DOI Artikel:
Bakoš, Ján: Zrod a cesty sovietskey umeleckohistorickej metodológie
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51703#0032
28
pemeHHH ßbiTCKann H3 pa3BHTHH oöiiiecTBa, H3 TpeöoBaHHii,
CTaBHiiiMxcii nepefl HCKyccTBOBefleHneM otacjibheimm ero
3TanaMn, cneflOBaTenbHO, n3 co'iiiaTe.ibHoä u npsiMOM o6me-
CTBeHHOä <|>yHKUHOHa.'IbHOCTM HCKyCCTBOBCfleHHH.
Baxnyio pont npn 3T0M Cßirpana nepMaiienTnasi n iipmiuH-
imajibHast caMOKpuTniHocTb coBeTCKoro BCKyccTBone/ienHs,
xapaKTepn3npyK>maa Bee (fiaancbt ero pa3BHTna. Moxho ee
noHHMaTB KaK AHaneKTBuecKoe ypasHOBemcHnc hoctohhhbix
BeJiHWH, KaK oßpaTHyio CBS3L, KoppeKTHpyiotnyro oöniyio
HanpaBneHHOCTb k HayHHOCTH. OHa HBnseTca <j>aKTopoM,
oöecneHMBaiotiiHM cbíbb ucKyccTBOBefleinia c oßmeciBeHHMMH
nepeweHaMH, ycTparaeT onacnocTB M30JinpoBaHocTjt b „ßainne
H3 CJ1OHOBOM KOCTh“, 3a6oTHTCil 06 OÖHOBJieHHH COOTBCTCTBeH-
hocth HayMHbix penjewiii ooijjecTBeHHbix aanpocoB, oßecne-
HHßaeT ero a<|>(|jnp.Ma™Bnyio coijnaabHyio ifiyHKUHOHajiBHOcTb.
Crano öbiTb, c oahoh CTopoHM, ona oöecnenHBaeT HaynHOMy
MbimjieHHfo ero BHyrpeHHioio flHHaMHKy, c flpyroH — npenaT-
cTsyeT TOMy, htoöbi oho aavtKHynocb b hbtohomhom pasBHTim
(K HCMy Ha H3BeCTHOM TOHK6 CBOerO pa3BHTHS npOHBJIBeT
cKJiOHHOCTb BCHKoe TBopnecTßo), oßeciieanaaeT HeycTaHHO
B0306H0BJiaeMyK> CBB3B HCKyCCTBOBeaeHH« C OÖmeCTBeHHblM
pa3BMTneM. Tee Hast cbbsb c xmbhbio oßniecTBa h ero pasBUTneM,
npaMoe ynacTMe b hcm, coiinaJibHO-ncTopHHecKaa (j>yHKiino-
HajIBHOCTB B (j)OpMC HayHHBIX MCTO4OB H HpeflMeTOB MCCJICpO-
BaHHa KaK h HCcneAOBarejiBCKHx npoßJieM — Bee oto otho-
CHTCH K OCHOBHBIM CHeuHtflHHHOCTÍIM COBeTCKOfO HCKyCCTBO-
BefleHHH.
IlTaK, XapaKTepHCTHBeCKHM CBOÜCTBOM COBeTCKOfO MCKye-
The Birth and Pathways of the Soviet
The common sense notion of the Soviet science on art
is that of a homogeneous entity. It makes it appear as a static
phenomenon undergoing no change during the course of time
not only in its essence, but also in its tasks and their solutions.
Such a notion, however, résides in a lack of familiarity with the
subject.
As a matter of fact, the Soviet science on art has a living and
dynamic history. It has gone through several —- at least four —
developmental stages. If we leave out of account its “prehistory”,
i.e. a) the development of Russian historiography of art in the
last third of the 19th Century, b) Russian science on art of the
early 2Oth Century before the Great October Socialist Revolution
which the Soviet science on art reacted upon and c) Marxist
thinking in prerevolutionary Russia as represented by both
Plekhanov and later particularly by Lenin and Lunacharsky, we
may divide it roughly as follows: Stage I: The twenties — birth
of the Soviet science on art; Stage II: The thirties (up to the
outbreak of World War II); Stage III: The postwar period (up
to the XXth congress of the Communist Party of the USSR);
Stage IV : The second half of the fifties and the sixties.
