«...У нас нет литературы художеств» (А.Н. Майков): к вопросу о состоянии российской художественной критики 1840 - начала 1850-х гг. Статья первая. Наследие В.Г. Белинского в формировании русской художественной критики 1840-х гг.
| Parent link: | Вестник Томского государственного университета/ Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет (ТГУ).— , 1998- № 421.— 2017.— [С. 22-28] |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Corporate Author: | |
| Summary: | Заглавие с экрана Уточняются объем понятия «художественная критика» и история его становления в контексте развития русской словесной культуры, в том числе специализации и профессионализации критики. На основании просмотра статей и рецензий, опубликованных в российской и зарубежной периодике конца 1830–1840-х гг., представлена характеристика общего состояния художественной критики в европейской культуре указанного периода. Установлено, что авторы подавляющего большинства публикаций в своих суждениях о произведениях современных художников основывались на устаревших академических представлениях о предмете и задачах искусства и видели в активизации общественного интереса к пейзажу и жанровой живописи признаки упадка, переживаемого пластическими искусствами. На этом фоне выявлено значение статей и рецензий В.Г. Белинского в преодолении академических требований к содержан. The first article of the cycle specifies the term “art criticism” and its history in the context of Russian lore culture development including specialization and professionalization of literary and art criticism. It elicits the role of A.V. Nikitenko’s “Speech on Criticism” and V.G. Belinsky’s cognominal cycle of articles in the formation of the term and revealing the social exigency in a relevantjudgement on art. Upon learning the articles and reviews published in Russian and foreign periodicals of the late 1830s–1840s, the general condition of European art criticism in the given period is characterized. It has been elicited that the authors of the majority of publications built their judgments about the contemporary artists’ oeuvre on the obsolete academic understanding of the subject andmissions of art and regarded growing interest to landscape and genre painting as symptoms of plastic arts decay. In this context, the role of the articles and reviews by V.G. Belinsky in overcoming academic requirements to the content of visual art works and establishing a methodological basis of the new art criticism is elicited. It has been determined that the critic in his works stayed close to the European tradition: he thought of literature and visual arts through their unity, as of ways of artistic learning of reality, which use different means, but follow the same laws. Despite the fact that the critic did not create special works on art, in his articles he demonstrated good knowledge of the history of pictorial art, sculpture and architecture, deep understanding of the landmark periods of art development and independence of its masterpieces interpretation, knowledge of works on the history and theory of visual art, as well as close attention to modern publications and events concerning this field. In his cycle of reviews, Belinsky stated his concept of modern art criticism, which had to overcome the bygone dilettantism, blur, haphazardness and exteriority of judgment, assimilate the philosophic and aesthetic discoveries of the previous decades and on this ground shape the new approach to the scientific and journalistic understanding of visual art, relevant interpretation of its current content and dynamics of genres. Arguing with academic theorists, the critic laid the basis for the new interpretation of history painting as a genre, and first posed the question of timeliness of rhyparography - portrait and landscape - as forms of ordinary life comprehension. |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/15617793/421/3 |
| Format: | Electronic Book Chapter |
| KOHA link: | https://koha.lib.tpu.ru/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=664576 |