Object, subject and place of metaidealism in the theory of art development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24195/artstudies.2024-1.11Keywords:
theory and technique of fine art, object in art, subject in art, method of crystallization of form, method of indirect associations, classical art of modernism, metaidealism.Abstract
The study considers the relation to the object and the subject as a defining point of crystallization of the author’s artistic style – metaidealism. Updating the periodization of the development of Oleksandr Bogomazov’s painting in relation to the object, a model of imaginary construction of a synthetic object was developed, which combines all three historically formed relations: unconscious approach to the object, conscious approach to the object and conscious distanciation from the object. Such a synthetic object is defined as the result of the need to reflect a complicated idea and the basis of an artistic image embodied in an art object as a model. The approaches and a number of artistic methods used to create an artistic image are argued and claimed to be based on a synthetic object. The metamodernist approach is used to show how it can be applied in order to single out artistic methods, in particular, the method of form crystallization from the work of cubist artists, the method of indirect associations from psychoanalysis and how they combine within a single author’s style. The emphasis is placed on the use of a scientific approach, which makes it possible to organize complex knowledge into a single system and to involve the language of science in the dialogue between the artist and the viewer. The practice of displaying a synthetic object in a work of art is demonstrated in the example of the composition «The First Teacher». It has been found that while depicting a synthetic object that embodies a complex idea the formation of a system of approaches and artistic methods is required. We have also specified the meaning of the system of approaches and artistic methods in the author’s artistic style. The specified system appears as a symbolic system of the art language, which is built on the modernist and postmodernist artistic heritage. The symbolic system of the language of art has been found to be similar to the methods of object representation used in classical artistic styles. Accordingly, the issue of recognition of classical modern art is outlined.
References
Архипенко, О. (2009). 50 років творчості (1908–1958). Хроніка-2000: Український культурологічний альманах / А. Ю. Буряк (перекл. з англ. і ред.) (с. 438-493). Київ: Фенікс.
Горбачов, Д. (2006). «Він та я були українці». Малевич та Україна. Київ: СІМ студія.
Горбачов, Д. (2020а). Лицарі голодного ренесансу. О. Січенко (упор.). Київ: ДУХ І ЛІТЕРА. Горбачов, Д. (упоряд.). (2020б). Український художній авангард: маніфести – публіцистика – спогади – листи. Київ: ДУХ І ЛІТЕРА.
Никифоров, А. (2023). Метаідеалізм або теоретико-методологічний концепт авторського художнього стилю. Південноукраїнські мистецькі студії, 2 (3), 88–94.
Cohnitz, D., Rossberg, M. (2006). Nelson Goodman. London: Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (2006). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis; Cambridge: Hackett Publishing company.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Vermeulen, T. & Van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2 (1), 56–77.