few realize what nationality is, although the word seems simple and understandable." And he sets out to examine the relationship between the practical and the aesthetic in order to explain its essence. Iv. Astakhov began to study the aesthetic by revealing the essence of art according to the well-known Marxian method of searching for the specificity of phenomena in their highest forms of manifestation. The author begins by examining the broad meaning of the concept of art: "In every area of ​​human activity there is such a degree of mastery of labor habits, such a skill for their application, which best corresponds to a certain goal, plan." And he concludes that art is the ability to achieve high quality, perfection" in any activity.

The theory of "Art for Art's Sake" has been around for more than a century, but the questions it raises and the struggles that surround it have perhaps never been as decisive for the development of art as they are today. What is the essence of art? Should it serve something other than itself? Is "pure beauty" not its only goal, or, in order to acquire social significance, must it submit to the great moral tasks that society sets for it? What is the role of the artist: to become the creator of autonomous artistic values ​​that will be enjoyed by a small elite of spiritual aristocrats, or to be in the vanguard of the great battle for social renewal? The theory of "Art for Art's Sake" has its answers to these fateful questions, and these answers lie at the foundation of the formalist art of the bourgeois world, as it has developed from the last century to the present day. Therefore, to describe the socio-psychological atmosphere in which this aesthetic concept was formed, to reveal its social and theoretical essence, to indicate the problems it posed and solved, and to assess them both in the context of the relevant historical situation and in view of contemporary requirements, is undoubtedly a topical task that our aesthetics and art studies cannot and should not ignore. The present article is an attempt in this regard. It sets itself limited requirements: to examine the theory of "Art for Art's Sake" as it developed in France - its true homeland - and only within the framework of that generation of writers and artists who first gave it the appearance of a specific aesthetic doctrine and first used it as a weapon, or more precisely, as a cover for their hatred of bourgeois society and culture. The representatives of this generation did not form a single school. These were artists, different in temperament, inclinations and tastes, different in the nature of their work and therefore different in their place in the history of new art. What united them was their common understanding of art and its tasks, of its relation to morality, politics, religion, science, nature, to reality in general. This understanding was not the result of a strictly thought-out theoretical work.

Comrades, At our current meeting in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Union of Bulgarian Writers, we started an argument with the Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Art, Dr. Petar Vutov. I asked him to give me the floor later, so that I could prepare accordingly and get into tune, so to speak. But he told me: "It is not possible, Comrade Zhivkov, because the Chairman of the Union of Bulgarian Writers, Dr. Kamen Kalchev, will also speak, and other comrades will speak, and there will also be a literary program." It seems, as I understood from Dr. Vutov's information, that today's meeting will be more difficult than your solemn meeting last night. (Merry cheering. Applause). The second issue of our argument with Dr. Vutov concerns whether I should just raise a toast or deliver a speech. I do not know why Dr. Vutov, by giving me the floor, limits me and suggests that I raise a toast. I could not imagine how you, the writers, would exist if you did not write, and how we, the political and state figures, would exist if we did not deliver speeches. After all, that is how we earn our living. (Merry cheering. Applause). Dear writers, Dear comrades, Distinguished guests, I am fulfilling a pleasant assignment from the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the people's government and my comrades - members of the Politburo and secretaries of the Central Committee of the party, who are present at this meeting. I greet you most cordially, warmly fatherly - I mean the party, friendly - I mean our comradeship and ties, on the occasion of the glorious 50th anniversary of the Union of Bulgarian Writers. (Prolonged applause).

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.

Vakhtangov as a fully developed artist with his own concept of the art of theater can be spoken of mainly in connection with his two last masterpieces - "Khadibuk" by A. N. and "Turandot" by K. Gotsi. Here he already reveals his understanding of the tasks of the new Soviet art, of the place of the director and the actor in it, of the relationship between the playwright and the theater, of the need to reach new social and psychological depths. It is quite natural that with these productions Vakhtangov managed to immortalize himself, to remain a symbol of a unified theatrical revolution, of a renaissance in Soviet art. Therefore, it is precisely these two performances that give us the right to examine in a generalized manner a number of more general questions of the art of theater, closely related to modernity.

There are journalistic and popularization articles that argue approximately like this: art is not an end in itself; once created, it is imputed to have a duty to influence public consciousness. These arguments seem very convincing and seem to admit of no doubts or objections. And yet, an unacceptable simplistic tendency is apparent in them. To claim that art is a phenomenon that renders itself meaningless if it proves incapable of aesthetic influence on a certain social collective or part of it is an axiomatic truth (at least for our aesthetics), but to think that the problem of this influence arises only after it has been created and exists as a fact is an unsatisfactory statement that does not take into account its inherent specificity. This problem - whether the individual artist is aware of it clearly enough or not - is immanent to art, it should not be understood as something that is subsequently, completely placed before him as a result of didactic tasks, conjunctural circumstances, etc. No, it is its organic component. For art is an artistic value not in some metaphysical isolation from society, but only in its relation to the aesthetic consciousness of a certain social community (group).

G. Dimitrov's statements about literature and art, his assessments of cultural manifestations in our artistic life are not accidental and isolated. They are determined by the great importance, role and specific social function of art. G. Dimitrov is characterized by a subtle sense of the historical originality of artistic phenomena. Therefore, he always turns to the problems that have arisen with the greatest acuteness from the course and development of society. For example: his thoughts on the superintendent, illuminated in the report of the VII Congress of the Comintern, are an example of a creative concrete-historical approach. And this undoubtedly had a particularly important significance not only for the correct direction in the party policy on this issue, but also became a broad platform for the unification of honest talents throughout the world in defense of culture against the barbarism of fascism and the falsification of the heritage.