The Criterion of Usefulness in the Evaluation of Art in the Russian Literary Criticism of the 1860s
| Autor: | Natalia Vladimirovna Volodina |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | ruština |
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Известия Уральского федерального университета. Серия 2: Гуманитарные науки, Vol 20, Iss 1(172), Pp 93-107 (2018) |
| Druh dokumentu: | article |
| ISSN: | 2227-2283 2587-6929 |
| DOI: | 10.15826/izv2.2018.20.1.007 |
| Popis: | This article considers discussions about the purpose and usefulness of art which took place in the Russian literary criticism of the 1860s. A comparative analysis of journalistic and aesthetic criticism as well as works by M. N. Katkov and N. D. Akhsharumov leads the author to conclude that the critical discussions of the period in question had a variety of answers to these questions, but there was a number of recurring ideas. Art is seen as a tool for popularising scientific knowledge and has enlightening functions; it is recognised as a valuable factor capable of spiritually and morally influencing people; it is regarded as lacking practical usefulness, and superfluous when considered from the rational viewpoint. Depending on the authors’ methods and their own axiological preferences, the usefulness of art was considered differently between the 1850s and 1860s. For instance, N. G. Chernyshevsky argues that when promoting and popularising academic knowledge, art helps change people’s consciousness and improve their material and social status, in other words, it can become practically useful. A. V. Druzhinin, V. P. Botkin, and P. V. Annenkov do not use any evaluative categories when speaking about the role and meaning of art. For M. N. Katkov, the idea of usefulness of art is connected with the idea of creative freedom, and independence of creative work from any dictatorship from without. N. D. Akhshrumov thinks the criterion of usefulness cannot be applied to art at all. In spite of the polemic nature of the issue, all the above mentioned approaches manifest certain similarities, though not obvious enough, but anyway significant for the understanding of the complex relations between different aesthetic theories and key problems of the epoch. Discussions about the usefulness of art in the criticism of the 1850s–1860s testify to the relativity of this axiological category and its historical changeability. However, regardless of the interpretations of the category, it remains a constant notion which determines the value of art for an individual and society as a whole as well as its purpose and need for it. Such issues were topical in the 19th century, an era of change, and they remain relevant in any epoch capable of reflection and not indifferent to ‘eternal’ questions. |
| Databáze: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|