Artistic movement "The Arts & Crafts Movement". Artistic art Psychological background of painting

, A. T. Matveev , P. V. Miturich , V. I. Mukhina , I. I. Nivinsky , N. I. Niss-Goldman , P. Ya. Pavlinov , K. S. Petrov-Vodkin , A. I Savinov, M. S. Saryan, N. A. Tyrsa, N. P. Ulyanov, P. S. Utkin, V. A. Favorsky, I. M. Chaikov.

Members and exhibitors: I. P. Akimov, M. M. Axelrod, M. A. Arinin, M. S. Askinazi, V. G. Bekhteev, G. S. Vereisky, A. D. Goncharov, M. E. Gorshman, L D. Gudiashvili, E. G. Davidovich, E. V. Egorov, I. D. Ermakov, I. V. Zholtovsky, L. K. Ivanovsky, V. I. Kashkin, I. V. Klyun, M. V. Kuznetsov, N. N. Kupreyanov, S. I. Lobanov, K. S. Malevich, Z. Ya. Mostova (Matveeva-Mostova), V. M. Midler, V. A. Milashevsky, B. V. Milovidov, A. P. Mogilevsky, P. I. Neradovsky, A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva, N. I. Padalitsyn, I. A. Puni, V. F. Reidemeister, M. S. Rodionov, N. B. Rosenfeld, S. M. Romanovich, V. F. Ryndin, N. Ya. Simonovich-Efimova, N. I. Simon, M. M. Sinyakova-Urechina, A. A. Soloveychik, A. I. Stolpnikova, A. I. Tamanyan, N. P. Tarasov, M. M. Tarkhanov, V. P. Fedorenko, N. P. Feofilaktov, A. V. Fonvizin, V. F. Franchetti, R. V. Frenkel-Manusson, I. I. Chekmazov, N. M. Chernyshev, V. D. Shitikov, S. M. Shor, I. A. Spinel, V. A. Shchuko, A. V. Shchusev, V. M. Yustitsky, B. A. Yakovlev and other.

Exhibitions: 1st - 1925 (Moscow) - 3rd - 1929 (Moscow); 1928 (Leningrad)

Founded on the initiative of former members of the Blue Rose and World of Art associations. The artists declared the priority of high professional skill and emotional content of the work. The Society's task included studying the specifics and interaction of various types of art, as well as developing urban planning principles, monumental propaganda, and interior design of public buildings.

At the organizational meeting, P.V. Kuznetsov was elected chairman of the society, V.A. Favorsky was elected as his deputy, and K.N. Istomin was elected as secretary. In 1928, a charter was adopted, which stated: “With the goal of active participation in socialist construction and the development of revolutionary culture, the Society of the Four Arts unites within the RSFSR artists working in the field of painting, sculpture, architecture and graphics, with the goal of promoting the growth artistic excellence and culture of the fine arts through the research and practical work of its members and the dissemination of artistic and technical knowledge.”

The society did not have its own premises; meetings were held alternately in the workshops of its members. In addition to solving current issues, they held meetings with writers and poets, organized literary readings and musical evenings. A stamp (based on a sketch by A. I. Kravchenko) and a banner of the Society (based on a sketch by E. M. Bebutova) were developed. An exhibition jury has been formed.

The first exhibition was opened in April 1925 at the State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow with the support of the State Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 28 artists presented 215 works (a catalog was published); People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky spoke at the opening. At the opening and on Sundays the exhibition featured performances by musical ensembles.

The second exhibition was organized with the support of the Art Department of the Main Science in November 1926 in the halls of the State Historical Museum; 72 artists presented 423 works (a catalog was published). The exhibition received generally favorable reviews in the press. The critic I. Khvoynik wrote: “The specific weight of a group in a formal artistic sense is determined by the presence in it of a fair number of great masters who form the core of this association. The participation of these masters, fully established and visible even before the revolution, is perhaps the main interest of the group. The graphic “sector” of society is especially strong in this sense.” He, then noting the best masters of the exhibition (P.V. Kuznetsov, V.A. Favorsky, A.I. Kravchenko, L.A. Bruni, P.I. Lvov, P.V. Miturich, P.Ya. Pavlinov , I.M. Chaikov), summed up: “Thematically, the entire exhibition creates the impression of an overly “Parnassian” attitude of the entire group to life. Of the nearly 400 works, the overwhelming majority testify to immersion in the landscape, admiration of nature and great sympathy for still life... With very few exceptions, the entire exhibition is thematically linked to our time with very weak hints, devoid of the sharpness and brightness of a densely scooped up everyday life" ("Soviet Art", 1926, no. 10. pp. 28–32). F. Roginskaya gave a similar description: “If you approach the “4 arts” as an artistic association, it can be characterized as a grouping, although it has a fairly high degree of artistic culture, but stands somewhere apart from modernity, outside it. This is determined not only by the plot feature, i.e. by the lack of connection in the plots with current life, and not only by the basic mood... but even by formal features that do not contain any visible elements capable of creatively rising and moving the association "(Pravda, 1926, November 6).

