Modern art history as a human science in a situation of cultural turn

封面图片


如何引用文章

全文:

Intensive development of knowledge in the 20th century, including the emergence of new sciences and humanities, constantly creates a problematic situation in the sphere of art, shifting art’s designation to what in the philosophy of science is known as “normal science”. This is associated with the idea of art as a science that has reached a stage of maturity and consistency and, therefore, complies with its norms. The concept of art as “normal science” is characterized by a certain degree of conservatism, as it presupposes art’s self-protection against deviations from the established methodology.

However, sometimes the artistic processes of modernity require different approaches. In addition, the emergence of new humanities shifts the already established methodology of art. This happened in the first decades of the 20th century, in the era of a linguistic turn in the humanities, indicating the invasion of natural sciences in the humanities; and this is happening today, at the turn of the 21st century, in a situation of a cultural turn, the emergence and intensive development of the science of culture. The current turn requires a deeper understanding of the structure and components of art history, i.e., its sub-disciplines: art history, art theory and art criticism.

The essay argues that in the situation of cultural turn the theory of art can carry out functions which the other two sub-disciplines cannot. It propounds that art theory is able to make a decisive contribution to the elucidation of two problems: the relationship between art and cultural studies and the problem of historical time, which is important both for contemporary art and for art history.

受限制的访问

Статья Nicolai A.

Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy), Professor, Section of Media Artistic Problems


State institute of Cultural Studies

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: vestnik-vgik@vgik.info

References

  1. Bazen Zh.(1995) Istoriya istorii iskusstva. Ot Vazari do nashikh dney [History of Art History. From Vasari to our days]. Moscow: Progress-Kultura, 1995. 526 p. (In Russ.).
  2. Vaneyan S. (1999) Mezhdu geshtaltom i teofaniyey. Metodologiya iskusstvoznaniya i metafizika iskusstva Khansa Zedlmayra [Between the Gestalt and Theophany. Methodology of Art Studies and Metaphysics of Art by Hans Zedlmayr] // Zedlmayr Kh. Iskusstvo i istina: O teorii i metode istorii iskusstva // Khans Zedlmayr; Per. s nem. S.S. Vaneyana. Moscow: Iskusstvoznaniye, 1999, pp. 305–363. (In Russ.).
  3. Vipper B. (2015) Vvedeniye v istoricheskoye izucheniye iskusstva [Introduction to the Historical Study of Art]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo V. Shevchuka, 2015. 368 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Gabrichevsky A. (2002) Morfologiya iskusstva [Art morphology]. Moscow: Agraf, 2002. (In Russ.).
  5. Gurevich A. (1996) Istorik kontsa KhKh veka v poiskakh metoda[Historian of the Late Twentieth Century in Search of a Method] // Odissey. Chelovek v istorii. Moscow, 1996. (In Russ.).
  6. Zedlmayr Kh. (2008) Utrata serediny[Middle Loss]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, 2008. 630 p. (In Russ.).
  7. Istoriya evropeyskogo iskusstvoznaniya ot antichnosti do kontsa XVIII veka [The History of European Art History from Antiquity to the End of the XVIII century]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1963. 436 p.
  8. Istoriya russkogo iskusstva [History of Russian Art], t. 1. Iskusstvo Kiyevskoy Rusi IX — pervaya chetvert XII veka. Moscow: Severny palomnik, 2007. 664 p. (In Russ.).
  9. Lazarev V. (1978) O metodologii sovremennogo iskusstvoznaniya [On the Methodology of Contemporary Art History] // Sovetskoye iskusstvoznaniye. Vyp. 2. Moscow, 1978, pp. 311–316. (In Russ.).
  10. Le Goff Zh. (2013) Istoriya i pamyat [History and Memory]. Moscow: Rossyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN), 2013. 303 p. (In Russ.).
  11. Prokofyev V. (1978) Khudozhestvennaya kritika, istoriya iskusstva, teoriya obshchego khudozhestvennogo protsessa: ikh spetsifika i problemy vzaimodeystviya v predelakh iskusstvoznaniya[Art criticism, art history, theory of the general art process: their specificity and problems of interaction within the limits of art history] // Sovetskoye iskusstvoznaniye 78 /2. Moscow, 1978, pp. 233–265. (In Russ.).
  12. Eyzenshteyn S. (2002) Metod [Method]. V 2-kh t. Moscow, 2002. (In Russ.).

版权所有 © Khrenov N.A., 2019

##common.cookie##