The history of Soviet artistic thinking, however, is not of an
anarchistic character with self-purposeful or purely immanent
cTBOBefliecKoro MBinuiema b TeneHne ero 60-jieTHero cy-
mecTBOBamM SBJiaeTca He Hen3MeHH0CTB, a pnHa.MHKa hocto-
îihhocth: MapKCHCTCKHM n MaTepnaJïHCTHHecKniî 6a3HC h npa-
Mas CBX3B c oôiuecTBOM. nepBBiii noßyacflaeT k KOHKpeTH3attHH,
h, cjieflOBaTejiBHO, k hoctoothbim noncxaM; BTopasi hphbhocht
b nayKy HCTopnnecKyio /iHHaMmcy tcm, hto craBHT ncKyccTBO-
BCpcHne nepept Bce hobbimh npoÔJieMaMH h 3aflanaMH. BHyrpeH-
HM« flHaJieKTHKa pa3BHTHSI COBeTCKOfO MCKycCTBOBepaeCKOrO
MBIHIJieHM OCHOBBIBaeTCa HM6HH0 Ha AHajieKTHVeCKOÍI B3aHM0-
CBH3H 3THX ABJ'X HaHaJI.’ HanpaBJieHHOCTH K HayHHOCTH (b CMbICJie
CTpeMJieHHH K OKOHHaTeJÏBHOH KOHKpeTH3aiJHH MapKCH3Ma)
H KOHKpeTHO-HCTOpHteCKOrO COLlHajIBHOrO yKOpeHeHHB H
(jiyHKHHOHanbHOCTH caMHX HayHHbix npoßjieivt H mctoíiob.
CTpeMJieHMe nocTpoMTB npoMuyjo CHCTeivty MapKCHCTCKoro
HCKyccTBOBefleHMH npoTeKaeT b /maneKTHK-e c pemeHHCM
KOHKpeTHBIX npOÖJICM, KOTOpbie npHHOCHT C co5oü flHHaMHKa
pasBHTHH ootnecTBa. McTopHHeCKoe piiHaMUMitoc hoctohhctbo
coBeTCKoro nCKyccTBOBepeima BBiTeKaeT iimchho h3 stoh flua-
jieKTHKH ero naehiroü h oômeCTBeHHoii yropeiieiiHOCTii.
*
IIpe/iJiaraeMaa craTba aßaaerca hohbitkoh BOcnpon3Bepe-
HHH nepeMeH B pa'iBMTHH COBeTCKOiî XyAOXeCTBeHHO-HCTOpH-
HecKOii MeTOflOJiorHH, oToxeciBneiuia nepBHHHoro coaep>KaHua,
BHyTpeHHeîi flHHaMHKH H CMbicjia ee OTflejiBHMX <Jia3HCOB pa3-
BMTHB Ha OCHOBe HepnaHHH H3 OnyÔJlHKOBaHHBIX COBeTCKHX
aHaiiH30B.
Art Historical Methodology
transformations. Changes in the Soviet science on art are not
autonomous, they hâve not become an end to themselves •—
change for the sake of change. Nor do they involve movements
from one extreme to the other; we find here no alternation of
absolutization always from a different aspect of reality. These
traits had in some measure been present in the Russian science on
art of the 19th and 20th Century and in the twenties during the
period of the postrevolutionary searching.