In response, the 4 Arts Society published a declaration in which it defended its own principles: “The artist shows the viewer, first of all, the artistic quality of his work. Only in this capacity is the artist’s attitude to the world around him expressed... In the conditions of the Russian tradition, we consider pictorial realism to be the most appropriate to the artistic culture of our time. The content of our works is not characterized by plots. That's why we don't call our paintings anything. The choice of subject characterizes the artistic tasks that occupy the artist. In this sense, the plot is only a pretext for the creative transformation of material into an artistic form...” (Yearbook of Literature and Art for 1929).

After the second exhibition, it was decided to show the best works from the first two exhibitions in Leningrad, supplementing the exhibition with works by Leningrad artists. After negotiations with the director of the State Russian Museum P. I. Neradovsky, the lower halls of the Museum were provided to the Society. On March 3, 1928, the opening of the exhibition took place; 51 artists participated, 284 works were exhibited (a catalog was published). Leningrad artists (A.E. Karev, V.V. Lebedev, P.I. Lvov, K.S. Petrov-Vodkin, N.A. Tyrsa) also represented the Society at the exhibition “Modern Leningrad artistic groups” (1928/ 1929).

The third (last) Moscow exhibition “4 Arts” was held in May 1929 in the halls of Moscow State University on Mokhovaya Street; 49 artists participated, 304 works were exhibited (a catalog was published). She received a number of sharply critical assessments in the press. Thus, the AHR magazine “Art to the Masses” (1929, Nos. 3–4. P. 52) wrote: “The “4 Arts” society is one of those that, more and more isolating themselves from public influence, are becoming a narrowly guild , with features of aristocratic isolation in the organization... a characteristic feature of the latest exhibition “4 Arts” is a significant strengthening of the mystical and non-objective wing of society... What is the result of this exhibition? Firstly, this exhibition confirms that artists who do not draw their strength from effective social impulses will inevitably fade... The “4 Arts” Society, having set as its motto the struggle for quality and a new style, within the limits of a narrow guild and complete disregard for social political installation of the country of the Soviets, speculates on this, presenting its achievements as a universal quality and method.”

Despite the criticism, the Society took part in large group exhibitions “Life and Life of Children of the Soviet Union” (August 1929), two traveling exhibitions organized by the Head Art of the People's Commissariat of Education (1929, Moscow; 1930, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Sverdlovsk, Perm, Ufa, Samara , Saratov, Penza). However, criticism intensified. In April 1930, the magazine “Art to the Masses” published an article “Artistic smuggling, or who and how are served by the “4 arts”” (1930, No. 4, pp. 10–12), in which the Society’s members were accused of “bourgeoisism” “social passivity”, “idealistic formalism”, predilection for “decadent and regressive forms of Western European art”.

The resolution of the arts sector of the People's Commissariat for Education on the report of Moscow art societies, adopted in the late 1930s, called for a “radical restructuring” of the Society and “purging its ranks.” Under the influence of harsh criticism, the Society self-liquidated. At the beginning of 1931, a group of its former members (K.N. Istomin, V.M. Midler, M.S. Rodionov, V.F. Ryndin, A.V. Fonvizin, N.M. Chernyshev and others) applied for membership in AHR.

Sources :

1. The struggle for realism in the fine arts of the 20s: Materials, documents, memories. M., 1962. pp. 230–235.
2. Exhibitions of Soviet fine art. Directory. T. 1. 1917–1932. M., 1965. S. 153–154, 179–180, 261, 294–295.
3. Kotovich T. V. Encyclopedia of Russian avant-garde. Minsk, 2003. pp. 389–390.
4. Omega I. Art smuggling or who and how “4 arts” serve // ​​Art to the masses. 1930, No. 4 (April). pp. 10–12.
5. Severyukhin D. Ya., Leykind O. L.. The Golden Age of Artistic Associations in Russia and the USSR. Directory. St. Petersburg, 1992, pp. 341–343.
6. Khvoinik I. E.. “Four Arts” and their exhibition // Soviet Art, 1926, No. 10. P. 28–32.

