художествения

Among the major problems facing our literary science today, a particularly important place is occupied by the problem of the emergence, formation and development of socialist realism in Bulgarian literature. And this is quite natural. Because the further development of our entire contemporary literary art is closely linked to the solution of this problem. That is why for a number of years now literary theorists, critics and historians have been devoting special attention to this problem. And it is no coincidence that their efforts are increasingly directed towards clarifying the essence of the artistic methods used by proletarian-revolutionary poets and writers - precisely where the very core of the problem lies. The works of Georgi Bakalov, Todor Pavlov, Pantelei Zarev, the Soviet literary scholars Dmitry Markov, Nikolai Kravtsov and others contribute to mastering this difficult area to one degree or another. First of all, in our and Soviet literary science and criticism, there is no dispute that in our country the method of socialist realism was formed as a result of a certain socio-historical, ideological-political and literary development - inextricably linked with the growth of class consciousness and struggles of the Bulgarian proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party, under the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution and of young Soviet literature (in the beginning - mainly from the work of Maxim Gorky). As pioneers of proletarian-revolutionary literature in Bulgaria, Dimitar Blagoev emerged - in the field of theory and criticism, Dimitar Polyanov and Georgi Kirkov - in the field of lyric poetry and fiction. In a historical-literary sense, Polyanov and Kirkov stand in the closest kinship-genetic relationship with the social-revolutionary traditions established in Bulgarian literature by Lyuben Karavelov and Hristo Botev, as well as with the critical realism of Aleko Konstantinov and Stoyan Mikhailovsky. With their creative activity, Dimitar Blagoev, Dimitar Polyanov and Georgi Kirkov gave shape to the first - "propaganda" - stage of the development of our proletarian-revolutionary literature (until the end of World War I). The poetry of Hristo Smirnenski marked its second stage - with the manifestation of socialist realism as a new method in our national literature.

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.

It is obvious that since the work of art exists objectively, i.e. it is perceived by us as a material phenomenon (in other words - as a complex organism of speech, sounds, volumes, lines, colors, etc.) and moreover represents a work of art insofar as it reflects in its forms specific moments and forms of objective reality in its own specific way: we can approach it with the basic tools of any science: the complex system of methods and means of comparison, selection and classification. Of course, these methods have been applied since aesthetics existed as a separate discipline. Aesthetic phenomena do not lie on the surface of the work of art, and therefore, for their disclosure, the application of the so-called methods of comparative analysis is necessary. Since by its very nature the law is universal, regardless of how many objects and facts are involved (the more, the better, of course), their legal "kinship" will inevitably manifest itself in different phenomena. Observing multiple phenomena in this way will allow us to find repeatability, i.e. the first sign of regularity.

I predict that the reader will be perplexed when he reads the title of this article: is it possible that such general theoretical questions as the formation of the artistic image and the division of literature into genera and types can be solved or examined on the limited material of a literature for one decade and taken at that not in its best era: because in the 1840s of the 19th century, neither Botev, nor Vazov, nor Karavelov, nor Petko Slaveykov, nor Rakovski, nor even Chintulov had yet appeared on the literary horizon in Bulgaria. The literary field is mainly occupied by poets such as Neofit Rilski, Neofit Bozveli, Rayno Popovich, Konstantin Ognyanovich, Naiden Gerov and others.

The final result of the creative process is the creation of an artistic image, which has a tangible, sensory-perceptible body thanks to the material characteristic of the type of art (words, sounds, stone, clay, wood, body movements, etc.) and which begins to exist outside the creative consciousness that created it. Today, the process of artistic creation is viewed as a duality of a kind of reflection of reality and objective, creative activity, through which the artistic image is created as a "new object of the objective world." And this duality is indicated as the most characteristic feature of the image, by means of which all its other features could be explained. It is indeed impossible to speak of the artistic image only as the content of consciousness. In the head of the writer, painter, sculptor, etc. There is only an idea, which in the creative process is developed and transformed into an artistic image - into a special reality (called by some theorists "aesthetic reality"), into an object that already opposes any aesthetic consciousness, because it exists independently of it (in what sense and to what extent, this will be clarified below). Thus, the idea, transformed into an artistic image, receives its own existence - the existence of the artistic image. The latter seems to live its own life (sometimes with a very changeable and strange fate - Hamlet, the Mona Lisa), which often transcends centuries and millennia and remains an immortal possession of humanity.