образ

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.

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.

"Tears of Lily" - pale and in many cases clumsy imitations of the sentimental direction in Heine's lyrics - Pencho Slaveykov wrote in his hospital bed in 1886-87. He himself repeatedly pointed out the weakness of this poetry of his, in order to highlight "Epic Songs" as the mature beginning of his work. But in Slaveykov, as in our poetry at its beginning (until Karavelov and Botev), we can notice that where this beginning is in the spirit and form of written poetry, it is still clumsy and inept - and once the poet has touched the living source of all poetry, folk poetry, his verses resonate with the power of a fresh artistic image. Thus, even before he had modeled his literary experiments ("Momini Salzi") on a book model, Slaveykov in 1885 was inspired by folk-poetic images and wrote his poem "Lud Gidiya". It is no coincidence that when he later collected his poems for "Epic Songs", he put "Lud Gidiya" in the first place in this collection... For several centuries, the people have created the image of the cheerful man of art, who plays the tambourine with intoxication from aesthetic pleasure. This image is picturesque: the young Stoyan hung this empty tambourine on his belt" and as he played, "the brides broke the robbery - the old hurks crushed" - and even the judge, to whom the people complained that they could not do their work because of the "empty tambourine", was carried away by the power of art. Instead of judging the young gypsy, "they became kadiyas to play - you're a furley binish in a chamber - you're a furley hat on beams"....With such a relief-shaped and elaborate folklore image, the young poet, barely 19 years old, wrote a poem inspired by it. The verse, close to the folk-syllabic, easily succumbed to him.

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.

On June 23, 1966, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature also discussed the work of senior research fellow Ganka Naydenova "The Romantic Image - a Symbol of the Creator". In his written review, Professor Stefan Stanchev made a detailed description of the work. According to him, Naydenova's work represents an original scientific study with a contributing character. The author's concepts are built on rich material from all of Western European literature. The material is treated originally with a view to the author's thesis. During the discussion of G. Naydenova's work, the following spoke: Professor Emil Georgiev, Professor Stoyan Karolev, senior research fellow Minko Nikolov, academician M. Arnaudev, senior research fellow Krastvo Genov and the director of the institute Stoyko Bozhkov. The speeches emphasized the importance of the topic, the richness of the material on which the work is built and the original analyses and author's concepts. It was emphasized that the work has contribution. The speakers made some recommendations: greater unification and stretching of the material in view of the central theme; greater precision of some formulations; the chapter on Bulgarian literature to be dropped because it feels artificially attached. In his closing remarks, the director of the institute, Stoyko Bozhkov, recommended that the author take into account the wishes made and unify the material in view of the topic set, to direct her attention to the concepts she deals with and which characterize phenomena that are different in their genesis.

In the first serious article for "Selected Essays and Stories" Dr. Krastev (V. Mirolyubov), after almost completely denying Stamatov as an artist, emphasizes: "The satirical attitude to life is his element. He owes his narrow horizons to it." ("Young and Old" - p. 149). Since then, almost all notable Bulgarian critics have written about Stamatov. And they have always determined his place among the satirists. The literary critic Simeon Sultanov included his vivid and carefully crafted portrait of the writer in a book entitled "Satirists." And this is correct. Stamatov is undoubtedly a satirist. One of the most vividly expressed satirists in our literature. The main pathos in the work of this so original and lonely artist is the angry scourging of the vices that swarm in the human soul, and the angry tearing of the masks behind which these vices like to hide. Stamatov's literary work is filled with greedy, unscrupulous, lustful men and prostitutes who are ostensibly disguised behind the holiest bourgeois virtues. Let us recall all these Lili, Lina, Lida, Shurochka, the Countess, etc. Don't they smell "of taverns and men"? For the writer, "Man is the worst animal because he is smart. More predatory than a wolf, more cunning than a fox, more nasty than a hyena." He views the bourgeois reality in which he is forced to live with vigilant hatred, always ready to erupt in satire. And he lives in the most vulgar period of the bourgeoisie, its apparent flourishing and triumph, when the ideals of the Revival have been forgotten and when the vulgar optimism of "the worm in the cheese" has not yet evolved into the tragic optimism of "the mouse in the trap in front of the cheese from the bait."

Bulgarian history after the Liberation is dramatic and oppressive. The selfless patriotism of the Bulgarian National Revival was replaced by ruthless partisan struggles, which brought to the surface unscrupulous careerists and gangsters, dark characters like Vazov's Gorolomov and Alekov's Bai Ganyo. With bitter irony, Vazov called this period an era that nursed great people. In vain did his Kardashev seek romantic plots. Reality offered him only vulgarity, vulgar accounting, and crime. No matter how biased Irecek's assessments may be in places, in his diary he still faithfully captured the degeneration of political morals in the young principality, the rampant passions for power and material well-being. "People are ready with inner rage to throw stones at anyone, recklessly;..." "A person who does not lie and does not slander others, here is something extraordinary, a miracle of the world..."2 The young Czech scientist was shocked by the selfishness of the rulers with whom he was in constant contact. On the pages of his diary we repeatedly encounter such statements: "A person will become dull. .No longing, no idealism, no enthusiasm. I have fallen away. A desperate struggle against stupidity... A person becomes a misanthrope". Of course, in this miserable world there also live bright personalities, with Renaissance idealism, such as Petko Slaveykov, Vasil Drumev, Petko Karavelov, Vazov, Pencho Slaveykov, Aleko Konstantinov, Svetoslav Milarov, Olimpiy Panov, Trayko Kitanchev and others. They actively participate in political life, but its appearance is given by self-forgetful tyrants like Stambolov and Stoilov. The power is in their hands and with the most brutal means they neutralize their ideological enemies. Because of his love for Russia, boldly expressed in a church sermon, Metropolitan Kliment (Vasil Drumev), is threatened with a death sentence, which is commuted to 15 years in prison and eternal exile. Petko Karavelov spent years in the Black Mosque, Svetoslav Milarov, Atanas Uzunov, Olimpiy Panov, Alexander Karagyulev and others. They perish at the will of Stambolov, and later a villainous bullet from an ambush pierces Aleko's heart. Stambolov had found a brazen justification for the lawlessness and murders - that he was committing them out of inner conviction, and his successor Konstantin Stoilov called the violence of his district governors and gendarmes "exerting a moral influence on citizens". In the young principality there are no obstacles to the development of capitalism. But due to its lateness, due to the lack of democratic traditions, this development takes on the most ugly forms.