Folk art occupies a special place among other types of arts. Different types of art differ from each other in that they use different materials to create works of art: sculpture - marble, stone, wood; painting - with paints; literature - in a word.

Each type of art has its own special means of visual expression. In music, alternation and harmony of sounds are used, in choreography - plastic movements, in literature - the visual and expressive capabilities of words.

Folk artistic creativity dates back to ancient times, when people did not know how to write, so, naturally, it was characterized by an oral form of expression.

But folk art is not only oral poetry, not only the art of words. In some genres, it combines word and tune, as in a song, wood and painting, merges verbal, masterful and musical art, as well as theatrical art (gesture, facial expressions, intonation).

Folk art is a synthetic art that combines the features of several arts. When we say that the people are the creator of all traditions, it is necessary to keep in mind the historicity of the concept of people, to take into account changes in traditions during the development of society, their changes and withering away.

Radishchev saw in Russian folk songs “the formation of the soul of our people.” As Herzen aptly put it, “all the poetic principles that fermented in the soul of the Russian people” received their clearest expression in folk songs. Gorky noted that “proverbs and sayings exemplarily form the entire life social and historical experience of the working people.”

Throughout history, folk art has not only painted bleak pictures of the people’s hard life, but also embodied the people’s dreams of a bright future. The basis of folk art is its progressive ideological essence. Social and historical events in it received a correct assessment from the position of the people.

Folk art is distinguished not only by ideological depth, but also by high artistic qualities. The artistic system is very unique. The difference between folk works is that they are created not in a bookish, literary language, but in a living, spoken, folk language.

1.2. Children's creativity is the first stage of love for traditions

Children's participation in various types of artistic activities begins from an early age. Children sing, read poetry, dance, i.e. perform works. They improvise songs, dances, and embody their ideas in drawings and sculpting. And these are the first creative manifestations.

Children enthusiastically listen to fairy tales, poems, music, look at pictures, i.e. they show great interest in the perception of art, including folk art. At the same time, children ask endlessly many questions, finding out what they do not understand when listening or looking at them. This is how they become familiar with the simplest knowledge about folk art.

All types of folk art - perception of works, their first evaluations, attempts to perform and improvise - arise already in preschool childhood. And the job of educators is to create all the conditions for introducing the child to various types of folk art.

And yet, types of folk art develop differently in the process of raising a child. Back in the 40s, the famous psychologist B. Teplov pointed out the one-sidedness in the approach to the three main types of artistic activity: perception, performance, and creativity.

If, for example, in visual practice, children are taught to draw and sculpt, but little of their perception is developed, then in literary practice, all attention is paid precisely to the process of perception. In musical practice, performance skills are carefully taught, but little attention is paid to improvisation.

Preschool childhood is, first of all, the accumulation of experience in perceiving works of folk art and familiarization with initial performing skills. Only on this basis does artistic creativity develop. In some cases, the source of creativity is considered as the result only of the internal spontaneous forces of the child. The development of creative abilities comes down entirely to a spontaneous moment.

In other cases, the source of children's creativity is sought in life itself, in art. The creation of appropriate conditions is a guarantee of the active influence and involvement of children in folk art, as well as the development of children's creativity.

If a new art is not understandable to everyone, this means that its means are not universal to all mankind. Art is not intended for all people in general, but only for a very small category of people who, perhaps, are not more significant than others, but are clearly not like others.

First of all, there is one thing that is useful to clarify. What do most people call aesthetic pleasure? What happens in a person’s soul when he “likes” a work of art, such as a theatrical production? The answer is beyond doubt: people like drama if it can captivate them with its depiction of human destinies. Their hearts are moved by the love, hatred, troubles and joys of the heroes: the audience participates in the events as if they were real, happening in life. And the viewer says that the play is “good” when it manages to evoke the illusion of vitality and authenticity of the imaginary characters. In the lyrics he will look for human love and sadness, with which the poet’s lines seem to breathe. In painting, viewers will be attracted only to canvases depicting men and women with whom, in a certain sense, he would be interested in living. He will find the landscape "nice" if it is attractive enough as a place to walk.

This means that for most people, aesthetic pleasure is not different in principle from those experiences that accompany their everyday life. The difference is only in minor, minor details: this aesthetic experience is perhaps less utilitarian, more intense and does not entail any burdensome consequences. But ultimately, the subject, the object towards which art is directed, and at the same time its other features, for most people are the same as in everyday existence, people and human passions. And they will call art the totality of means by which this contact of theirs is achieved with everything that is interesting in human existence. Such viewers will be able to accept pure artistic forms, unreality, and fantasy only to the extent that these forms do not violate their habitual perception of human images and destinies. As soon as these strictly aesthetic elements begin to predominate and the public does not recognize the story of Juan and Maria that is familiar to it, it is confused and no longer knows what to do next with the play, book or painting. And this is understandable: they do not know any other attitude towards objects than a practical one, that is, one that forces us to experience and actively intervene in the world of objects. A work of art that does not encourage such intervention leaves them indifferent.

