Moscow State University of Printing. Moscow State University of Printing Culturology 20th century encyclopedia

For all its supposed elitism), the sphere of “big” religion is shrinking and marginalizing. thinking and serious theology. The social stratification of the meanings and values ​​of culture obviously has the same history. age, as well as class stratification; however, such a specific structural phenomenon as mass culture distinguishes the 20th century. among other historical eras. Mass culture differs sharply from previous grassroots forms in that it relies on the achievements of the most advanced technology even to a greater extent than the elite art forms of the 20th century. Moreover, in the sphere of mass culture (pop music, entertainment, film production, fashion, tabloid and yellow press, etc.) the powerful potentials of sociology, psychology, management, political science and other societies, and anthropology are used. disciplines. Mass culture is unique as the art of manipulating elementary “subhuman” reactions and impulses (“drives”) of masses of people, using the most refined achievements of culture (technology and science). The fact that high culture seems to serve “pre-cultural” needs and aspirations (subconscious forces associated with eros, desires for domination and instincts of destruction and aggression) is extremely indicative of the 20th century. Typologically, his culture is built around the main problem of the era: to link a high, almost cult-like attitude towards culture and culture (as products and instruments of anthropic power over reality) with radical and systematic negativism in relation to culture and culture. Over the course of the century, omnivorous cultural elites have been developed, which recognize both the classics of avant-garde art and venerable academic-museum-conservatory super-values ​​as cultural values. However, until the successful institutionalization of the avant-garde in Tu. floor. century, the conflict between the “culture of culture” and the “culture of rebellion against culture” was very dramatic in the West. The cultural environment itself in the beginning. 20th century usually refused to see the revolutionary. art from Van Gogh to Picasso, something artistic, moreover, precisely under the pretext of the supposed refusal of the avant-garde artists from culture (A. Benois, Spengler

And etc.). When, around the middle of the 20th century. The time has come for massive societies. recognition (the so-called institutionalization of the avant-garde), then part of the humanistically minded culture worshipers (Sartre, Adorno

Etc.) accept and approve those branches avant-garde,

A certain innovative new humanism of an experimental type could be attributed to Crimea. The attributes of the new humanism were most often declared to be freedom of spirit, getting rid of narrow Eurocentrism and the notorious “universal humanity,” contact with new technologies and the fundamental ideas of revolution. sciences, etc. Starting from the 30s. in the West, powerful information, socio-cultural infrastructures are emerging, which integrate the classics of the avant-garde (from Fauvism to abstract art, to a lesser extent surrealism)

In the cycles of functioning of museum work, university education and science, expensive government programs and private initiatives, incl. researched and popularization character. One of the most important factors and tools for the institutionalization of the avant-garde in the middle of the century was the thesis that this art is “truly human” (in contrast to the previous culture that had exhausted its anthropic potential), and besides, it is the pinnacle of national, pan-European art. and/or general culture. Many classics of the early and mature (high) avant-garde (Matisse, Picasso, Chagall, etc.) supported the anthropocentric approach that had become academically and publicly respectable. civilizationism. But a particularly strong factor in the institutionalization of the avant-garde under slogans like Humanite-Civilization was the logic of the Cold War that began in 1946. The power structures of the West, after some unsuccessful attempts to attach the vanguard to Bolshevism (in order to fight this artificially constructed monster), chose a more effective and, for many, convincing move. The avant-gardeism of the West and Russia began to be seen as one of the symbols of free and humane democracy. culture, opposing the frozen, archaic, inhuman, culturally limited official art of communist. peace. Thus, humanists and culture worshipers owe much of the success of their credo and the possibility of projecting this credo onto avant-gardeism to the most dramatic and dangerous circumstances of the history of the post-war period. Avant-garde consciousness was a paradoxical mental construct, in which there was a complex of cultural superiority of new art and new thinking (its ethical, technological authenticity compared to the lies and backwardness of conservatism). Analysis of the practice and theory of avant-garde artists, from K. Malevich to A. Matisse, from V. Mayakovsky to E. Ionesco, allows us to notice in them that faith in progress and modernity, which is characteristic of the bearers of the cult of culture and Humanitas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. At the same time, these adepts are superhuman. demiurgy 339 sharply attacked paternal norms, the social super-ego, and gravitated towards their own kind. utopias of “new primitiveness” and barbaric freedom. T.o., K. 20th century. appears as the result of strange and peculiar combinations of two central paradigms of the era. The constant demand of the avant-garde for itself and others is to be modern, uptodate, and to earn the right to the name modern, i.e. correspond to new, progressive models and pictures of the world and methods of mastering reality (real or imaginary). The early avant-garde (up to approximately 1914) and the mature avant-garde (up to approximately the middle of the century) contain in their program two opposing imperatives at the same time, and invent more and more sophisticated ways to combine things that seem logically incompatible. In the early avant-garde of the cubists, expressionists, primitivists, futurists, slogans of complete rejection or even destruction of the culture of the past. But this seemingly irreconcilable opposition appeals either to “modern” technology, i.e. anthropogenic rationality without Humanitas (futurism), or to mythologized and artistically reinterpreted ideas of new postclassical. sciences (Apollinaire as a theorist of Cubism), or develops a whole system of historical, ethical, quasi-scientific arguments, like V. Kandinsky. It was a revolution in the name of liberation from anthropological-civilizational chains, for access to biocosm. open spaces, into dimensions previously tabooed by reason and morality. But at the same time, the revolutionaries themselves were not averse to ascending the throne of the Creating Man and presenting themselves as bearers of a certain higher form of culture. Revolutionary science and technology are being used in art with paradoxical results. They, on the one hand, aggravate anthropic culture-narcissism, and on the other hand, they call into question humanistic principles. measures and values. This confirmation-denial effect is clearly visible in the most technologized forms of art: architecture and cinema. The very foundations of architectural language are changing thanks to new materials with properties unprecedented in nature, as well as bold engineering solutions. Starting from the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, architecture is learning to focus not only (and not so much) on the scale, needs and perception of a self-valued person, but on planetary and universal factors (including technologized society, as one of planetary factors). Constructivism and futurology. projects of the 20s (from B. Taut to I. Leonidov) speak out as if on behalf of the collective all-planetary Self, surpassing the boundaries of the former individuality with its demands and potentials. Architects proceed from a certain swarm of utopianism. universal anthropicity, breaking the framework of the previous civilizational principleHumanitas.Techn. The means and language of cinema are rapidly developing after the first successful demonstrations of the new “attraction” at the very end of the 19th century. Classic 1910s (D. Griffith, C. Chaplin) already makes the inside palpable. a contradiction that will force cinema to find new themes, techniques, and solutions. Cinema diligently promotes humanism. supervalues ​​(especially ethical ones), but it is cinema that possesses such means, which, in their impact on the masses of viewers, come close to magic or religion. ecstasy (maybe even surpass the latter). The effect of presence, credibility and omnipotence of the “divine eye”, which seems to be able to see everything, look anywhere and even make fairy-tale and fantastic stories real. things, from the very beginning was and always had to remain an ambivalent instrument. With few exceptions, film masterpieces of the 20th century. programmatically pursued the goals of “truth and goodness,” i.e. worked for anthropo-civilizational super-values. But already in Griffith’s monumental “Intolerance,” that quality of cinematic uncontrollability manifested itself. means of expression, which were later to become an important subject of philosophy. reasonings of theorists of new arts and communications from Z. Kracauer and W. Benjamin to McLuhan.

Emancipation of the magic of new technologies. means and their direct dialogue with ecstatic. streams of space elements that are not subject to anthropic measures (good, evil, reason, expediency, logic, etc.) receive their theory. lighting (and its philosophical mythology) decades after the first social successes and creative. achievements of cinema, but the phenomenon itself is anthropocentric. the manipulation of language, which can and does escape the control of a rational and moral artist, dates back to the early stages of the development of cinema. In the field of philosophy. thoughts early 20th century also marked by the paradoxical interweaving of two paradigms, and this knot becomes more and more complex over time. Nietzschean ideas, Bergsonian intuitionism, social philosophies Simmel

AND M. Weber,

Early phenomenology, Amer. pragmatism, Marxism and psychoanalysis seem to later adherents, opponents and researchers to be a somewhat heterogeneous multitude, in which there is certainly no and cannot be in common. But epistemological. ambivalence is also present in the unfriendly family of philosophy. Thought, like art, turns away from the idea of ​​the royal anthropic Ego as the ruler of reality (and even superreality). If in art this revolt was expressed in protest against mimetic. aesthetics and precepts of the classics. rac. harmony, then the turn in philosophy was carried out as a rejection of the classical. metaphysician and rational-idealist. total systems of the past from Plato to Hegel. The anthropomorphic Spirit, placed at the center of the universe and solving the “final issues,” was removed from the agenda. God, the material and spiritual, truth and goodness, and other super-values ​​and higher entities cease to be ch. tasks of philosophy. The thought becomes more specific. and life tasks to engage in logic, language, thinking processes, mental. phenomena, social processes - 340 and phenomena. Thought addresses the problems of the structure and functioning of thinking, soul, culture, society, and does this preferably in the mode of criticism and exposure of those appearances that are accepted among people as certainties. Philosophy deals with the mechanisms and errors (substitutions) observed in the key mechanisms of a highly developed anthropic civilization (bourgeois, enlightened, technologized). Thus, thought and art begin to construct (for a long time almost imperceptibly for themselves) another anthropic-civilizational model, which has legitimized the perfect Self is no longer the straightforward methods used previously. The triumphant march of the Spirit (cognition, reason, culture, humanism) to the heights of perfection and power over reality was clearly no good as a paradigm (or “grand narrative”) in the era of approaching and advancing history. frustrations of the colossal scale of two world wars and the mass terror of totalitarian systems, and subsequently the Cold War, and then post-communism. Culture constructs a model of a rebellious-critical, destructive Ego, capable of demystifying the pathetic. myths about oneself, to explode the imperatives of mimesis and harmony (in art) or victorious Truth (in philosophy). A kind of super-myth is formed about the self-destructive power of the Spirit, whereby the extra-human becomes aware of his own inconsistency and subordination. forces (subconscious Freud,

Marx’s alienated forces of the market, a reality uncontrollable and external to value thinking Husserl

And pragmatists). However, these seemingly suicidal tendencies of culture did not lead to the delegation of anthropic pathos to a humanized monotheistic. God, as it was in Christianity, but to the paradoxical narcissism of sacrifice and the “thinking reed” syndrome (Pascal), who considers himself the only being in the Universe capable of comprehending the tragedy of his situation, and in this capacity regains the pathos of exclusivity. Justification of the claim to dominance through sacrificial doom, this technique is known in the history of civilizations long before the advent of pathetic. anthropic narcissism of the New era, embodied in philosophy, religion. and artist quests of this period. Postclassical. philosophy so-called Modern times and the inextricably linked trends of avant-garde art constantly reproduce this effect, comparable to the cultural meaning of Japanese hara-kiri: there is a demonstration of readiness for ecstatic-ritual self-destruction of the bearer of culture for the sake of an ideal triumph over uncontrollable circumstances, enemies and fate itself (i.e. over chaos extra-human reality). In the 20th century "magic" is periodically performed. the act of expelling metaphysics from thinking, i.e. claims to access to higher truths, essences, and final questions are declared illusions and self-deception. From different angles, thought again and again approaches the assertion that a thinking and spiritual person is not able to control entities and super-values ​​or count on their help. We are even talking about the fact that a person is not able to be a true master of his own language, which forms his picture of the world (Wittgenstein),

And your own consciousness, which constantly deals with energies emitted by the subconscious. (As Freud said, a person cannot consider himself a master even in his own home.) The logic of the destruction of anthropic pathos becomes more and more sophisticated and specialized in philosophy from Wittgenstein to Derrida,

From Heidegger

TO Foucault,

From Sartre and Adorno to Baudrillard.

At the same time, the narcissism of the victorious Ego is rejected and replaced by masochistic narcissism. Gestures of exposing metaphysics, the courage of sabotage against cultural humanism themselves become the subject of cult veneration. Cult figures of philosophy (as well as art) of the 20th century. receive their share of aura, power and dominance precisely through suicidal logic: if I am ready to destroy the foundations of the power of my own anthropo-cultural Self, then it is implicitly assumed that my self-destructive Self has a certain potential, reserve or right of superpower that despises even the principle of self-preservation. (Moss

And J. Bataille described and mythologized this aspect of the psyche and behavior of people under the name “waste” (depense). Philosophy of the 20th century. teaches us to be proud of our involvement in an anthropic culture precisely because it invents new and witty (or seemingly so) ways to show that there is absolutely nothing to be proud of here and that subhuman impulses, the laws of language, are subconscious. factors, elements and magic of production and communication, as well as other non-moral and irrational ones. forces of both first and second nature are beyond control. At the center of the second stage of cultural development (1918-45) is the “high avant-garde” (so called by analogy with the “High Renaissance” or “high baroque”). At the stage of full realization of its potential, avant-gardeism is absorbed in the problems of combining two paradigms of uncontrollable extra-human realities and the values ​​of a highly developed civilization. Literature, philosophy. thought and art (including cinematography, which for the first time is gaining an important place among the great arts) unambiguously appeal to such socially uncontrollable phenomena that stand on the other side of good and evil, such as the subconscious, madness, dreams, vital resources of the living body, ecstatic. states, mass hypnosis, etc. And this is not the naive enthusiasm for the energies of primitiveness that took place in early avant-gardeism. Not only high technologies, but also the latest scientific disciplines, claiming to be scientific and objective theories and strategies, are beginning to play the role of carriers and guarantors of uncontrollable realities and extra-human (biocosmic) meanings. Relativity theory, psychoanalysis and Marxist-communist. politically, ideas (constantly amalgamated with more impulsive anarchism) fertilize art and literature or join them as legitimation. Revolutionary constructivism of Russia and the West, surrealism, Dadaist forms of verbal and visual creativity constantly operate with the languages ​​of high culture, but precisely in order to embody the ideas of chaos, randomness, semantic multivalence, fluidity of the real world, not subject to the framework and standards of anthropic orderliness. Such are the philosophers. tendencies emanating from Nietzscheanism and Freudianism (Bataille, Lacan, M. Bakhtin

Etc.), as well as literature represented by the names of J. Joyce, F. Kafka, T.S. Eliot, A. Platonov, D. Kharms. Classic surrealism of A. Masson, J. Miro, A. Breton, as well as mysticism. abstractionism of Kandinsky and P. Mondrian and other artists. phenomena of the 20s and 30s are dedicated, if viewed from an epistemological perspective. t.zr., the problem of combining anthropic orderliness with irrational-immoral “disorder”. At this stage, opposing avant-garde and new philosophies arise totalitarian cultures.

