| Popis: |
The purpose of the articleis to reveal the main positions of discussions on the pages of Ukrainian Soviet periodicals of the late 1920s and early 1930s on the development of ballet.Research methodology.Methods of analysis, comparison, generalization, principles of objectivity and historicism are applied.Scientific novelty.For the first time, the main vectors of discussions on the pages of Ukrainian Soviet periodicals of the late 1920s and early 1930s, dedicated to the further development of ballet, were revealed as a reflection of similar discussions held in the central publications of the USSR.Conclusions. Among the most notable publications devoted to the problems of the further development of Soviet ballet are the articles in the magazineLife of Art(1929) by I. Sollertynskyi (refutation of classical ballet, vision of the future in synthetic performances, advocacy of the prospects of acrobatic, physical culture, grotesque and eccentric dance, experimental laboratories of new dance movements) and I. Turkeltaub (stating the problem of the Soviet repertoire, the decline of the art of dance, its conservatism, inconsistency with dynamic reality, advocacy of meaningfulness, vision of perspective in dramatic ballet, and not in formal searches for constructive forms). In the pages of periodicals in the USSR (Proletarian Truth, 1929,Soviet Art, 1930) a number of theatre critics (P. Rudenko, B. Steblovskyi, P. T-r) advocated the ideologization of choreography, content, stated the obsolescence and futility of classical ballet, condemned the bourgeois influence on choreography (eroticism, eccentricity, elements of foxtrot), argued that dance should serve the “class interests of the proletariat”, meet national and domestic needs, be ideological, reflect the pathos of Soviet construction. The authors spoke out against private studios, for the creation of a state specialized choreographic educational institution. The speeches of the contributors clearly show the focus on ideology, class, and nationality, which will later take root in the dogma of socialist realist art; there are intentions to increase the politicization of art, labelling, accusations of bourgeois aesthetics, formalism; tangible signs of stepping towards the monoideological standardization of culture, which became characteristic of the USSR in the 1930s. |