This point requires complete clarity. Let us say right away that to rejoice or sympathize with human destinies, which a work of art tells us about, is something different from truly artistic pleasure. Moreover, in a work of art this preoccupation with the strictly human is fundamentally incompatible with strictly aesthetic pleasure.

This is essentially an optical problem. To see an object, we need to adapt our visual apparatus in a certain way. If the visual adjustment is inadequate for the object, we will not see it or will see it blurry. Let the reader imagine that we are currently looking into the garden through a glass window. Our eyes must adapt in such a way that the visual ray passes through the glass without lingering on it, and stops on flowers and leaves. Since our subject is a garden and the visual ray is directed towards it, we will not see the glass if we look through it. The cleaner the glass, the less noticeable it is. But with an effort, we can turn our attention away from the garden and look at the glass. The garden will disappear from view and the only thing left of it will be blurry spots of color that appear to be painted on the glass. Therefore, seeing a garden and seeing window glass are two incompatible operations: they exclude each other and require different visual accommodation.

Accordingly, anyone who in a work of art seeks to worry about the fate of Juan and Maria or Tristan and Isolde and adapts his spiritual perception precisely to this will not see the work of art as such. Tristan's grief is only Tristan's grief and, therefore, can only excite to the extent that we accept it as reality. But the whole point is that an artistic creation is such only to the extent that it is not real. Only on one condition can we enjoy Titian's portrait of Charles V on horseback: we must not look at Charles V as a real, living person - instead we must see only a portrait, an unreal image, a fiction. The person depicted in the portrait and the portrait itself are completely different things: either we are interested in one or the other. In the first case, we “live together” with Charles V; in the second we “contemplate” the work of art as such.

However, most people cannot adjust their vision so that, with a garden before their eyes, they see glass, that is, that transparency that constitutes a work of art: instead, people pass by - or through - without pausing, preferring to grasp with all passion the human reality , which trembles in the work. If they are asked to leave their prey and pay attention to the work of art itself, they will say that they see nothing there, because in fact they do not see the human material so familiar to them - after all, before them is pure artistry, pure potency.

Throughout the 19th century, artists worked too uncleanly. They minimized strictly aesthetic elements and sought to base their works almost entirely on the depiction of human existence. It should be noted here that most of the art of the last century was, one way or another, realistic. Beethoven and Wagner were realists. Chateaubriand is as much a realist as Zola. Romanticism and naturalism, if you look at them from the heights of today, are moving closer to each other, revealing common realistic roots.

Creations of this kind are only partly works of art, artistic objects. To enjoy them, it is not at all necessary to be sensitive to the non-obvious and transparent, which implies artistic sensitivity. It is enough to have ordinary human sensitivity and allow the worries and joys of your neighbor to resonate in your soul. This makes it clear why the art of the 19th century was so popular: it was served to the masses diluted in the proportion in which it no longer became art, but a part of life. Let us remember that in all times when there have been two different types of art, one for the minority, the other for the majority, the latter has always been realistic.

Let us not argue now whether pure art is possible. It is very likely not; but the train of thought which will lead us to such a denial will be very long and complex... Even if pure art is impossible, there is no doubt that a natural tendency towards its purification is possible. This trend will lead to the progressive displacement of the elements of “human, all too human” that prevailed in romantic and naturalistic artistic production. And during this process, a moment comes when the “human” content of the work will become so meager that it will become almost invisible. Then we will have before us an object that can only be perceived by those who have a special gift of artistic sensitivity. It will be art for artists, not for the masses; it will be the art of the caste, not the demos.

That is why the new art divides the public into two classes - those who understand it and those who do not understand it, that is, into artists and those who are not artists. New art is purely artistic art.

H. Ortega y Gasset. Dehumanization of art

//X. Ortega y Gasset. Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture.

Art is an intellectual and aesthetic form of cognition of social reality: a work of art usually always combines truth (the author's truth) and beauty. Due to the participation of the author's intellect in artistic creativity, stimulated by his intuitive sensations, art can even outstrip the development of reality.

Let's consider the main stages of people's knowledge of the essence of art.