In them, the mythologized cultural-anthropic pathos is hypertrophied to the extreme. They are trying to comprehend, legitimize and present themselves as the crown and result of the history of world culture. (This is typical both for the artistic policy and ideology of J. Goebbels, A. Rosenberg in Germany, and for the simultaneous efforts of A. Zhdanov and V. Kemenov in the USSR.) They and their supporters reject both “decadent” avant-gardeism in art and “symptoms of decay” in sciences and philosophies (i.e. revolutionary ideas of physics, genetics, psychology, cybernetics, etc.). The rationale for this anti-innovation was an ideal. (class-communist or racial-Aryan-anti-Semitic) pathos, which was stylized in the form of a civilizational argument: Hitler preached Aryan culture as opposed to Jewish “animality,” while official Soviet cultural ideologists rejected the supposed “savagery of bourgeois culture” and stylized themselves as defenders of the culture of the Bolshoi Theater, Pushkin and the immortal traditions of the classics (to which they could smuggle in their own locally marginal sources, such as the painting of the Wanderers or the philosophy of the “revolutionary democrats” of the 19th century). Totalitarian cultures were not just absurd incidents of cultural history, anachronisms and conservative reactions to the stunning dynamics of cultural innovations. In their own way, in their mythological-ideologized dimension, totalitarian systems also reproduced the problem of doubling paradigms, characteristic of 20th-century Kazakhstan. The constitutive mythologems of power, ideology and culture of totalitarianism necessarily included cosmogonic, vitalistic, biocentric. arguments. Present organic the power of mother nature as a source of power and dominance was extremely tempting. Of course, artistically strong experiments of this kind ("Earth" by A. Dovzhenko and others) met with ideals. denial from above, since ideologists acutely felt the presence of uncontrollable meanings and pathos of the vital power of being, surpassing all the forces and legitimations of anthropic communities: Dovzhenko’s myth. the forces of life are so magically effective and ecstatic that the Komsomol members, the kulaks, the class conflict, and in general the entire socio-political system clearly pale in front of them. topic. Ideol. amendments and criticism directed at P. Konchalovsky, I. Mashkov, A. Deineka and other artists who were not at all hostile to the regime had a similar meaning. Mother nature and mythical. the forces of fertility had no ideals. the right to take on too much. But the fact that ideology itself persistently demanded biocosmic from artists. meanings and even a kind of materialistic symbolism, is quite obvious from the architecture and monumental decoration of the Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy, Stalin's sanatoriums and holiday homes in the Crimea and the Caucasus, as well as from films, books, plays, paintings of the 30s and 40s . Stalinism experienced a constant temptation (but also the fear that usually accompanies temptation) to use for its own benefit a kind of neo-pagan cult of the “birthing body.” This temptation is peculiar to the East. variant of totalitarianism, while Western. (German) version is more prone to the mythologems of masculinity and belligerence, to the harsh ecstasy of struggle, power and death. Examples of Nazi “front-line romanticism” of this kind were left by Hitler himself in the book Mein Kampf. The theme of fertility and “joy of life” is far from being as characteristic of Hitler’s art as it was of Stalin’s. Stalin's culture was in a certain sense more “advanced”, i.e. more fully reproduced (of course, in the dimension of ideologized triviality) the complex structure of 20th-century capitalism, with its internal bifurcation. The ideologies of totalitarianism obviously served as phantom substitutes for real sciences, technologies and other civilizational mechanisms that provided developed societies with the effect of completeness of paradigms. The fact is that the tools and means of a civilizational type (film and television technology, other means of communication, new materials and technologies of architecture and other arts, effective in all types of art and literature, theories and concepts of psychology, sociology, linguistics, philosophical anthropology etc.) it is precisely in the circle of the high avant-garde that they begin to be effectively used for purposes that are sharply different from humanistic attitudes. culture, and more likely associated with shamanism, ecstatic. and magical practitioners, biocosmic myths like the “collective unconscious” cabin boy

Or cosmoerotic. eruptions of J. Bataille. Thus, the developed societies of the West made it possible to experience through culture the dual involvement of its bearers and consumers: the avant-garde classics of Picasso, Chagall, Buñuel, Dali, Artaud, Schwitters, 342 Joyce and others open up prospects for transhuman and even culturally prohibited dimensions, but in at the same time, he operates with inspiration, an arsenal of anthropo-civilizational means (and therefore makes it possible to identify oneself with the successes of reason, science, and knowledge). Probably, such dual involvement becomes generally obligatory. condition of culture in the 20th century, distinguishing it from the culture of previous centuries. Totalitarian societies sharply reduce and mercilessly emasculate this alluring prospect of double involvement. Here an acute deficit, unbearable for the mass psyche, was supposed to form (and to some extent did form); totalitarian ideologies were intended to at least soften its severity. The ability to turn to delirium, chaos, and animality is ensured in totalitarian societies precisely by ideologies: they are structured in such a way that they give their bearers and consumers the opportunity to use def. forms of magic, shamanism and culturally prohibited transhuman practices and rituals (“surreal” rituals of the triumph of power, the unity of the people around leaders and the punishment of apostates in the USSR and Germany). At the same time, participants and grateful observers of these demonstrative refutations of humanity, common sense and ethics. norms could, thanks to the specific. the structure of the corresponding ideologies, to understand themselves as defenders of culture, morality, reason and humanity. Thanks to totalitarian ideologies, many people had the opportunity to operate with taboo experiences (absurdity, madness, cruelty, perversions, etc.) and introduce them into “high culture”, feeling themselves not as apostates, barbarians or destroyers, but as bearers of high culture and fighters for high ideals. In the material of art and literature of the USSR, it is easy to identify symptoms of amazingly frank sadism and necrophilia in the official cult of Lenin’s mummy, in the myths of literature and cinema dedicated to the revolution, citizens. war and the war with Nazi Germany. German artists in solidarity with Hitler (L. Riefenstahl, A. Speer, etc.) widely used techniques for creating mass ecstatic works. states that excluded the control of reason, common sense and other civilizational mechanisms. Art and literature could, therefore, break out of the boundaries of a homogeneous civilization and transgress the limits of what is humanly permissible, and nevertheless preserve some semblance of a humanistic-civilizational cult. In other words, totalitarian cultures fulfill their specific needs. by means of tasks that are fundamentally similar to the settings of avant-garde art and postclassical art. democratic thinking culture. Art and thought tu. floor. and con. 20th century made enormous efforts to constitute themselves as a radically new picture of the world, supposedly a decisive break with the classic. modernism and moved to the so-called. poststructuralism and postmodernity. However, such an undoubted paradigm shift as in the beginning. 20th century, not observed at this time. Epistemological-cultural. the approach is more likely to establish the culture of 1950-2000. some semblance of an extremely protracted endgame (or even survival) of that paradigmatics and that typology, which were determined within the framework of the first two, much more dramatic and dynamic stages of development. The desire for paradigmatic ambivalence (to put it simply, the desire to realize oneself as “culture” and “nature” at the same time) even acquires a certain obsessive-violent character, especially obvious in culture postmodernism.

The beginning of this long final stage was very similar in the eyes of contemporaries to a decision, a revolution and a change of milestones. Catastrophic Second world. The war destroyed Europe and caused deep frustration in societies. Beginning shortly after 1945 so-called. cold war between Soviet communists. block and spare bourgeois democracies did not promote confidence. European claims to cultural hegemony, it would seem, should have become a thing of the past. In fact, for some time the United States has played the role of the undisputed leader of both mass and elite-avant-garde (as well as elite-traditionalist) culture. Cinema, literature, depiction (more precisely, plastic or visual) arts, architecture of the overseas superpower are clearly taking the lead and giving Europe examples of modernity, relevance and courage. It should be noted that the emigration to the USA of a huge number of writers, artists, scientists, philosophers from Europe during the years of fascism and war was one of the significant factors in this global success of America. Only the emergence and development of a new (post-structuralist) philosophy and new generations of Europeans. artists reforming the languages ​​of the avant-garde and approaching postmodernity, starting in the 60s, leveled the situation and led to a situation of relative cultural balance of the two most developed continents at the end of the century. US culture played during the 19th and 20th centuries. the role of a “laboratory of reformed anthropocentrism.” The cult of the hero-demiurge was initially very strong in the works of the founders of the Amer. literature (R.W. Emerson, G. Melville, etc.). 19th century was the era of revolution. democratization of America "hero of naturalness." Artist and philosopher the anthropology of W. Whitman, W. James, M. Twain does not contrast this hero with the non-human. nature, but is looking for ways to comprehend their unity. The American cinema that emerged after 1900 devotes Ch. attention to the “human hero” in his different guises. In the 20th century not only the literary work of Faulkner-Salinger, but also metaphorical-realistic. the paintings of R. Kent, R. Sawyer, B. Shan try to bring two things to a common denominator: anthropic pathos and extra-anthropic experience of the flow of being. Developing in the 30s. The expressionist, abstract and surrealist avant-garde of America was a rather belated and secondary phenomenon compared to Europe. early avant-gardism and lane floor. century. However, new history. The situation after 1945 contributed to the fact that it was in the USA, especially in New York, that the “modernist revival” was unfolding. True, the question of the originality of the artist. languages ​​of America 40-50. very debatable, since abstract expressionism of the New York school (J. Pollock, W. de Kooning, etc.) restores or picks up trends that were cultivated in France, Germany and Russia decades earlier; however, the scale, pressure, energy, ecstatic. "biocosmic" motor skills of the new American paintings and plastic arts far surpass everything that was observed in old cultural Europe. In a certain sense, we can say that in Amer. On this basis, those impulses that began the renewal of art in Europe around 1900 were reproduced and strengthened many times over. Open, programmatic “barbarism” and a demonstrative appeal to the energies of eros, aggression, magic and participation were embodied in more original forms at the stage of pop art (which was invented in England, but acquired American proportions in New York). The anthropic principle and “otherness,” their relationship, the possibility (or impossibility) of achieving synthesis acquire the character of even more intense and acute problems. This is especially obvious at the stage of conceptual art, which closely follows pop art and begins the fan of stylistic multilingualism that has been observed since the 60s. Should art, literature, and philosophy be included at all? floor. and con. 20th century in typological and chronological grid of that era, which began around 1900? The culture of the end of the century often, with considerable persistence, declared its fundamental separation from the preceding modernism. It was believed that the very structure of art and sciences became fundamentally different in the era of the end of ideologies and the total electronicization of the means of communication. What was hitherto considered art no longer exists; such a statement was part of the general set of theses about the end (of man, history, power, ideology, etc.). It is characteristic that the key concepts of the classic. avant-garde, words like modern have ceased to inspire confidence. Theorists and analysts of cultural processes of the 60-90s. they preferred to denote the quality of novelty and relevance with concepts such as contemporary, which meant not just “modernity”, but “the modernity of today.” In terms with the prefix “post-” (postmodern, post-humanism, post-historical) there is also a desire to separate oneself from the culture of the avant-garde. In the activities of Amer. and European conceptualists of the 60-70s. it was stated that it would resolve distrust of personalism, the cult of geniuses and masterpieces, and romanticism in general. "aesthetic religions" of rebels and demiurges (R. Rauschenberg, J. Kosuth, I. Klein, I. Kabakov, etc.). Both modernism and totalitarian ideological pseudo-realism were used as negatives. an example of the unbearable tyranny of authority and power in the guise of the cult of genius. For the sake of this ideal. construction designed to legitimize the rejection of previous types and genres of art (painting, architecture, sculpture, poetry, landscape, still life, etc.), theorists of the late conceptualism

