Комуникативната

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).