Aristotle, outlining the contours of the theory of mimesis - imitation, identified the main feature of art - the knowledge of life in images. Theologians of the Middle Ages assessed art as a way of introducing man to the “divine” with the help of earthly forms. The aesthetic thought of the Renaissance emphasized the cognitive essence of art as a “mirror” of life (Leonardo da Vinci). Here we see the rapprochement of science and artistic creativity. Later (Diderot, 18th century) art was seen as a form of knowledge of truth in living pictures of reality. German classical philosophy sought the sources of artistic creativity in the “realm of the spirit” (Kant – “purposive activity without a goal”, Schiller – “play”, Hegel – “manifestation of the spirit”..., “direct contemplation of truth”...). The materialist Chernyshevsky understood art as a form of knowledge of life. He argued that the subject of art is “everything that is interesting for a person in life.” Marx believed that the holistic and comprehensive nature of artistic consciousness contributes to the individual’s awareness of his “tribal essence”, thereby expanding the boundaries of the direct experience of individuals, forming an integral human personality.

So, the main social function of art is the “artistic exploration of the world,” which contributes to the creation of reality “according to the laws of beauty” (for example, the emergence in the twentieth century of design that combines aesthetics and pragmatics). The social function of art is also to promote the formation and self-formation of personality “according to the laws of beauty.”

In the Middle Ages, the seven liberal arts comprised the trivium - grammar, logic and rhetoric, and the quadrivium - arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy. Painting and sculpture dominated among the Western European forms of performing arts for many centuries.

How is art classified today? Types of artistic creativity are literature, cinema, theater, dance (choreography), music, painting, sculpture, architecture. The criterion for division is the mechanism of perception: visual, visual-auditory, auditory forms and genres of art. Language is often considered as a criterion as the main means of communication (semiotics distinguishes between verbal, written, image, gesture, machine languages...).

The artistic search, due to the fact that art expresses human life, full of contradictions, is carried out in a continuum of oppositions: truth - error, beautiful - ugly, good - evil. In general, this semantic (value) universe (Scheler) is imposed by people on the objective world and represents a field of culture. The components of this field are science, morality, art. Science is focused more on the search for truth, ethics - on the good, art - on the beautiful. Of all these types of creativity, art expresses life most holistically - it forms in the inner world of a person lifestyles that orient human behavior and activity towards achieving goals within the framework of the values ​​and norms of the culture accepted in society. Therefore, in order to understand the essence of artistic creativity, it is necessary to analyze the concepts of truth, beauty and goodness, taken together with their shadows: error, ugliness and evil.

It is known that truth is the result of an adequate reflection of reality by the cognizing subject. Adequate reflection (expression) means the creation, in our case by the artist, of a new image in the context of reality itself, i.e. in all his connections. However, such an understanding of truth is inherent primarily in the scientific community, which requires the objectivity of the research result, i.e. its independence from consciousness. But artistic production always carries the author’s sense of life, therefore, truth in art “... is the same as... sensuality.”41 True, in this definition there is an assumption that feelings cannot be false. Some correction is needed: for example, artists recognize that any role requires sensory content with elements of awareness. The latter is necessary for the modern interpretation of the role, as indicated, for example, in Shakespeare's plays. The interpretation takes place on a tracing paper of modern life as it appears to the actor and director, which requires active awareness and social reality.

Due to the fact that in artistic creativity the author is, as it were, a colorful prism that refracts the contradictions of human existence in the modern world, it is best to determine the truth of the result of an artistic search “according to Aristotle.” He argued that truth is the correspondence of thought to an object, and error is their inconsistency. There is a legend that the cubist artist Picasso, who was attacked by hooligans, at the request of the police, painted their portraits from memory. The next morning, a donkey, two zebras and a snake were identified and arrested at the zoo. It is clear that the artist expressed his ideas about the attackers and, perhaps, the drawn images corresponded to the feelings that arose, but are they true? What then is truth in art? Apparently, we must agree that truth in art comes down to the truth of the artist’s feelings. Here we enter the shaky ground of relative and therefore illusory standards of aesthetic assessments; the natural conclusion of all our reflections is that the space of truth of a work of art is expanding and will expand incredibly from now on - postmodernism claims that more and more people, i.e. “aesthetic prisms” is included in the processes of artistic creativity.