They began to again identify the meaning and pathos of the avant-garde with the “utopian projects” of totalitarianism (the theory of “cultural bolshevism”, dating back to the right-wing conservative circles of the 20s). Art demonstratively operates with types and forms of expression that are difficult to classify as art. Even when turning to painting, postmodernity makes it clear that it is, as it were, painting, or post-painting, since it is performed as a pastiche, a parody, a quotative intertextual configuration. Art basically refuses to understand the value and importance of the message. Not only the significance of meaning and language, but also the unambiguous readability of the work. objects are called into question. They try not to talk about “work” at all, because this word is considered discredited by the era of cult, demiurgy, and utopia. For some reason, the words “artist” and “art” are preserved, but other terminology. props of a utopian-cult nature are confiscated; It is believed that the artist’s job is to make “artifacts” or perform “artistic gestures.” This anti-authoritarian pathos of postmodern aesthetics can be traced not only in the texts of the theorists themselves (K. Levin, R. Cross, H. Foster, B. Groys, etc.). Postmodern art is quite theoretical in itself and willingly engages in deconstruction of previous authoritarian theses such as Beauty, Masterpiece, Meaning, etc. The objects of deconstruction sometimes become the recognized founding fathers of classical literature. modernist aesthetics Picasso, Malevich, Matisse, Léger. This is a heightened (even painful) attitude of postmodern art to the problem of aesthetics. authoritarianism speaks of great uncertainty regarding the new diffuse and elusive (depersonalized) forms of power characteristic of developed consumerism. and the “virtual” democracy of the West (and for its satellites in the chaotic cultural situation of post-communist countries). In con. 20th century artists feel the constant presence of an omnivorous and irresistible infrastructure, which is ready and capable of broadcasting and launching into social circulation of any degree of breadth materials of any type, relating to any kind and type of art. The most inconceivable typology is easily adopted without noticeable social effects. Infrastructure and society have ceased to resist: no challenge to the authoritarian forces of order and beauty, reason and morality causes any special unrest. If at the beginning of the century, attaching a piece of old newspaper to the surface of a painting could cause an artist. environment of furor, then at the end of it, none of the most indescribable gestures and artifacts in their programmatic senselessness or obscenity caused resistance. The field of communication is so vast, diversified, specialized that not only absurdist “fluxus”, but also radical sadomasochistic or zoophrenic strategies. like they find their consumers in the def. sector of the vast market. The very vastness and saturation neutralizes social discontent or resistance. By the 90s. It has become quite obvious that in the art of “today” it is practically impossible for objects or gestures to be seriously repressed and not included in the circulation of the consumer cultural industry. Video recordings and the Internet display any art. statements into more or less mass circulation (characterized by general accessibility and anonymity of consumption). In such conditions, the principle of spiritual elitism and the creation of Masterpieces with a capital M, carrying important messages about essential truths and shown in special sacred places, temples of Spirituality and Culture, museums, practically does not work. This situation is very difficult for artists. They found themselves in a space of undecidability. They are addressed mainly to an unknown viewer or listener, whom it is impossible to describe. He is a traditionalist, innovator, soil spirit, cosmopolitan, art enthusiast, indifferent, idealist, cynic. Radical experimental art (cinema, literature, etc.) tests this vague interlocutor in the most merciless modes, offering him the most impossible, taboo, crazy topics, motifs, signs, messages (L. Cavani, P. Pasolini, P. Greenway, U. Eco,

M. Kundera and others). The prohibitions associated in hitherto existing cultures with the body, sex and death seem to be completely lifted. This is also typical for post-humanist. Russian art of the 90s. (V. Sorokin, K. Muratova, O. Kulik, A. Brener, etc.). Artists seem to rebel against cultural anthropy in general and move to the position of space or matter, for which there is nothing “undeservable” or “terrible.” But this departure from the anthropic world of civilization is carried out within the framework of postmodern aesthetics and in conditions of omnivorous and diffuse anonymous communication. This means that real things and meanings are not present in signs, whatever these signs may be. Presence is unreliable and unprovable in principle. The motives of the Other (extrahuman and extracultural gestures) are nothing more than signs of universal Writing (Derrida) or shadows of omnipresent electronic screens (Baudrillard). That is why there is a new radical biocosmic nature of this seemingly discarded humanity. The standards of art are symbolic, representative biocosmicity. This situation is recognized by many representatives of the arts. professions dissatisfied with the market-media system. Naturally, they are also looking for ways out of the situation. Some artists refuse the very role and function of an artist addressing the public with a certain message. The idea is to cut off as many communication channels as possible, or even become a hermit and “anonymous” altogether, and make art not for everyone, but for a very few (for example, within the framework of elite art clubs or specialized workshops). In the extreme case, the artist becomes his own only viewer, listener, and reader. At the same time, the hope is placed on the fact that, by turning into a kind of “black hole”, the energies of which do not come out, the artist can not only save himself from anthropic pathos, from violence and repression that permeate the “masterpiece-genius-museum” system, but also from the uncertainty and undecidability of total virtualization, in which signs and representations completely remove the question of essences and truths. Hermitage was practiced, for example, by such outstanding artists as the musician T. Monk and the artist M. Heizer. But this way out of the situation can hardly be considered successful. When an anchorite artist finds himself sooner or later in communication infrastructures, then his hermitage itself works as an image, ensuring his market and consumer dignity, and the mass consumer of images and simulacra

He receives further confirmation of banal myths about unrecognized geniuses and unknown masterpieces. It is apparently impossible to completely remain outside the global system of creating simulacra unless one completely abandons the art itself. activities. However, this refusal of the artist from his usual role and his failure to provide works can also be used by mass communications, which have experience working with showing or listening to Absence itself (I. Klein, J. Cage). Postmodernism and posthumanism in art. 20th century as if they broke away from the many times described and denounced anthropo-civilizational violence of Truth and Good and broke through into the dimension of the Other. Civilization allows the existence of the Other either within the framework of pure simulativity, or within the boundaries of medicine and the judicial punitive system. Realizing or feeling the dubiousness of their Pyrrhic victory of the ability to transgress any taboo of humanity and civilization, artists and philosophers of the last decades of the century often indulge in theory. dreams of a free intellectual without roots and attachments, of a cheerful observer, of the ecstasy of universal participation without any responsibility, of the pure pleasure of pure perception without moral judgment or rational evaluation. It is not difficult to see that all these projects of new art (and, more broadly, of the new man and the new post-human civilization) are built on the model of narcotized consciousness, first openly proclaimed by O. Huxley in the middle. 20th century (and anticipated by Nietzsche in his feverish sketches of the “gay science”). Lit.: Western art. XX century M., 1978; Russian artistic culture of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Book 4. M., 1980; Morozov A.I. Generations of young people. Paintings by Soviet artists of 1960-80s. M., 1989; Millet K. Contemporary art of France. Minsk, 1995; Morozov A.I. The end of utopia. M., 1995; Krusanov A.V. Russian avant-garde: 1907-32. Historical review, T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1996; Weber M. Selected works. M., 1990; It's him. Favorites. The image of society 345. M., 1994; Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. M., 1991; Spengler O. Decline of Europe. M., 1993; Simmel G. Favorites: T. 1. Philosophy of Culture; T. 2. Contemplation of life. M., 1996; Sartre J.P. L "existentialisme est un humanisme. P., 1946; Gehlen A. Zeit-Bilder. Zur Soziologie und Asthetik der modernen Malerei. Fr./M.; Bonn, 1960; McLuhan M. The Gutenberg Galaxy. N.Y., 1969; Idem. Understanding Media. L., 1964; Burger P. Theory of the Avantgarde. Mancester; Minneapolis, 1964; Breton A. Manifestos of Surrealism. Michigan, 1969; Horkheimer M., Adorno T.W. Dialektik der Aufklarung. Fr./M., 1969; Mauss M. Sociologie et anthropologie. P., 1964; Adorno Th.W. Prismen. Fr./M, 1976; Damus M. Socialistischer Realismus und Kunst im Nationalsozialismus. Fr./M., 1981; Brantlinger P. Bread and Circuses: Theories of Mass Culture as Social Decay. Ithaca; L., 1983; Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation. Ed. B. Wallis. N.Y.; Boston, 1984; Krauss R. The Originality of the Avant-Garde and other Modernist Myths. Camb./Mass., 1985; Megill J. Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida. Berk., 1985; Lacoste J. La philosophic au XXe siècle. Introduction a la pensee contemporaine. P., 1986; Hofmann W. Grundlagen der modernen Kunst. Stuttg., 1987; Baudrillard J. Selected Writings, ed. M. Poster. N.Y., 1988; Groys B. Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin. Munch.; W., 1988; HonnefK. Kunst der Gegenwart. Koln, 1988; Huyssen A. After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Post-Modernism. Basingstoke, 1988; Weber M. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tub., 1988; Collins J. Uncommon Cultures: Popular Culture and Post-Modernism. N.Y., 1989; Argan G.C. Die Kunst des 20. Jahrhunderts. 1880-1940. Fr./M.; V., 1990; Benjamin W. Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit // Benjamin W. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd. 1-2. Fr./M., 1990; The Culture of Stalin Era. Ed. H. Gunther. L., 1990; The Naziification of Art. Ed. B. Taylor and W. van der Will. Winchester, 1990; Twentieth Century Art Theory. Ed. by N.M. Klein and R. Hertz. New Jersey, 1990; Cullerne Bown M. Art Under Stalin. Oxf., 1991; Amerikanische Kunst im 20. Jahrhundert. Munch., 1993; Art of the Soviets. Painting, Sculpture and Architecture in a One-Party State 1917-1992. Ed. M. Cullerne Bown and B. Taylor. Manchester UP, 1993; Die Kultur unseres Jahrhunderts: 1900-1918. Dusseldorfetc., 1993; Die Kultur unseres Jahrhunderts: 1918-1933. Diisseldorfetc., 1993; Die Kultur unseres Jahrhunderts: 1933-1945. Dusseldorfetc., 1993; Bocola S. Die Kunst dre Moderne. Munch.; N.Y., 1994; Europa Europa. Das Jahrhundert der Avantgarde in Mittelund Osteuropa. Bd. 1-4. Kunstund Ausstellungshalle der BRD. Bonn, 1994; Lynton N. The Story of Modern Art. Oxf, . A

Culture of the 20th century very multifaceted and contradictory. Therefore, it will be very difficult to cover it in one topic of work, and it will be possible to talk only about individual trends in the development of culture of this period.

Already at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The crisis of the worldview paradigm of anthropocentrism deepened.

In the first half of the 20th century. In most countries of the world (with the exception of the colonies), the construction of an industrial society was completed. In the last third of the 20th century. in developed countries there is an active transition to a post-industrial society (technotronic, information, knowledge-based society, etc.). XX century was marked by unprecedented scientific and technological progress, which in its second half grew into a scientific and technological revolution, which changed the world of culture beyond recognition. In the 20th century Two terrible world wars broke out, a series of social revolutions took place, and many local conflicts and man-made and environmental disasters occurred. Mass serial production and standard consumption led to the homogenization of tastes, preferences, needs, and ultimately even to homogenization and depersonalization in many spheres of public life, including the flourishing of mass culture. At the same time, the formation of a single universal and world culture is taking place, which exists and develops through the interaction and mutual enrichment of various national cultures. Urgent environmental and other global problems, the impossibility of solving them by the efforts of individual, even very developed states, lead to the need to develop planetary thinking, a strategy of “sustainable development”, which should be based on the principle of ecocentrism. In contrast to anthropocentrism, according to which a person changes nature and the surrounding reality at will, in ecocentrism the main emphasis is on the harmonization of relations between man and nature, a careful, reverent attitude towards the world around him.

In the 20th century There was a departure from the principle of Eurocentrism, according to which only the development of European culture was considered as the main direction of human culture.

The works of culturologists, historians, cultural philosophers /A. Toynbee, O. Spengler, L.N. Gumilyov, Eurasians, etc./ affirm the idea of ​​cultural polycentrism, the uniqueness of each cultural-historical type. At the same time, in the last decades of the 20th century. globalization of culture is taking place. The contradiction between the technotronization of society continues to deepen, when the development of technology and technology as the most important instrument of domination over nature turns into the most important goal of social development and the spiritual and moral quest of man. On the one hand, in the culture of the 20th century. Humanistic principles and ideals have become increasingly widespread, and on the other hand, degradation and dehumanization of cultures is occurring. There is still uneven development of countries and cultures.

In connection with the rapid development of science and technology in the 20th century, when science turned into a direct productive force, in the culture of the 20th century. The confrontation between two attitudes becomes significant: the scientistic one, which continues the tradition of the 20th century. with their belief that science is capable of solving all the problems facing society, and anti-scientism, dating back to Nietzsche, which is characterized not only by belittling the importance of scientific knowledge, but also by the idea that in all the troubles of humanity in the 20th century. Science is to blame. For the culture of the 20th century. characterized by a crisis of the ideals of humanism and rationalism. It was very difficult to defend humanistic values ​​during the years when the ovens of Auschwitz were smoking and genocide was being carried out in Uganda and Kampuchea. There is a collapse of both the value system of traditional society (outside the European region) and the values ​​of classical European culture. They are being replaced by new ones - the moral values ​​of the builders of communism in the Soviet period, the values ​​of the new culture of the information society at the present time.

For the culture of the 20th century. characterized by the processes of modernization and westernization. In this regard, the question arises about the role and place of national cultures, their identity, the problem of dialogue between East and West, in recent decades also the North (rich, industrialized countries mainly in the northern hemisphere from the USA, Western Europe to South Korea and Japan) and the South . Non-European cultures, primarily Asian countries, are rapidly mastering the achievements of Western (including now American) culture, their scientific and technical achievements, industrialization, urbanization, and, in recent years, informatization are taking place in them. At the same time, sometimes the traditional cultural context is lost. A special place in the culture of the 20th century. occupies the phenomenon of totalitarianism, associated with the exorbitant influence of ideology in (national, communist) public life, the manipulation of consciousness.