The next component of artistic creativity is the opposition “beautiful - ugly.” Do the beautiful and the ugly exist in reality or does it all exist only in our imaginations? Eternal question! The history of thought says the following. Plato distinguished between what is beautiful and what is beautiful, i.e. distinguished between essence and its manifestations. He saw the essence in the divine idea, on which the existence of all beautiful phenomena depends. Otherwise, “seeing the local beauty, he (man) remembers true beauty.” Aristotle refutes the “idea of ​​beauty” by considering beauty as an objective property of reality, as a manifestation of its laws. “The most important forms of beauty are order (in space), proportionality and certainty...”42Sometimes they say that beauty is pleasure, considered as the quality of a thing. Later, beauty is explained as a sensually contemplated image of the universal realization of human freedom. It seems that Marx’s approach is very accurate: “Our needs and pleasures are generated by society; therefore, we apply a social standard to them, and do not measure them with objects that serve to satisfy them.”43 Today there are discussions about this “social standard” on the topics “what is the hero of our time?”, “how and to what extent the beautiful and the ugly are combined in him ? etc. A little about this. Ugly is by definition the opposite of beautiful. It is something ugly, base, and evokes a feeling of protest. It is clear that ideas about ugliness depend on national, historical, class and taste differences. Cicero argued that the ugly in art belongs to the sphere of the funny, for laughter is caused mainly by what designates or reveals something ugly, not ugly. In the Middle Ages, ugly was identified with evil. Later (Lessing) defended the legitimacy of the ugly in poetry as a means of arousing feelings of “funny and terrible.” It turned out that the combination of the beautiful and the ugly gives rise to the grotesque. In the history of art there was also a period of “poeticization of evil” (Baudelaire’s expression). Sometimes the ugly is seen as one of the negative aspects of the beautiful. Belinsky et al. assessed ugliness as a reflection of ugliness in the social life of people. Chernyshevsky revealed the connection between the sublime and the ugly, when the latter ceases to be disgusting, turning into the terrible. It seems that the twentieth century, with its two world wars, was expressed in art precisely in this vein. Today's tossing of artists in the space between the beautiful and the ugly is largely explained by the inhuman social experience of the twentieth century, when violence, terror and war began to be recognized as a natural accompaniment of the evolution of mankind. The 21st century began with the emergence of large-scale terrorism, which led to the “glorification of terrorists” in a number of works of art.

Of course, the “ugly hero” has the right to his “presentation” in modern art. But if it is not presented “ugly”, i.e. highly artistic, then it generates in a mature viewer and reader not laughter, as Cicero believed, but anxiety for the younger generations, subject to age-related imitation of the “heroes” of the media44.

Consequently, time dictates that the artist create professionally, i.e.

Not only talented, but also responsible.

Let's return to the stages of any type of (scientific, sociocultural, technical and artistic) creativity. They are arranged, according to the general statement, as follows: preparation - incubation (maturation) - insight (revelation) - completion (transition to the semiotic system as conditions for social transmission).

Let us consider this scheme sequentially in relation to artistic creativity (art). The specificity of artistic creativity is that in it the activity of the unconscious prevails over the activity of the artist’s consciousness. In the psychology of art, this statement sometimes takes on such a sharp form that the unconscious is declared to be a factor determining the entire process of formation of an artistic image; and the intervention of the artist’s consciousness in the form of an attempt to verbalize the meaning of his work leads, they say, either to its destruction by himself during the process of creation, or to recognition of it as “pseudo-artistic” after the completion of the creation. The motto of supporters of this position is “The irrational is the constant goal of art”!45 However, the development of the theory of the unconscious led to the conclusion that it is active in the genesis of a work of art and concerns primarily the artist’s decisions regarding the choice of forms of expression of the image (visual, acoustic, verbal). But this cannot be said when it comes to the functional structure of an artistic image, because the image is a generalized expression of reality. And generalization is impossible without a certain activity of consciousness. For example, an actor’s interpretation of a role is “a sensual filling of the role with elements of consciousness” (from an interview with Chulpan Khamatova). Non-symbolic vision is also characteristic of scientific discovery, i.e. there is unity and difference between truth and beauty. It is known that “Everything crazy is born in the subconscious.” I. Kant also noted that the unconscious is the midwife of thought.

The ugly can become beautiful in art, therefore, “The truth of nature cannot be and will never be the truth of art” (O. Balzac). Life, reality is included in the structure of an artistic concept or image only as one of its many components. The selection and modification of life material occurs on the basis of the artist’s previous experiences, thoughts, feelings, tastes and aspirations. Therefore, an artistic image is not so much a cast of reality, but rather “life-like”. Penetration occurs into the innermost recesses of human existence and soul, thanks to which new individualized knowledge is achieved, even deeper than what science gives us with its reliance on what is formalized. This is the power of “non-dividing” knowledge46.

So, the stage of “incubation” of an image (painting, sculpture, melody, drama, novel or sonnet) occurs mainly in the subconscious. The activity of the latter (inspiration) is realized in the form of an intuitive feeling of aesthetically justified forms, movements, colors, sounds, words...

The stage of insight (revelation) is the most mysterious phase of creativity. Here we must distinguish between inspiration caused by the activity of the unconscious and the intention to realize an intuitive feeling. This is where conditions are needed: an atmosphere of freedom of creativity; material, including everyday factors; artistic traditions; fashion and incentives that organize possible levels of social recognition (prizes, competitions, publications...). These conditions are formed outside the artist, much here depends on the capabilities and activity of the artistic community, its “union” with the state, etc. Basically, such conditions are concentrated in the infrastructure relevant type of art (literature, cinema, theater, music, sculpture and architecture, painting...)

Here we need to make some excursion into the history of Soviet art. Russia is now experiencing a period of transformation of socialist principles of life into capitalist ones. Naturally, these changes also affected the social foundations of artistic creativity. We are talking primarily about the degree of freedom of the artist. The well-known formula “Freedom is a perceived necessity” (Spinoza) is completely inapplicable to art. Such a “conciliatory” understanding of freedom, when the main way to achieve it is declared to be only the path of knowledge, is rejected by the artist, for the emancipation of his creative powers is achieved not through knowledge, but through action. At the same time, the “social chaos” that arose during the years of perestroika, and by which freedom began to be understood, led, contrary to expectations, to the opposite results. The long-awaited freedom of spiritual creativity has so far only given rise to new problems of “cohabitation of the artistic community.” The focus on the commercialization of spiritual creativity also does not give the expected results. We have to admit that over the past ten years nothing significant has appeared in the visual arts, cinema, music, literature, architecture and sculpture.

Nevertheless, we must turn to the socially determined reasons for the “rebellion” of the artistic intelligentsia during the periods of “stagnation” and “perestroika”. The first state reaction of the proletarian government to the sphere of art was expressed in the order of the Council of People's Commissars “On Ancient Monuments” (04/12/1918), based on complete trust in the artists and the collective will of the audience. However, the subsequent “apparatization of art” (M. Weber) led to the centralization of the management of culture (i.e. art). Administrative functionaries appeared who did not trust either the artists or the audience. V. Mayakovsky wrote about them:

"Between the writer

and the reader

there are intermediaries,

at the intermediary

the most average"

Subsequently, this “average taste” of an art official increasingly began to reflect the authorities’ distrust of the intelligentsia. S. Eisenstein argued that “when political power dictates what I should do, I become sterile. I cannot play the role of an illustrator."47 Nationalization led to increased censorship. During the years of Stalin's personality cult, state pressure on artists reached its apogee. Of course, the method of socialist realism, dictated by the authorities, also gave rise to artistic masterpieces, however, the general atmosphere remained depressing. This was the main factor in the transformation of most of the artistic intelligentsia into “partisans of reality”, intuitively groping for paths to the future, let us note, “to a better future,” as many of them believed. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that, due to the entry of the world and the country into the phase of the information society, artistic production increasingly began to acquire the character of a digest and show, serving the demand of mass culture. This objective tendency of the decline of art in our country was deliberately used to destroy the system - the anti-socialist offensive was ideologically, politically and even artistically coordinated and synchronized. The recent increase in reassessment by a number of artists of their positions during the perestroika years is far from an accident. Today we can quite clearly say that the sincere quest of the intelligentsia in the field of literature and art was cynically used by the post-democratic wave to loot the ruins of the Union. The oligarchic layer that emerged “out of nothing” began to energetically defend its interests, seizing first of all the press, trying to use it to gain political power. Once again, the artistic intelligentsia has to, in order to ensure the material conditions of their lives and creativity, bow to “sponsors”, “patrons” and other “benefactors”, who in any case pursue their own selfish interests, which do not coincide at all with the goals of artistic creativity. The humiliating historical situation is being repeated, forcing the artist to serve the “jaded heroine of the top ten thousand.” These lessons of history should not be repeated - this is evidenced by the incessant discussions about the social state of art that are currently going on among artists. Here are the topics of a number of discussions that took place during the XXI Moscow International Film Festival in 1999: “Russia after the Empire” and “National models of cinema in the context of the world film process.” The main questions were: Soviet film heritage - real money or creative capital? Free market and cinema - disaster, test or panacea?

In the second half of the nineteenth century. England was one of the most advanced powers in all respects. The long and stable reign of Queen Victoria, which resulted in economic and industrial growth, made the small island country the “workshop of the world”, a trendsetter of fashion and style. But is a style that allows you to combine absolutely incompatible eclectic things and clutter up interiors with tasteless machine-made “luxury” items really so good? In contrast to this, in the artistic community there was born a desire to return to manual craft production unique and stylish things that the participants of the Arts and Crafts Movement embodied in their creativity.