One of the central places in the culture of the 20th century. science occupies. In the first half of the 20th century. A series of scientific revolutions took place in a number of sciences, especially physics. In the second half of the 20th century. A scientific and technological revolution begins, continuing until recently. Its main areas are information and telecommunication technologies, biotechnology, microelectronics and nanotechnology, space research and many others. Unlike past centuries, when the number of scientists amounted to hundreds and thousands, and scientific discoveries amounted to dozens, in the 20th century. the number of scientists began to number in the millions, and scientific discoveries in the thousands and tens of thousands. Let's name only the most famous scientists of the 20th century - M. Planck (quantum physics), A. Einstein (theory of relativity - relativistic physics), F. Crean and J. Watson (biology), K. Wiener (cybernetics), J. von Neumann (computer science), D. Hilbert (mathematics) and hundreds of other names could be named. From domestic ones - V.I. Vernadsky, A.N. Kolmogorov, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, L.D. Landau, A.A. Fridman, A.D. Sakharov and dozens of others.

Science in the 20th century has become a complex social formation, which is analyzed from various angles: 1) theoretical, where science is a system of knowledge; 2) as a social institution; 3) praxeological, where the application of the challenges of science from the side of its social significance is studied, etc. There are fundamental and applied sciences. None of the achievements of modern society can be considered outside of connection with science, especially fundamental science. In the 20th century Science is merging with production, and the “science-technology-production” system is emerging. Scientific work ceases to be the lot of loners, scientists living in an “ivory tower.” Most scientific products are created in scientific laboratories; scientific work becomes collective, sometimes requiring the efforts of an entire scientific institute in solving a specific scientific problem. Science constantly uses technology, and technology, in turn, stimulates the progress of science. The role and purpose of the education system for training scientific personnel is changing. There is a constant transformation of the education system in secondary and higher schools, based on the practical tasks and needs of society.

XX century turned out to be the most dynamic in all of human history. It constantly undergoes processes of renewal and modernization. The opportunity is precisely why the most popular styles in the culture of the 20th century. became modernism and postmodernism. Modernism is typical for the first half of the 20th century, postmodernism for the last quarter of the 20th century.

French poets of the 19th century were at the origins of modernism. C. Baudelaire, P. Verlaine, philosophers F. Nietzsche, S. Kierkegaard and a number of other artists. Modernism in the broad sense /avant-garde/ is associated with a break with realism; it declared a rejection of the connection between art and reality. Modernism includes a number of trends, directions and schools of the beginning and first half of the 20th century, in which new cultural values ​​were substantiated, different from the classical values ​​of the 17th-19th centuries. Modernist movements include futurism, impressionism, dadaism, surrealism, cubism, abstract art and a number of other movements in literature and art. Futurism was widespread in the first quarter of the 20th century. mainly in Italy and Russia. United in their desire to create the art of the future, the futurists rejected traditional culture and proclaimed the cult of urbanism and powerful industry. The founder and most prominent representative of futurism is the Italian poet and publicist F.T. Morinetti. The most famous of the futurists are the poets V.V. Khlebnikov, D.D. Burlyuk, A.E. Kruchenykh, early V.V. Mayakovsky. Russian futurists called for a rebellion against unification and a change in poetic language.

Cubism became widespread in the fine arts. He advocated the construction of a three-dimensional form on a plane, the decomposition of complex forms into simple ones and the destruction of the laws of perspective. The founder and typical exponent of the ideas of cubism is P. Picasso. Dadaism / M. Ernst, J. Arn and others / is anarchic in its essence, it opposes everything and everyone, even against itself. Dadaism became the predecessor of German expressionism and French surrealism. Expressionism tried to depict the subjective world of man as the only reality; it sought to convey the intensity of emotions and the irrationality of images. Austrian expressionism in literature is represented by F. Werfel, in fine art by O. Kakoschka, German expressionist artists - E. L. Kirchner, E. Nolde. F. Marn, P. Klee, A. Monk. Abstractionism /V. Kondinsky, K. Malevich, P. Mondrian/ reached the point of completely denying the connection between artistic images and real objects. Abstractionist painting has become completely pointless and non-figurative. One of the most striking and leading trends in modernist culture was surrealism. He proclaimed the source of art in the sphere of knowledge. One of the main features of surrealism was the paradoxical compatibility of objects and phenomena. Surrealism in literature is represented by A. Breton, P. Eluard, in painting - by S. Dali, R. Martin, in cinema - by S. Buñuel.

The most important philosophical trends that determined the culture of the 20th century can be called the philosophy of life, especially the French philosopher A. Bergson with his method of analyzing the stream of consciousness, which was the basis for most modernist literary works, as well as works of cinema, partly the psychoanalysis of S. Freud and C. G. Jung. However, a special place in the philosophy of understanding cultural phenomena of the 20th century was occupied by existentialism, formed under the influence of E. Husserl’s phenomenology. Existentialism, represented by the names of J.P. Sartre and A. Camus, also manifested itself in literature. Existentialism is based on the study of the most important problems of human existence: life, death, care, fear, anxiety, etc.

The cultural diversity of the 20th century is completed by a new direction - postmodernism. It is based on the principle of pluralism of ideas, styles, opinions, points of view, and a free combination of expressive means. Modernism defines open art, which freely interacts with all old and new styles and movements. Central to postmodernism is the text, which is a collage of quotes, a game without the rules of grammar and style.

The culture of the 20th century is dynamic, complex and contradictory. It dialectically intertwines national and global culture. The cultures of different peoples mutually enrich each other and at the same time sometimes do not accept each other. Globalization of culture is taking place, most often in the form of Westernization and Americanization, while at the same time national cultures, including elements of Western culture and creatively processing them, continue to preserve their identity and originality.

In the culture of the 20th century, more than ever before, there is a polarization of mass and elite culture. The first of them is directly related to the market, the needs of the average person, it is focused on the psychological relaxation of its consumers. Its distinctive features are simplicity, spontaneity, and entertainment. It is also addressed to people with insufficiently developed intellectual beginnings. An entire leisure industry is associated with mass culture, designed to relieve severe work stress (in literature, music, cinema, etc.). The works of masters of elite culture, as a rule, are intended for intellectuals, people with developed artistic taste and high spiritual needs.

In the last decade of the 20th century, the culture of the information society began to take shape. The emergence and development of information technology, the INTERNET, and telecommunication technologies are completely changing the cultural appearance of the planet. This phenomenon requires careful and comprehensive study by philosophers, cultural experts, and art historians. But it is already becoming obvious that the success of new technologies, on the one hand, gives free access to almost any inhabitant of the planet at any point to cultural values ​​(museums, galleries, libraries), but, on the other hand, impoverishes culture, emasculating the real from it content associated with the direct contemplation of works of art and the experiences that accompany it.

This topic is one of the most difficult to study, present and perceive, comparable in this regard to the initial topic of the course, devoted to primitive culture. But if the difficulties of understanding the primitive world are hidden in the scarcity of source material, then here they are in its abundance. Everything is in plain sight, and what is hidden or hidden enjoys the more zealous attention of humanity, eager to know everything. Neither safes, nor special archives, nor strict secrecy stamps, nor subscriptions to maintain secrecy help. Everything becomes clear in the rays of human curiosity and inquisitiveness that surpasses the penetration power of X-rays.

But more and more new volumes of information do not simplify the picture of the 20th century. It is not yet possible to bring all the abundance of events and phenomena of the past century to some denominator. This is especially clearly demonstrated by numerous philosophical concepts and teachings that try to tell contemporaries something about the world in which they live and about themselves. Essentially, how many authors there are, so many opinions. But still, even in the diversity of assessments and conclusions, one can see something in common. This is concern, anxiety for humanity, its culture and future.

The world entered the 20th century with this concern, which clearly indicates the fallacy of the idea that the problems of the 20th century were self-created, that it is enough to remove something, restore something, adjust something, and everything will work out. Far from it. The cultural problems of the 20th century have deep roots.

Back in the 18th century, pretentiously called the Age of Enlightenment, the voice of Jean-Jacques Rousseau sounded a powerful dissonance with Enlightenment optimism. Already, Rousseau perceived the fruits of the civilization of that time very critically. At the dawn of the first industrial revolution, the philosopher urged not to be deluded by material progress, and warned against the danger of uncontrolled human influence on nature. In an atmosphere of mass enthusiasm for education as a panacea for all ills, Rousseau was able to soberly assess its capabilities, rightly pointing out that the growth of enlightenment is by no means equivalent to an increase in human wisdom. An enlightened barbarian is much more dangerous than a primitive savage. Rousseau countered Enlightenment naivety with a stern warning: “Man! Do not look for another culprit of evil: this culprit is you yourself.” The past years have shown the relevance of this statement, the need for a comprehensive study of the essence of man and the motives of his behavior. Many philosophical concepts that tried to explain in one way or another the meaning of human life and his behavior arose at the beginning of the 20th century. Existentialism and Freudianism had a noticeable influence on the development of culture.

The main concept of existentialism is existence (literally from Latin - existence). It means the basic internal attitude of a person, most often unconscious, unknown to the person himself. While a person is immersed in the world of everyday worries and anxieties, his true self remains unidentified. A person is subordinated to his close environment, loses his individuality, independence, acts as others act, thinks as others think. Only some extreme situations (severe suffering, illness, premonition of death) can tear a person out of the world of false ideas, draw his attention to his essence, his existence. Of decisive importance for this is the emergence in a person of a feeling of fear, a feeling of the meaninglessness of his existence. Existentialism is a philosophy that preaches the tragedy of existence, its illogicality, and the insubordination of man. The conclusions of existentialism turned out to be attractive for Western literature, cinema, and theater. The works of Rilke, Sartre, Kafka, Camus and many other authors are permeated with existentialist ideas.

Freudianism is a philosophical movement associated with the activities of the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). It is characterized by an understanding of the human psyche as an extremely complex complex, the numerous phenomena of which cannot be rationally (reasonably) explained. This is the world of instincts, biological and physiological urges, drives and impulses, the nature of which is unknown and unknowable. Freud called this world the kingdom of the unconscious. Its basis, according to Freud, is sexual instincts, which determine the majority of human mental actions. In the process of human activity, sublimation (literally “suppression”) occurs - the transformation of suppressed sexual urges or impulses into other, non-sexual activities that are not directly related to instinct. These, according to Freud, are all conscious areas of human activity: science, artistic creativity, politics, etc. Based on Freud's teachings, a wide range of concepts and methods of various directions of Freudianism and neo-Freudianism were formed. Their ideas and approaches played a major role in the intellectual, research and artistic spheres of the 20th century. Why did this happen? Without touching on the medical and biological value of Freud's ideas, their extension to the entire human condition seems doubtful. The spiritual component of human existence is practically ignored; man is sharply reduced to the level of other creatures living on the planet. Let us compare this approach with the one that prevailed during the Renaissance. Philosophical and artistic ideas of that time affirmed the greatness and strength of man, his physical and spiritual perfection. Man was called a great miracle, a creature worthy of admiration, the crown of all living things. The art of Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and other Renaissance masters arose on these ideas.

But already during the lifetime of the creators of the Renaissance, disappointment came with its ideological foundations. The realities of life turned out to be alien and resistant to humanistic influence. In the 16th century, the concept of utopia (literally: a place that does not exist) became more and more established. As a reaction to the contradictions and inconsistencies of humanism, its inability to answer the real questions of life, the utopian works of More, Campanella and other thinkers appear. The humanism of the Renaissance, and with it the culture based on its ideas, is in crisis.

A new wave of philosophical idealization of man and a new crisis of the culture carried away by this took place in the 18th century. Since the beginning of the 19th century, the crisis state of culture has become a permanent form of its existence. This cannot be understood in a simplistic way. The culture of humanity created over thousands of years is a fairly powerful formation. And in the 19th century she makes new discoveries, shows the world some new facets of her creativity, and gives masterpieces.

The crisis is evidenced by the internal instability of culture, the constant change of its guidelines. In romanticism, culture moves away from the real world, in realism it returns to it, in impressionism it again closes in on its own feelings and moods. These fluctuations are not random. They indicate the unstable state of culture, the loss of the basis for its development, and the search for it. The basis is spiritual. These are those spiritual values, moral and aesthetic principles, life goals and attitudes that culture accepts and is guided by.

Sometimes it is believed that artistic culture itself creates the spiritual foundations of its creativity and does not need to bring them in from the outside. This idea is wrong. Literature and art are only the most noticeable, the most visible (by virtue of their functions) part of the vast general cultural iceberg, hidden in the depths of centuries, in the depths of our existence and consciousness. Artistic culture is sensitive, it reacts most quickly and subtly to changes within the social organism, but this does not bring it independence. Against. Society comes into motion, is filled with some kind of spiritual aspirations - artistic culture experiences an impetus, it actively supports these aspirations or opposes them. The social movement dies down, its pathos dries up, and artistic culture experiences spiritual starvation, withdraws into itself, into its own feelings and experiences. Such conditions are always painful for literature and art, just as weakening of the connection with the body is painful for a living organ. This is a crisis that neither generous monetary injections, nor freedom of creativity, nor the strictness and exactingness of the authorities can get out of.

Of course, even during periods of spiritual exhaustion in society, artistic creativity does not stop. Outwardly, it may give the impression of revival. There is a continuous change of styles, ideas and directions, a search is underway. Yes, looking for a fair wind of inspiration. And while he is gone, creativity resembles a sailboat, now frozen with drooping sails, now moving randomly at the will of the elements.

Since the beginning of the 19th century, this condition has become chronic. Culture has exhausted the ideals of past eras and has not found new ones. The 19th century quite clearly revealed the face of the idol and hope of the Renaissance and Enlightenment - the so-called “independent” (in the words of John Locke), an independent person, a hard worker, an owner. The bourgeoisie, which had gained maturity and strength, appeared in a very prosaic form. Those value orientations and attitudes that determined its essence clearly diverged from the traditionally lofty aspirations of literature and art.

The banking game, stock market fever, trade speculation and other hobbies of the “independent” evoked horror and disgust among the creators of culture. Within the framework of the new value system, an active substitution of concepts took place: lies became prudence, cynicism - practicality, cruelty - competition. The moral foundations of existence, which had been built over thousands of years, were collapsing: everything that had recently been familiar and clear took on a blurred, multifaceted appearance. In this viscous atmosphere, culture began to suffocate. The decadence that spread at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries (from the French - decline, decadent) is not an anomaly, as is sometimes imagined, but a natural reaction of a cultural organism that still retained its sensitivity to the destruction of its spiritual foundations and the increasing materialization of human life.

A. Blok remarkably accurately reflected the state of culture at the turn of the century in his poem “Retribution”:

Nineteenth century, iron,

Truly a cruel age!

By you into the darkness of the night, starless

Careless abandoned man!

The age of bourgeois wealth,

Invisibly growing evil!

Under the sign of equality and brotherhood

Dark things were brewing here...

Twentieth century... Even more homeless,

Even more terrible than life is darkness;

Even blacker and bigger

Shadow of Lucifer's wing.

Of course, such assessments were not understandable to a “careless person,” or one might say to humanity, then, and are still difficult to perceive today. Blinded by the brilliance of scientific discoveries and technical inventions, humanity entered the 20th century with greater optimism than artists and poets. Struck by serious illnesses, society reproached them for decadence, hopelessness, and rejection of life.

In turn, many cultural masters experienced a feeling of deep disappointment towards man and humanity, rightly believing that the voluntary replacement of the spiritual with the material, the human with the machine, etc. people who have lost the ability to navigate both the world around them and themselves can go. This is why literature and art have a strange, at first glance, interest in existentialism and other philosophical concepts of the 20th century, which deheroize man, bringing him down from the pedestals of greatness erected by the humanists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Man does not know what he is doing - on this basis, philosophy and art of the 20th century came together.

As a result of the rapprochement, modernism (from the French - new, modern) appeared - a major socio-cultural phenomenon of the past century. Both in form and content, modernism is opposed to the historical experience of mankind in the field of aesthetics. Why turn to this experience if it is built on erroneous ideas about man and cannot play a constructive role in modern society? Modernism is the desire to create new styles, free from historical borrowings, and to use new technical capabilities. Modernism is experimental, but its experiment is limited by its concept. Modernism is associated with innovation, but its innovation is destructive for culture not only by denying continuity, but also by weakening cultural functions, the most important of which is education, or better and more precisely, the cultivation of man. A culture that evades the cultivation of man is nonsense, a historically doomed rudiment, no matter how verbally this evasion is covered up.

It must be said that cultural figures themselves understand this best of all. Along with modernist aspirations, the culture of the 20th century maintains adherence to historical tradition. And in modernism, not everything is clear. Many modernist works are not limited to the feelings and fantasies of their authors; they are addressed to people, warning them against idealizing the modern achievements of mankind. In general, the cultural panorama of the 20th century is extremely contradictory and difficult to perceive.

In the literature of the 20th century, as in the previous century, the most clear and deep in content remained creativity that remained faithful to realism. It was here that the most significant literary works appeared, deeply and faithfully reflecting the complex history of the 20th century. The beginning of the century saw the bright, unique work of Jack London (his real name was John Griffith), which received recognition from the widest masses of readers. In his stories and novellas, London depicted nature and animals with deep understanding and love. The heroes of his works are brave, energetic people, loyal in friendship, courageously fighting the harsh nature of the Arctic and the ocean elements. However, having experienced poverty, exploitation, and the bitter pangs of unemployment, Jack London knew well that it was not nature that prevented a person from gaining personal freedom and happiness.

One of London's best and most profound works is the novel Martin Ideas (1909). Martin Eden is a man of the people. At the cost of enormous efforts and sacrifices, he managed to fulfill his dream and become a famous writer. But fame brought him only a feeling of deep disappointment and emptiness. Eden saw how selfish and insignificant the people who had previously seemed to him to be carriers of culture and spiritual wealth and to whom he owed his rise were. He came to the conclusion that no one needed the true art of truth. Having lost touch with the friends of his youth, Martin Eden was unable to overcome the falsehood and hypocrisy of his new environment alone and committed suicide.

Realist writers responded with large works to the catastrophe of the First World War. As a rule, the most significant works were created by direct eyewitnesses of this massacre provoked by militarism. Even during the war, Henri Barbusse’s remarkable work “Fire” (1916) appeared, which with merciless truthfulness depicts the tragedy of ordinary people involved in the war, the cynicism and self-interest of the true culprits of this tragedy - the industrial and financial bosses of the capitalist world. In 1919, Barbusse organized the literary group “Clarte” (“Light”) and the magazine of the same name, where he united anti-militarist writers of various political persuasions.

In 1920-1923 The best creation of Jaroslav Hasek was published - the novel “The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik during the World War” - one of the most fun and exciting books in the literature of the 20th century. In a satirical form, but at the same time very subtly and truthfully, Hasek reflected the state and psychology of society during the war, of which he happened to be a participant. The novel is structured as a chain of adventures of the “little man” Josef Schweik, mobilized into the Austrian army and sent to war, the goals of which are infinitely alien to him. Through the funny adventures of his hero, Hasek masterfully exposed the injustice and vulgarity of his contemporary society.

Ernest Hemingway, one of the most prominent writers in the United States, also took part in the First World War. In the novel “A Farewell to Arms” (1929), the collection of short stories “Death in the Afternoon” (1932) and other works, Hemingway shows the fate of the “lost generation” - the young intelligentsia, morally and physically disfigured by the war. Hemingway's work is imbued with a sense of doom of a society that was unable to prevent a military catastrophe. At the same time, the heroes of Hemingway’s works are by no means people broken by the circumstances of their lives. They do not remain indifferent to social evil, condemn war, and maintain dignity in difficult conditions. One of the most charming images was created by Hemingway in the story “The Old Man and the Sea” (1953). The writer showed himself in this story as a wonderful poet of nature. The accuracy, relief and poetry of his descriptions of the sea and the courageous struggle of the old fisherman Santiago with a huge marlin fish and sharks are impressive.

Outstanding works in the style of realism were created by Thomas Mann, Bernard Shaw, John Galsworthy, Theodore Dreiser, Romain Rolland and other writers. It should be noted that in the total volume of realistic literature of the 20th century, works attributed to socialist realism are often distinguished. These are works whose authors connected their work with protecting the interests of the working class, reflecting its socio-economic and political demands. As a rule, writers and poets of this movement were members of the communist parties of their countries (A. Barbusse, T. Dreiser, J.R. Blok, P. Neruda, etc.).

The events of World War II sparked a new surge of interest in realism. In the wake of anti-fascist resistance, the struggle for democratic national art, “neorealism” appeared in Italian cinema and literature of the 40-50s - a direction that became a kind of modification of critical realism and aimed at showing natural life, “unmade up”. Directors and screenwriters who united around the magazine “Bianco e Nero” played a major role in the creation of neorealism. In literature, the main representatives of neorealism were V. Pratolini, C. Levy, E. de Philippe.

Regardless of trends and shades, realistic creativity powerfully resisted modernist trends toward deheroization and depersonalization of man. On the contrary, the hero of a realistic work, as a rule, is a person who struggles, suffers, is often abandoned by everyone, makes tragic mistakes, perishes, but does not lose his face. This pathos of realism was well expressed by E. Hemingway in the story “The Old Man and the Sea”: “Man was not created to suffer defeat. Man can be destroyed, but he cannot be defeated.”

Modernist sentiments were opposed not only by realism, but also by other areas of artistic creativity that maintained connections with traditional art. In the literary process, in particular, the romantic beginning was never suppressed, which in the 20th century, on the basis of modern myth-making, gave rise to the bright and fascinating works of R. Zelazny, E. McMurphy, M. Moorcock, M. Stewart, K. Stasheff. Within the framework of romanticism, the popular genre of “fantasy” developed in the West.

In the second half of the 19th century, interest in the artistic traditions of antiquity, the Renaissance and classicism was revived in literature and art. Under the general name “neoclassicism,” artistic movements appeared that contrasted “eternal” aesthetic norms with modern tastes, and opposed individualistic arbitrariness and alienation from general civil, socially significant concepts and values ​​with the classical tradition of serving society. In the literature of the 20th century, the most noticeable phenomenon of neoclassicism was the “Romanesque school” of French poets, which was characterized by an orientation towards ancient and classic tragedy and lyricism, emphasizing nobility, rigor and clarity of style.

Science fiction literature received a new development in the 20th century. But if science fiction writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries have an obvious romantic perception of scientific and technological achievements and prospects, then their followers have a different attitude towards science and technology. With its works, science fiction literature of the 20th century warns of the danger of idealizing the results of the development of modern civilization (S. Lem, R. Bradbury, R. Sheckley, A. Azimov, A. Clark).

Numerous detective stories took a prominent place in the literary work of the 20th century, both as a consequence of the growing popularity of this genre among readers, and as a result of the criminalization of life.

Pessimism, lack of faith in man, his future are characteristic of literary modernism. Thus, the central idea of ​​D. Joyce’s novel “Ulysses” is the immutability of human nature and the absence of historical progress. F. Kafka captured the horror of the meaninglessness of human existence in his novels. The works of M. Proust indicate the illogicality and unreasonableness of public consciousness. In W. Golding's novel “Lord of the Flies” it is stated that there is a beast in every person, that the source of evil is the person himself.

A new radical revision of spiritual and ethical values ​​and, at the same time, ideas about man was caused by the Second World War. Existentialism is becoming fashionable and is widely included in literature, especially manifesting itself in the works of J.P. Sartre and his followers. The so-called “existentialist novel” appeared, which carried out an artistic study of the tragedy of an individual thrown into an “existence” hostile to him. In the 50s and 60s, this tragic perception of the world received a new impetus due to the sharply increased dehumanization of social, industrial and interpersonal relations. The “great leap” in the material and technical sphere, which took place under the influence of scientific and technological revolution, made a grave impression on existentialist writers, which was achieved through the violation and even destruction of indigenous human and spiritual and moral values, due to a noticeable decrease in the importance of a person, an individual.

The people presented on the pages of the novels and stories of F. Sagan, C. Galois, R. Andre, F. Nurisier and other authors, in the spirit of existentialism, are not only deprived of any spiritual and moral supports and hopeful ideals, but they feel with particular acuteness his loneliness in a world where living human connections have been severed, functional rationalism and cold calculation reign.

Modernism manifested itself with particular scope and consequences in the fine arts. This sphere of culture was most influenced by the so-called “avant-garde” sentiments that spread here in the second half of the 19th century and reflected the tendency to reject traditions and search for new forms of creativity that corresponded to the spirit of the time. The concept of “avant-garde”, which appeared already in the 20th century, does not belong to any particular movement, but characterizes modernist art of different directions, schools, artists who reject traditional artistic ideas and norms, striving to be modern and original. Change has become the driving force here, renewal the main goal. Rejecting the ideas about beauty, form, space, plot, and color that had developed over the centuries-old history of culture, new artistic movements made the main thing an emphasized expression of individuality, a constant search for previously unused visual means and materials.

A very expressive new approach to creativity manifested itself in cubism, which became the predecessor of many formalist movements in art. Deforming the real world by decomposing its objects into the simplest geometric bodies (cube, cone, etc.), the Cubists tried to create three-dimensional forms on a plane in this way. The main idea of ​​cubism - the artist should not follow visible reality, he must create a new reality himself according to the laws of art, not life - can be traced in other modernist movements. Representatives of Fauvism (A. Matisse and others), for example, also did not strive for an accurate representation of reality and especially color. The Fauves conveyed their feelings and moods by distorting the real color scheme (red trees, yellow water, etc.) and extreme saturation of colors. Expressionism, which arose almost simultaneously with Fauvism (from the French “expression”, was most widespread in Germany), aimed at emphasizing the expression of the artist’s mental states, his feelings and moods. The art of the “superreal”, “supernatural” by its very name is surrealism (S. Dali, M. Chagall, etc.). Here, perhaps, Freud's idea of ​​the special influence of the world of the subconscious on a person manifested itself most forcefully. It was this world, manifesting itself in fantastic visions, strange sensations and experiences, and dreams, that became a source of inspiration for the surrealists.

The most complete break between modern art and reality occurred in abstract art. The modernist principle of “art for art’s sake” has reached its full realization here. For abstract painting there is nothing that really exists - people, objects, natural phenomena, events of social life. Only spontaneous author's fantasies are worthy of reproduction. Abstractionism includes two main movements: Suprematism and Abstract Expressionism. Suprematism (from the Latin “highest”) originates from the artist K.S. Malevich and focuses on the use of geometric figures, thereby creating optical illusions (op art). The second trend - the most famous and challenging - is characterized by a complete rejection of the conscious construction of a picture. The most important thing here is the expression of feelings with complete indifference to how these feelings will be captured.

As a protest against the lifelessness of abstractionism, the so-called pop art art arises in its depths, which, according to the creators, is understandable to viewers and popular, as follows from its name. A characteristic feature of pop art is the ugliness of the image. By depicting things familiar to modern man in an ugly, hypertrophied form, pop artists strive to draw attention to the environment in which man lives, cluttered with technical products and far from nature, and to help him realize the ugliness and unnaturalness of such a life.