Industrial boom in England in the second half of the 19th century. led to the fact that among the emerging bourgeoisie and representatives of the new middle class there was a desire to decorate their lives, houses and apartments, filling them with details and interior gizmos that would create the illusion of a “luxurious life”.

But luxury is an expensive concept, so the market is flooded with industrially replicated “bronze” lamps made of painted plaster or magnificent “gilded wood” carvings made of papier-mâché. At the same time, in one room there could be objects of various historical styles, a huge number of draperies and massive frames, which made the interior hopelessly overloaded, heavy and practically uninhabitable. In such splendor, the feeling of comfort so necessary for a person was lost. Action gives rise to reaction, which is what “ Arts and Crafts Movement"(The Arts & Crafts Movement) - an artistic movement whose participants promoted a return to the handicraft folk origins of creativity and sought to create an aesthetically thoughtful living environment for every person. The ideological inspirers and theoreticians of the renewal of the decorative arts in England were John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) and his younger contemporary and student William Morris (1834 - 1896). According to Morris and Ruskin, the main problem of contemporary art was its mechanicalness and factory nature, while what could be more pleasant than labor, work that allows a person to self-realize and gives the pleasure of creativity.

“Just doing something with your hands should be a pleasure,” they propagated. They found the origins of truly folk, handicraft, human creativity in the art of the Middle Ages, when they had not yet invented ingenious machines and machines that churned out “works of art.”

Masters of the Arts and Crafts Movement created wooden furniture, painted with mythological scenes in a medieval manner and finished, like folk crafts, with metal brackets, strips and fittings. Wallpaper and fabrics, including those with silver and gold embroidery, were also actively distributed. All the details of the interiors designed by the artists, and even the costumes and dresses of the residents, were designed in the same style and color scheme, which created a feeling of stylistic integrity and harmony of the space.

The paradox was that manual production was not at all cheap, and inexpensive, replicated industrial “luxury” again found itself out of competition. The style of the Arts and Crafts Movement, like its direct successor, Art Nouveau, turned out to be an art for the elite, an exquisite style of high art. But what could be better than highly artistic individuality and originality! Man's desire to surround himself with stylish handmade things continues unabated to this day, and moreover, we are once again seeing an increase in interest in handmade art.

Workshops and guilds

Based on the theoretical program of Ruskin and Morris, a community of artists was organized, located in the so-called Red House, Morris’s personal estate, which became an example for many associations of a similar type that were created later. For the inhabitants of the Red House, the community served as an opportunity to create a closed commune of artists, where they could live and embody their creative ideas, drawing on the traditions of medieval craftsmen. In 1861, the company Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & C 0 (Morris, Marshal, Faulkner & C 0) was founded in England; the program of this association was formulated by Morris:
“Our goal is to elevate the role of art, with the help of which people at all times have sought to decorate ordinary objects of everyday life.”
Morris defined the beauty of decoration as "harmony with nature." The craftsman's hand must act like nature itself, "until a cloth, a cup, or a knife looks as natural and as attractive as a green field, a river bank, or rock crystal." By the end of the 1880s. Morris's company became a kind of school where many artists and craftsmen studied, who later created their own associations. The most typical example of this is The Century Guild, founded in 1882 by Arthur Heygate MacMurdo. MacMurdo's "Guild of the Century" sought to raise the status of the crafts - building, weaving, pottery and blacksmithing - so that they could take their rightful place next to the so-called fine arts."

Another example of the extension of Morris's guild principle is The Guild of Handicraft by Charles Robert Ashby. Based on the ideas of British organizations, and especially the guild of Charles Ashby, the Dresden workshops were founded in Dresden in 1898, and in 1899 the Darmstadt artists' colony on Matildenhey was created, which later became the basis of the German Union of Artistic Crafts and Industry (Werkbund) .

Evgenia Ignatieva, magazine "World of Metal"

Illustrations:

William Morris. 1870
Philip Webb. Red house. 1859, Kent, England. Personal estate of William Morris.
Charles Robert Ashby. Glass decanter in silver frame. OK. 1905
Charles Rennie Mackintosh. Doors of the tea room. Glasgow, Scotland. 1904
Edward Burne-Jones. Scene based on the Annunciation. 1860 Church of St. Colomba. Yorkshire, England.
Crafts Guild. Lord David Cecil's christening cup. 1902
Interior of the second half of the 19th century. "Green Room".