Architecture turned out to be very susceptible to modernist sentiments. Already at the beginning of the century, the “modern” style was established here, the main idea of ​​which is the embodiment in figurative and symbolic form of purely individualized author’s decisions. Functionalism became a new architectural direction, the center of which was the Bauhaus higher school of construction and artistic design, founded in 1919 in Germany (Weimar). According to the theory of functionalism, an aesthetic solution in architecture must correspond to the functional objectives of the structure, its industrial and domestic purpose. In the spirit of this theory, Mies van der Rohe created a cultural symbol of the 20th century - the skyscraper.

The music of the 20th century has maintained a certain continuity with the musical traditions of past centuries, with classical music. But here too, fundamentally new directions dominate. The rapprochement of European and African musical cultures led to the creation of jazz, and its synthesis with classics gave rise to symphonic jazz. Rock music became a true exponent of the musical tastes of the 20th century. Formed initially on the basis of Negro dance rhythms, rock music has spawned a huge number of varieties, pushing not only classics, but also other modern types of music to the periphery of popularity.

The theater of the 20th century found itself in difficult conditions due to the advent of cinema and television. However, classical theater has also been preserved and new types have appeared: children's and puppet theaters, theaters using modern genres of musicals and rock opera, etc.

The youngest and most influential representatives of entertainment culture of the 20th century are cinema and television. This is the past century’s own contribution to the culture of mankind. It is extremely difficult to give an unambiguous assessment of this contribution. A colorful and contradictory movie. It borrows a lot from theater, literature, fine arts, music, and yet cinema is not only an established, but also an independent art form with its own traditions, recognized masters and masterpieces.

Television reminds many people of cinema. It is also a synthetic type of crop. But if in cinema borrowings did not violate its independence and originality, then in television the picture is different. Modern television cannot and does not strive to exist without borrowing, not only from creative experience, but also from works created outside of television. For the most part, television is just a relay of other people's ideas, someone else's creativity. One cannot, of course, deny the presence of creativity within television: the emergence of original, creatively executed television programs. For a huge number of people, television has become or is becoming the only window into the world of culture. Alas, this circumstance is used not only and not so much by cultural figures. Modern television is, first of all, a powerful means of manipulating public consciousness in the interests of the powerful - industrial and financial tycoons, politicians, etc. This circumstance, if not excludes it, then makes it extremely difficult for television to become an independent form of artistic creativity.

An analysis of the artistic culture of the 20th century cannot help but draw attention to the strong presence in its most diverse types of an external, foreign component, not characteristic of other historical eras. Such a component is technology, or, more precisely, its component in specific types of culture. Without technology, the new formations of the 20th century - cinema, art photography, radio, television, video and audio production, etc. - turn into nothing. But traditional culture also noticeably fades without technical content. All modern architecture, all book publishing, most sculpture, the most popular types of music, and the most spectacular theater performances are based on the achievements of technology.

Technology is science that has materialized. Often the facts cited exhaust the problem of the influence of science on the culture of the 20th century. But if we limit ourselves to what has been said, then it means we won’t say anything new. Knowledge has always accompanied humanity. Without this companion, the existence of Homo sapiens is unthinkable. We are amazed by the cyclopean structures of antiquity. But the first impression is followed by a much deeper one: how could they create this, how did they know all this? Antiquity impresses with its achievements in the field of art and the organization of public life. But the role of antiquity in the history of mankind is determined primarily by the revolution in the process of knowledge that ancient scientists made. Humanity admires the creations of Raphael and other masters of the Renaissance, but still the transition from the Middle Ages to new and modern times occurred primarily on the basis of the discoveries of science, a sharp strengthening of its position, first in Western European society, and then throughout the world.

In the 20th century, the capabilities of science increased immeasurably. It has filled the world with many discoveries and inventions, and has made it possible to materialize many, until recently, fantastic ideas and projects. This was felt by the entire culture, including the artistic one. From now on, for the architect, sculptor, artist, director, etc. the main problem is to find something fresh, original, new, and technology and science will give this “something” a material appearance.

Surprisingly, the 20th century is different. Culture is now trying to draw not only material, but also immaterial and spiritual things from science. This is a symptom of the century, the time, and the future development of culture. This has never happened before. Even during antiquity, when science was especially replete with worldview ideas, artistic culture turned not to it, but to mythology, extracting from there both images and subjects for its creativity. During the Renaissance, science and fine art crushed Catholicism together, but only artistic culture entered the vacated pedestal of the spiritual leader of secularized Europe. Science continued to do its usual work in its laboratories.

By the 19th century, as noted, Western European culture had largely exhausted its spiritual potential. A crisis of artistic creativity began. Being in this difficult, painful state, artistic culture suddenly saw science rising to gigantic growth and gaining strength. What was a disaster for the rest of culture turned out to be a certain blessing for science. The successful “independent” understood well that from now on his success was largely determined by his connection with science. In turn, science had little interest in the spiritual qualities of the business world. Of all spheres of culture, science is the most pragmatic, the most material. Even if something spiritual is introduced into science through its social science part, then very often it turns out to be borrowed from the total spiritual experience of mankind. Thus, the position of the leader of the cultural process in which science found itself since the beginning of the 20th century was not just unexpected for it, but strange and unnatural. This position requires, first of all, active spiritual work, and this is precisely what science does not deal with. Her interests are purely material. The creation of weapons of mass destruction, the destruction of nature, experiments on psychotropic effects on people, the intrusive development of the human genome and other acts of modern science clearly indicate that it, no less than its customers, needs external spiritual and moral control. Only the confused state of artistic culture, its helplessness in the face of new problems of humanity can explain the fact that literature and art of the 20th century tried to find a way out of the crisis by following science.

The futurists most decisively pursued science. Confirming in their name their aspiration to the future, the futurists made a decisive break with the past, including cultural heritage. For example, the demand of domestic futurists to “throw Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy from the Steamship of Modernity” (manifesto “A Slap in the Face of Public Taste”, 1912) became notorious. Noisily and defiantly, the futurists cultivated the aesthetics of industry, urbanism, and exalted the technology and industrial spirit of the 20th century. The Dadaists (from the name of the Dada art association that arose in Switzerland during the First World War), who were the first to exhibit industrial products under the guise of works of art, also resolutely rejected classical art. The Cubists borrowed geometric forms from science. Symbolists tried to create something similar to the scientific language of symbols in artistic creativity.

The importance of science and technology especially increased with the beginning of the scientific and technological revolution in the second half of the 20th century. NRT is often presented as a phenomenon of exclusively modern times. This is wrong. The scientific and technological revolution of the 20th century is the result of the entire development of mankind, which is characterized by the continuous improvement of the tools of production and the expansion of knowledge of the environment. At certain stages, the evolutionary course of this process gives way to fundamental, qualitative shifts that acquire the character of revolutionary changes, genuine revolutions in science and technology.

The first revolution in science lasted from the 16th to the 18th centuries. It led to the emergence of modern natural science. Revolutions are known in certain sciences - in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Industrial revolution of the late XVIII-XIX centuries. caused fundamental changes in the material mode of production. It replaced not some outdated tool, but the human hand itself, making it possible to produce machines with the help of machines.

While maintaining continuity with these phenomena, the scientific and technological revolution of the 20th century nevertheless stands out sharply from them. This follows from the name itself. Previous revolutions in science and technology still did not have such a global, comprehensive character. We can say that they turned out to be a kind of preparatory stage for the stormy process that has engulfed science and technology since the middle of the 20th century.

For the first time, revolutionary renewal embraced both science and technology simultaneously, sharply accelerating the pace of development of both. It is difficult to name a branch of scientific knowledge that would not experience a powerful influx of new ideas and discoveries. The results of laboratory experiments were immediately perceived by production, which, in turn, posed more and more new problems to science, accelerating its development.

Based on a high level of applied, technical sciences and research and development work The process of practical use of scientific discoveries has gained extreme intensity: the time from their implementation to development in production has been reduced to a minimum. Thus, the practical implementation of the principle on which photography is based was carried out more than a century later (1727 - 1839); in the field of telephone communications, the same took more than half a century (1820 - 1876). Now it takes several months from invention to implementation. Other cultural sectors do not know such a rate of renewal. This alone puts science and technology at the center of modern development and attracts the attention of the human community to them. They are expected to make new discoveries, new products and things. New ideas, new ways of organizing life are expected from them. With such expectations they look at science and technology, among others, and various movements of artistic culture.

It should be noted that science and technology to a certain extent satisfy these expectations. Through science and technology, humanity receives much that is truly useful and important. But to say so means to add nothing to the characterization of the 20th century. After all, science and technology have always been concerned with meeting the various needs of humanity and providing for it. With the advent of scientific and technological revolution, the situation changed dramatically. From simple suppliers, science and technology have turned into organizers, and moreover, into sculptors of humanity. Continuously saturating the modern world with its products, science and technology have achieved a total impact on all aspects of its life. Modern humanity is a product of scientific and technological revolution,

It was noted above that spiritual culture is not the sphere of science. But now, here too, science and technology have become an influential force, perhaps much more influential than other areas of culture. The fruits of scientific and technological revolution include the so-called “mass culture”. This concept appeared back in the 19th century. and reflected the desire of cultural figures to make its best achievements more accessible to the mass reader, viewer, and listener. In the 20th century, the necessary material and technical conditions were created for this, but they were used not by cultural figures, but by business leaders who well understood what a “gold mine” the industrial satisfaction of the spiritual needs of humanity represents.

In its modern version, “mass culture” is by no means connected with the introduction of the multi-million masses of humanity to its best achievements. On the contrary, “mass culture” is the most serious obstacle to these achievements. Man stands out from the rest of the living world in that he is spiritual, has a need for spiritual food, and seeks its satisfaction. Modern “mass culture” is a counterfeit of spiritual food, spiritual ersatz bread. But it is easy to taste; the heart and mind do not have to work hard to digest it. The creators of “mass culture” consciously focus on the average level of the consumer and reduce to this level any phenomena of truly high culture. Base tastes, the average person's penchant for entertainment, simple and understandable patterns of behavior, sex, violence, etc. are exploited. All this is produced on an immense scale based on the latest achievements of science and technology. Modern production of “cultural” consumer goods no longer requires the services of figures of high culture. Computers are increasingly replacing composers, writers, and artists.

The confusion of cultural figures in the face of its industrialization is well reflected in the emergence of the concept of the so-called “elite” culture. Already from the name it is clear that this is a culture for the elite - that relatively small part of society that is still able to understand and appreciate genuine (elite) art. Thus, the cultural crisis that began in the last century has revealed its depth and danger with renewed vigor. Whether supporters of the idea of ​​elitism in culture are aware or not, confining its best achievements within a narrow framework (often the creators themselves) dooms culture to death, because its purpose is not narcissism, but the education and cultivation of man and humanity.

Thus, the 20th century brought a lot of new things to world culture. Among the most important qualities of culture, such as disdain for tradition and the experience of previous generations appeared; exaltation of innovation; cult of science and technology; cult of consumption; transformation of culture into an object of mass consumption, a type of product; alienation of genuine cultural achievements from the vast majority of people. Taken together, all this aggravates the cultural crisis and makes it difficult to solve the problems that humanity is now facing.

BERDYAEV Nikolay Alexandrovich(1874-1948) - Russian religious philosopher. In 1922 he was expelled from Soviet Russia, and since 1925 he lived in France. The main theme of Berdyaev’s work is freedom, which determined his position in philosophy as liberal-religious. However, there are also echoes of Marxism (belief in progress, Eurocentric orientation) and Hegelian ideas. If, according to Hegel, the movement of world history is carried out by the forces of individual peoples who affirm in their spiritual culture (in principle and idea) various aspects or moments of the world spirit and the absolute idea, then Berdyaev, criticizing the concept of “international civilization,” believed: “There is only one historical path to achieving the highest Inhumanity, to the unity of humanity - the path of national growth and development, national creativity.” All humanity does not exist on its own; it is revealed only in the images of individual nationalities. At the same time, the nationality and culture of the people are conceived not as a “mechanical shapeless mass”, but as an integral spiritual “organism”. The political aspect of the cultural and historical life of peoples is revealed by Berdyaev with the formula “one - many - all,” in which Hegelian despotism, republic and monarchy are replaced by autocratic, liberal and socialist states. From Chicherin, Berdyaev borrowed the idea of ​​“organic” and “critical” eras in the development of culture. The “intelligible image” of Russia, which Berdyaev strived for in his historical and cultural reflection, received complete expression in “The Russian Idea” (1946). The Russian people are characterized in it as a “highly polarized people”, as a combination of the opposites of statism and anarchy, despotism and freedom, cruelty and kindness, the search for God and militant atheism. Berdyaev explains the inconsistency and complexity of the “Russian soul” (and the Russian culture that grows from this) by the fact that in Russia two streams of world history collide and come into interaction - East and West. The Russian people are not purely European, but they are not Asian people either. Russian culture connects two worlds. It is the “huge East-West”. Due to the struggle between Western and Eastern principles, the Russian cultural and historical process reveals a moment of intermittency and even catastrophism. Russian culture has already left behind five independent periods-images (Kiev, Tatar, Moscow, Peter the Great and Soviet) and, perhaps, the thinker believed, “there will be a new Russia.”

GUMILEV Lev Nikolaevich(1912-1992) – Russian historian, geographer, ethnologist. He expressed ideas close to Eurasianism and was critical of Eurocentrism. Gumilyov's original cultural theory, enriched with many new terms and concepts, is as follows: the history of mankind is the history of the anthroposphere, i.e. the latest and highly organized layer of the biosphere. The main character of the “human shell” of the Earth is the “ethnos” - a community of people connected not so much genetically, i.e. “blood”, as much as mutual attraction, “complementarity”, the feeling of “us” and “them”, a common culture, determined primarily by a common history and a common “feeding” landscape of the territory where this community originated and developed. An ethnos that unites several peoples close in spirit and culture forms a “superethnos”; individual peoples, nationalities and tribes included in it can be considered as “sub-ethnic groups”. In the process of so-called ethnogenesis, individual ethnic groups, like living organisms, go through the stages of origin, rise, breakdown, inertia and decomposition over the course of approximately 1500 years. The reason for the emergence of a new viable ethnos (usually on the basis of dying ethnic unities) is the so-called passionary push, when large groups of overactive people appear in one or another geographical point - the so-called passionaries, rushing to new human exploits and creating history and culture. Their sudden activity is explained by the influx of a special type of energy into their body - the energy of living matter that forms the biosphere and the anthroposphere. These people are experiencing a natural psychobiological mutation (a change in the hereditary properties of the body), caused, according to the most probable hypothesis, by some kind of radiation from space. Thus, according to Gumilyov, following V.I. Vernadsky, the cultural and historical process is determined not only by the special “spiritual” nature of man, but also to no less extent depends on the still insufficiently understood forces of our Earth and outer space.

SOROKIN Pitirim Alexandrovich(1889-1968) – founder of the Russian and American sociological schools. The philosophical basis of Sorokin's works was the positivist principle and behaviorism. His theory of the existence of cultural supersystems is one of the most original cultural concepts of the 20th century. It is presented in the four-volume work “Sociocultural Dynamics” (1937 - 1941). In his works, he viewed the history of mankind as a successive change of certain sociocultural supersystems, cemented by a periodically changing unity of values, norms and meanings. Unlike Hegel, who viewed the historical process as a direct forward movement, he interpreted it as a “cyclical fluctuation”, i.e. a succession of types of cultural communities that flow into each other in complete cycles, each of which is based on its own relationship to reality and methods of knowing it. Based on the dual psychobiological nature of man - a feeling and thinking being, Sorokin identified three types of culture: a) sensual (sensate), in which empirical-sensual perception and assessment of reality predominate primarily from a utilitarian and hedonistic point of view, i.e. the “truth of feelings” and the truth of pleasure prevail; b) ideational type, where supersensible, spiritual values, worship of a certain Absolute, God or Idea predominate, i.e. “the truth of faith” and the truth of self-denial; c) idealistic type (idealistic), representing a certain synthesis of sensory and ideational types, where feeling is balanced by intellect, faith by science, empirical perception by intuition, i.e., according to Sorokin, “human minds will be guided by the truth of reason.” Using original methods, with the involvement of specialists from various fields of science, relying on extensive factual and statistical material, Sorokin came to the conclusion that in the history of human development there is a cyclical change of cultural supersystems in the sequence: ideational, idealistic, sensual.

TOYNBEE Arnold Joseph(1889-1975) – English historian and cultural scientist. In his main work, “Comprehension of History,” he created a theory of the historical cycle of culture. He represented world history as a set of separate closed and unique civilizations, the number of which varied from 14 to 21. Each civilization, like an organism, goes through the stages of origin, growth, crisis (breakdown, decomposition). On this basis, he deduced “empirical laws” of the repeatability of social development, the driving force of which is the elite, the creative minority, the bearer of the “life impulse.” He saw a single line of progressive development of humanity in religious evolution from primitive animistic beliefs through a universal religion to a single syncretic religion of the future.

WHITE Leslie(1900-1975) - American anthropologist, ethnologist, cultural scientist. Supporter of evolutionism. According to White, culture is man's ability to create symbols. He views the formulated law of cultural evolution from the point of view of energy: “Culture moves forward as the amount of harnessed energy per capita increases, or as efficiency or economy in the means of energy management increases, or both together.” In culture, he distinguishes three subsystems: technological (main), social (types of collective behavior) and ideological. White sharply criticized any manifestation of creationism in the cultural sciences, consistently defending evolutionary views on the origin of man and society. The term “culturology,” the invention of which is attributed to White, was first used by the German chemist W. Oswald, but it was thanks to White’s work that he entered science when in the early 1930s. White taught a university course on cultural studies. White outlined his main ideas and the general concept of the study of culture in three fundamental works: “The Science of Culture” (1949), “The Evolution of Culture” (1959), “The Concept of Cultural Systems: The Key to Understanding Tribes and Nations” (1975). A number of policy articles were also of great importance for the dissemination of his concept. The most famous of them are “Culturology” and “Energy and Evolution of Culture”.

FREUD Sigmund (1856-1939) - Austrian psychologist, social thinker, creator of psychoanalysis, the principles of which were applied to the development of problems of social history, religious studies, cultural studies, etc. He studied medicine at the University of Vienna. He worked on problems of psychotherapy both in clinical practice and in theoretical research. The most important works: “Totem and Taboo” (1913), “Psychology of the Masses and Analysis of the Human Self” (1921), “I and It” (1923), “The Future of an Illusion” (1927), “Moses and Monotheism” ( 1939), “Dissatisfaction in Culture” (1930). Based on the general methodological principle of the unity of phylo- and ontogenesis, proposed by E. Haeckel, Freud showed that in childhood (ontogenesis, individual development) a person, in an abbreviated form, goes through the same stages of development as in the process of the origin of human culture (phylogeny, generic development - origin). Freud seeks the beginning of cultural history with the help of the Scottish ethnographer Atkinson's hypothesis about the “cyclopean” family. Freud describes the origin of religion as follows: “Totemic religion arose from the consciousness of the guilt of sons, as an attempt to calm this feeling and appease the offended father with late obedience. All subsequent religions have been attempts to solve the same problem in different ways, depending on the cultural state in which they were undertaken and the paths they followed, but they all had one goal - a reaction to the great event with which culture began and which has since has haunted humanity for a long time.” In his work “The Ego and the Id,” Freud complements the “pleasure principle,” the attraction to Eros, with the desire for death (Thanatos) as the second polar force that motivates a person to action. To understand this psychoanalytic concept, his improved model of personality, in which the Ego, the Id and the Super-Ego fight for spheres of influence, is very important. It (id) is a deep layer of unconscious drives, the essential core of personality, on top of which other elements are built. I (Ego) is the sphere of the conscious, a mediator between a person’s unconscious drives and external reality (cultural and natural). Super-I (Super Ego) is the sphere of obligation, moral censorship, acting on behalf of parental authority and established norms in culture. The super-ego is a connecting bridge between culture and the inner layers of the personality. This structural diagram is a universal way to explain the behavior and activities of a person of modern and archaic culture, normal and insane. In addition to the previously mentioned desires for Eros and Thanatos, Freud notes in people an innate tendency to destruction and an unbridled passion for torture (sadism). In connection with such a negative portrait, a person needs culture, which in this context Freud defines as something “imposed on a resistant majority by a certain minority that has managed to appropriate for itself the means of coercion and power.” Parts, elements of culture (Freud refers mainly to spiritual culture) - religion, art, science - are the sublimation (repression) of suppressed unconscious impulses in sociocultural forms. For example, religion is a fantastic projection of unsatisfied desires into the outside world.

HUYZINGA Johan(1872-1945) – Dutch philosopher, historian, cultural researcher. Among his works, “Autumn of the Middle Ages”, “Man Playing”, “In the Shadow of Tomorrow” stand out. There are three aspects to Huizinga's cultural studies. Firstly, a historiographical analysis of the late Middle Ages in the Netherlands, European culture of the 15th century. Secondly, the role of the Game in the emergence and development of culture of all times and peoples. Thirdly, an analysis of the spiritual crisis of Western culture, the Spiritual tragedy of humanity associated with fascism and totalitarianism. Huizinga offers his vision of cultural history. It is important for him to understand how people lived in those distant times, what they thought about, what they strived for, what they considered valuable. He wants to present the “living past”, to restore the “House of History” bit by bit. According to Huizinga, the formation of a cultural phenomenon requires three traits-conditions: culture requires a certain balance of spiritual and material values; every culture contains some kind of aspiration; culture means domination over nature; using natural forces to make tools to protect ourselves and our neighbors. Based on this, Huizinga gives the definition: “Culture is the directional position of society given when the subordination of nature in the field of material, moral and spiritual supports a state of society that is higher and better than that provided by available natural irrigation, is distinguished by a harmonious balance of spiritual and material values ​​and is characterized by the definition ideal, homogeneous in its essence, towards which various forms of social activity are oriented.” Culture, according to Huizinga, must be metaphysically oriented, or it does not exist at all.

SPENGLER Oswald(1880-1936) - a prominent German philosopher, cultural scientist, historian, representative of the philosophy of life, creator of the cyclic theory. His teaching was intended to overcome the mechanistic nature of the methods common in the 19th century. global schemes of the evolution of culture as a single ascending process of the formation of world culture, where European culture acted as the pinnacle of human development. In Spengler's work “The Decline of Europe” (1918, 1922), world culture appears as a series of independent, closed cultures, each of which has its own pace of development and allotted life time. During this period, each culture, like a living organism, goes through several stages: from birth through youth, maturity, old age to death. Based on this, Spengler creates the concept of the simultaneity of phenomena in different cultures, separated by intervals of millennia, but passing through three identical stages: mythical-symbolic early culture, metaphysical-religious high culture, late civilizational structure. In each life, two lines of development are distinguished: ascending (culture in the proper sense) and descending (civilization). The first is characterized by the development of the organic principles of culture, the second by their ossification and transformation into mechanistic ones, expressed in the rapid development of technology; the expansion of cities into megacities; in the emergence of mass, technologically oriented culture; transformation of regional forms into global ones; the advent of the era of Caesarism. The history of culture begins with the barbarism of the primitive era, then develops political organization, art, science, etc. In the classical period of culture, their heyday begins, followed by ossification in the era of decadence, and, finally, culture comes to a new barbarism, when everything becomes an object of trade and is vulgarized. The end or decline of a culture means its transition to the phase of civilization.

JUNG Carl Gustav(1876-1961) – representative of the psychoanalytic trend in the study of cultures. His analytical way of studying cultures differs from the concept of Sigmund Freud in two main features: the rejection of pansexualism and the development of the content of the concept of “collective unconscious”. Among his works are “Psychology and Religion” (1940), “Psychology and Education” (1946), “Images of the Unconscious” (1950), etc. The main themes most developed in Jung’s analytical theory are the problem of the relationship between thinking and culture, the path the development of cultures in the West and East, the role of the biologically inherited and cultural-historical in the life of peoples and, of course, the analysis of mystical phenomena in culture, clarification of the meaning of myths, fairy tales, legends, dreams. Jung's “collective unconscious” is the ancestral memory of humanity, the result of the life of the race; it is inherent in all people, is inherited and is the basis of the individual psyche and its cultural identity. Archetypes of the “collective unconscious” – cognitive models and images (samples). They have always accompanied man and are to a certain extent the source of mythology. Jung's field of study was various cultural phenomena. It was not confined to the clinical method as the main means of analysis, which predetermined the objects of study. The subjects of his study were literature (Schiller, Nietzsche), philosophy (ancient, Hellenistic), mythology and religion (eastern beliefs), cultural history, as well as exotic rituals and mystical aspects of culture.

CULTURAL SCIENCE

Culture- the meaning-bearing and meaning-transmitting aspect of human practice and its results, the symbolic dimension of social events, allowing individuals to live in a special life world that they could understand and perform actions in it.

3 approaches to culture: in everyday life it is associated with good manners, culture is identified with artistic culture, and includes political and spiritual culture.

Culture does not exist outside of man. A man is a creator of culture. An artifact is something artificially created by man. Culture is a collection of artifacts. Culture begins where a person exists not only as a biological being.

2 types of cultural relations(according to genesis): natural (dream) - cultivation, this process is associated with human necessity; phenomena that are cultural in origin and method of implementation (there is no natural beginning). Culture is opposed to nature; it is transmitted by tradition, language, practical study and imitation, and is not inherited biologically. A person lives in a semantic space. Meaning is the dominant element in understanding culture. Ignorance of culture excludes communication. Culture is the law of transmission of meaning. Culture presupposes relationships: person - person, person - society.

Man is also an artifact, because he becomes a man through socialization. Culture is acquired by an individual in the process of socialization and is a set of generally accepted patterns of behavior, thinking and attitude, as well as individually significant actions.

How important culture is for the functioning of the individual and society can be judged by the behavior of people not covered socialization. The uncontrollable, or infantile, behavior of the so-called jungle children, who were completely deprived of communication with people, indicates that without socialization people are not able to adopt an orderly way of life, master a language and learn how to earn a living. As a result of observing several “creatures that showed no interest in what was happening around them, rocking rhythmically back and forth like wild animals in a zoo,” an 18th-century Swedish naturalist. Carl Linnaeus concluded that they were representatives of a special species. Subsequently, scientists realized that these wild children did not develop the personality that requires communication with people. This communication would stimulate the development of their abilities and the formation of their “human” personalities.

Culture is not being itself, but words, images of being that help us live and communicate. Mentality- the totality of all acts of thinking, conscious and unconscious. Cultural studies the science of culture, of meaning. What distinguishes culturology from history is that history tries to establish the time of a particular fact; for a historian, the fact itself is important, and for a culturologist, it is important what culture meant at one time or another. The most common definition cultural studies is its understanding as a science about the most general laws of cultural development. Culturology, like humanities in general, for a number of reasons does not fully satisfy the scientific criteria that were formed within the framework of the natural sciences. Therefore, when they want to emphasize the social-scientific nature of cultural research based on appropriate methods, they talk about social cultural studies. Following scientific methodology in this case is mandatory and affects both the object and the subject and method of conceptual presentation. The necessary empirical and theoretical basis, which serves as a kind of criterion for the validity of cultural hypotheses, determines the boundaries of their application. Humanitarian issues and the corresponding style of thinking are determined both by the uniqueness of each individual, her inner world, emotional states, feelings, talents, and her belonging to the sociocultural environment. Depending on whether we strive to explore the social forms of human life in culture, or, on the contrary, we want to understand the individual, personal refraction of sociocultural phenomena, the aspect of cultural studies is chosen - either social or humanitarian. Functions of culture: communicative function of culture. Communication is the process of exchanging information between people using signs and sign systems. The protective function of culture is a consequence of the need to maintain a certain balanced relationship between man and the environment, both natural and social. Transformative function of culture. Mastering and transforming the surrounding reality is a fundamental human need. The normative function of culture is determined by the need to maintain balance and order in society, to harmonize the actions of various social groups and individuals with social needs and interests, as a result of which a person receives new knowledge about the world and himself. The information function of culture ensures the process of cultural continuity and various forms of historical progress. Cognitive function of culture. The need for this function stems from the desire of any culture to create its own picture of the world. The process of cognition is characterized by the reflection and reproduction of reality in human thinking. In the secular understanding, spiritual culture is paintings, music. In a religious sense - the highest.

World of human culture- these are traditions and rituals, these are norms and values, these are creations and things - everything that can be called the existence of culture.

The child’s perception is extremely realistic: for him, touching the word “sun” is the same as touching the sun itself. That is, the image of an object and the object itself constitute a single whole: the signifier is mixed with the signified. At the same time, children do not attribute randomness to events of supernatural significance. Mystical experience should not be considered pathological. It must be considered supernormal because it leads to self-actualization and occurs in otherwise normal individuals. And if until recently spirituality and religion in Western psychiatry was interpreted as something generated by the human psyche in response to external events - the overwhelming impact of the surrounding world, the threat of death, fear of the unknown, etc., now, in particular, in the works of S. Grof, spirituality is defined as an integral a property of the psyche that manifests itself spontaneously with sufficiently in-depth self-examination.

Material culture- a set of intangible elements, the culture of labor and material production, the culture of everyday life, topos, i.e. place of residence, culture of attitude towards one’s own body and physical culture. Spiritual culture- multi-layered education, including cognitive, moral, artistic, legal and other cultures; it is a set of intangible elements: norms, rules, laws, spiritual values, ceremonies, rituals, symbols, myths, language, knowledge, customs. Any object of intangible culture needs a material intermediary, for example, a book.

Elite culture aimed at a select audience. A Mass culture focuses its spiritual and material values ​​on the “average” level of development of mass consumers. Mass culture removes everything that is different and personal, and establishes common values ​​for everyone. Standardization of tastes contributes to the averaging of the level of artistic works. Mass culture is dominated by sensual expression and pleasure. Back in the Middle Ages, when society was divided into 2 layers - nobles and plebeians - noble art existed. Which was conventional, idealistic, that is, artistic, and popular - realistic and satirical. Any kitsch destroys art. But mass culture provides sensual pleasure; it gives a person the opportunity to forget about his problems and relax. In most European societies by the beginning of the 20th century. two forms of culture emerged.

High culture- fine art, classical music and literature - were created and perceived by the elite.

Folk culture, which included fairy tales, folklore, songs and myths, belonged to the poor. The products of each of these cultures were intended for a specific audience, and this tradition was rarely violated. With the advent of the media (radio, mass printed publications, television, recordings, tape recorders), the differences between high and popular culture began to blur. This is how it arose Mass culture, which is not associated with religious or class subcultures. The media and popular culture are inextricably linked.

Culture becomes “mass” when its products are standardized and distributed to the general public.

Typology of culture– a method of scientific knowledge, which is based on the division of sociocultural systems and objects and their grouping using a generalized idealized model or type. Typology of cultures according to the following characteristics: historical, religious (based on religion: Islamic, Christian cultures), geographical, formational (slave-owning, feudal), economic (developed or developing culture). There may be a combination of symptoms.

Language of culture performs a meaning-transmitting function. Language is a way of conveying meanings understood by the parties. Language can be defined as a system of communication carried out using sounds and symbols, the meanings of which are conventional, but have a certain structure. Language is a social phenomenon. It cannot be mastered outside of social interaction, i.e. without communicating with other people. Although socialization process Based largely on the imitation of gestures - nodding, the manner of smiling and frowning - language serves as the main means of transmitting culture. Another important feature is that it is almost impossible to forget how to speak your native language. This indicates a high degree of adaptability of language to human needs; without it, communication between people would be much more primitive. The tragedy of mental disorders such as schizophrenia is, first of all, that patients cannot communicate with other people and find themselves cut off from society.

Unlike speech, the language of culture is not limited to words. Main components of cultural language(example: language of clothing, tattoos) are values ​​and norms. There is a certain classification of languages: natural (Russian), artificial (languages ​​of science, where the meaning is fixed and there are strict limits for use), secondary (communication structures built above the natural language level, example: myth, religion, art).

Value- that which the reason and feeling of people dictate to recognize as being above everything and which should be imitated. Values ​​vary from culture to culture and from person to person. Nature differs from culture in that it has no concept of value. Humanity is developing the values ​​of general international law. Values ​​are the basis of culture.

Norm - an instruction, a pattern of behavior or words, a measure of evaluation of an act, an action. Norms answer the questions of what exists and what should exist, therefore they are broader than laws. Norms: economic, moral, legal. Moral and legal norms in the United States are inseparable and not dismembered (this was also the case in Europe before modern times). The norm can be determined by the context: historical, professional, ethnic, age, everyday. The norm is formed in accordance with values. Normal - corresponds to the norm. Normative - creates a norm.

The way meaning exists - myth. Myth is a special form of cultural language. Myth is a way of human existence and perception of the world, based on the kinship of man with the world. A person here perceives psychological meanings as the original properties of things and considers natural phenomena as animate substances. 3 ways to understand myth: myth - an ancient legend, usually fictional (not history); myth - the origin of the cosmos (cosmogenesis), the universe (closer to cultural understanding); myth is a special state of consciousness, historically and culturally determined. Characteristics of myth: interested in the eternal, not interested in history. Mythology permeates life and culture. The criteria by which mythology is determined: if there is a deep perception of a person, social significance. Myth is historically the first form of culture; it is eternal (the mythological dimension is present in every culture). Totemism- the tribe identifies its sacred ancestors with certain animals. The tribal belief characteristic of the myth is fetishism ( deification of an object and endowing it with demonic powers).

Interaction of cultures possible when dialogue is possible (two speaking parties, their understanding of each other, understanding of meanings).

Art, religion and science in an integral system of culture.

Religion- that which most distinguishes man from the animal world. Animals have concepts, pre-science and pre-art at a primitive level, but nothing is sacred. Any person is religious, it is not necessary to believe (belief in oneself, in material things). A person can do without faith (meaning religion). All attempts to create a single religion have led nowhere (the different essences of religions). But there is something that unites all religions (like the spine of animals). Although there is no common ground. General religions: religion always lies at the basis of culture, the questions that religion asks. Religion is a way of human self-realization in eternity (Losev). Problems of religious knowledge: the problem of death (the main driving force of the meaning of life); the problem of the meaning of life (religion explains the meaning of life); the problem of suffering (all people suffer); the problem of the relationship between religion and morality (religion is not morality). Religion explains morality and serves as its basis. Religion is not limited to morality. The goal of religious teachings is a saved person (without God you can be a good person, but without God you cannot be saved). The gods of developed religions are in the realm of the otherworldly (transcendent). Unlike myth, it is not nature that is deified, but the supernatural forces of man (the spirit with its freedom and creativity). And the problem of truth (in philosophy there are 2 interpretations truth: anthology - the doctrine of being, being itself can be true or false (religious); epistemology (modern) - the study of knowledge, the correspondence of someone’s ideas about reality with reality).

3 Characteristics of a Religious System:

The presence of a religious doctrine that expresses a set of views on the world

The presence of a cult of religious practice that sets behavior

Presence of a religious organization (church)

The language of religious culture is a symbol. The symbol means what it actually is. The symbol is revealed through a comparison of the objective image and the deep meaning. Cult- external expression of the internal content of religion.

Religion there is an organic part of culture. Culture itself comes from religion. Religion goes beyond the boundaries of culture. Humanity does not know the religious stages of the development of society. Any religion is a worldview system based on the mystery of life after death. Religion is characterized by belief in the supernatural, in something unreal. Humanity receives all religious experience through ritual experiences. The main thing in religion- connection with eternity, with God. Basics for religion- internal image. The nature of religion- mystery (tradition in religion has perfect power precisely because its origin is surrounded by mystery and darkness). The language of religious culture is a symbol (Christian cross). Religion solves the problem of suffering: it explains suffering and helps to get rid of it. Religious faith is based on emotions and premonitions. Religion addresses the subjective part of human existence and understands the world through cults. But religion does not seek to study the world in a scientific understanding; it explains and masters it with the help of beliefs. The explanation of the world also comes from various religious treatises written by significant church figures. A believer should not condemn them or doubt them. The worldview of a believer is accompanied by mystical feelings and forces a person to look for God in himself. Religion elevates faith above reason.

Religion is not the same as morality. Morality forms part of religion. Also, religion is not the same as faith.

The science- a way of understanding the world based on obtaining knowledge experimentally. Main characteristics:

Objective

Science does not exist at all (for all time), there is the science of today and tomorrow; individual elements may exist from the past (today theory, tomorrow false)

Universal (used by everyone)

Incomplete (unresolved questions remain in any area)

Continuity (accumulation of knowledge)

Critical, rational, sensual

Based on doubt

Reliable (not based on fiction)

Extramoral (discoveries)

Fragmentary (deals with only part of something)

Non-personal, non-national (art can be personal) - there may be similar theories, the figure of the creator is less important

Experimental (the method of cognition is experiment, it is repeated)

Language of scientific culture- sign. The sign is a symbol, unambiguous. Science is based on logic, on reasoning, on evidence, on finding out the causes of certain natural phenomena. Science studies reality and man from the outside, leaving without attention the subjective and mystical factors that influence the knowledge of the world. But, despite its objectivity, science still depends on the cultural environment, the atmosphere in which it exists, and on the moral state. Scientific experience is derived from situations in which the random influence of human feelings on the research process is not allowed. Science is about dissection. Science is not the same as knowledge. Methods of scientific knowledge: empirical (observation of experiments) and theoretical (hypothesis - concept - theory; Hypothesis - some assumption that has not been proven. Concept - some intermediate link between hypothesis and theory (in terms of scale and level of evidence)).

Science and religion.

False ideas (developed at the everyday level):

Identification of faith and religion, the difference between faith and knowledge. But some elements of science are taken on faith. Science always exists in the general context of culture.

The scientific worldview is opposed to the religious one; worldview is what determines a person’s behavior in life; science answers the question “how” and does not answer the question “why”; religion answers the questions “why” and “why”; worldview cannot be scientific, it can be (non)religious, but there can be a scientific idea

Science fights religion; but this does not happen (there are collisions between old science and new science)

(19th century) Suentism (from scince) – belief in the omnipotence of science. Science can do anything, anti-clerical orientation (cleric - priest). Science and religion intersect only in man himself.

Art

3 ways of knowing: religion, science, art. Science stops life, conducts experiments, dissects life. Religion is interested not so much in this life as in what comes after, the problem of eternity. Religious theorology is outside of reality.

Art- a specific type of spiritual reflection and mastery of reality; one of the elements of culture; a form of sensory knowledge of the world; a person’s creative abilities are revealed; the process of a person mastering artistic values ​​that give him pleasure.

Art creates a new, secondary, parallel reality (based on sensory perception of the world). At the center of art is the figure of the individual, the master. The language of artistic culture: the perception of the author and the audience is unique, there is no exact meaning, the understanding in culture is unique, in art there is a difference in perception, morality and morality are optional. Allegory (metaphor) – language of art(allegory, transfer of qualitative meaning). Fiction is not just an invented world, but a relationship between the external world and the internal. Beauty is functional, but there is also beauty that is not functional. Beauty is a relative phenomenon; there is no standard of beauty. There is a certain design of beauty (not talking about art, but about nature). In the surrounding world there is a certain theoreologism, i.e. beauty is inherent.

Obvious progress in art cannot be spoken of in the same way as progress in science. Progress of art– evolution of creativity. There are traditions (schools, directions) in art.

Religious art organizes man (canons). A person engaged in religious search leaves art. A person looks at the picture, merging into it, entering its world (the points are located behind the plane). But the icon does not draw a person in. There is no precision of fact, but there is spiritual reality. Icon – worldview in color. She pushes the image out. When reading the Bible, the world of the reader does not disappear, but the Bible comes out to the reader.

Cultural studies (18) Abstract >> Culture and art

Centuries contributed to the rapid development of science cultural scientists. Cultural studies how science emerges in the 19th century. ... - philosophy; - story; - jurisprudence; - political science; - psychology; - cultural studies; - pedagogy. Topic No. 1, Question No. 5: P.A. Sorokin - Russian...