Beginning with the thirties, the historical transformations
in the Soviet science on art are balanced with constants that speak
for a firm social bond and laws. Ultimately, the historical trans-
formations in Soviet artistic thinking take place on a common
platform of dialectical materialism and Marxist sociology and
tend towards a common goal — an universal appréhension of art
as a social phenomenon. Hence, the constants of the Soviet
science on art are: materialist monism, a dialectico-sociological
appréhension of art; refusai of an autonomous and idealistic
treatment of artistic development; orienting towards a synthetical
image, based on a dialectical-materialist understanding of reality
and on historical-materialist interprétation of history; efforts at
a complex method of investigation, gnoseologic optimism;
conviction about objectivity being cognizable and about objecti-
pemeHHH ßbiTCKann H3 pa3BHTHH oöiiiecTBa, H3 TpeöoBaHHii,
CTaBHiiiMxcii nepefl HCKyccTBOBefleHneM otacjibheimm ero
3TanaMn, cneflOBaTenbHO, n3 co'iiiaTe.ibHoä u npsiMOM o6me-
CTBeHHOä <|>yHKUHOHa.'IbHOCTM HCKyCCTBOBCfleHHH.
Baxnyio pont npn 3T0M Cßirpana nepMaiienTnasi n iipmiuH-
imajibHast caMOKpuTniHocTb coBeTCKoro BCKyccTBone/ienHs,
xapaKTepn3npyK>maa Bee (fiaancbt ero pa3BHTna. Moxho ee
noHHMaTB KaK AHaneKTBuecKoe ypasHOBemcHnc hoctohhhbix
BeJiHWH, KaK oßpaTHyio CBS3L, KoppeKTHpyiotnyro oöniyio
HanpaBneHHOCTb k HayHHOCTH. OHa HBnseTca <j>aKTopoM,
oöecneHMBaiotiiHM cbíbb ucKyccTBOBefleinia c oßmeciBeHHMMH
nepeweHaMH, ycTparaeT onacnocTB M30JinpoBaHocTjt b „ßainne
H3 CJ1OHOBOM KOCTh“, 3a6oTHTCil 06 OÖHOBJieHHH COOTBCTCTBeH-
hocth HayMHbix penjewiii ooijjecTBeHHbix aanpocoB, oßecne-
HHßaeT ero a<|>(|jnp.Ma™Bnyio coijnaabHyio ifiyHKUHOHajiBHOcTb.
Crano öbiTb, c oahoh CTopoHM, ona oöecnenHBaeT HaynHOMy
MbimjieHHfo ero BHyrpeHHioio flHHaMHKy, c flpyroH — npenaT-
cTsyeT TOMy, htoöbi oho aavtKHynocb b hbtohomhom pasBHTim
(K HCMy Ha H3BeCTHOM TOHK6 CBOerO pa3BHTHS npOHBJIBeT
cKJiOHHOCTb BCHKoe TBopnecTßo), oßeciieanaaeT HeycTaHHO
B0306H0BJiaeMyK> CBB3B HCKyCCTBOBeaeHH« C OÖmeCTBeHHblM
pa3BMTneM. Tee Hast cbbsb c xmbhbio oßniecTBa h ero pasBUTneM,
npaMoe ynacTMe b hcm, coiinaJibHO-ncTopHHecKaa (j>yHKiino-
HajIBHOCTB B (j)OpMC HayHHBIX MCTO4OB H HpeflMeTOB MCCJICpO-
BaHHa KaK h HCcneAOBarejiBCKHx npoßJieM — Bee oto otho-
CHTCH K OCHOBHBIM CHeuHtflHHHOCTÍIM COBeTCKOfO HCKyCCTBO-
BefleHHH.
IlTaK, XapaKTepHCTHBeCKHM CBOÜCTBOM COBeTCKOfO MCKye-
The Birth and Pathways of the Soviet
The common sense notion of the Soviet science on art
is that of a homogeneous entity. It makes it appear as a static
phenomenon undergoing no change during the course of time
not only in its essence, but also in its tasks and their solutions.
Such a notion, however, résides in a lack of familiarity with the
subject.
As a matter of fact, the Soviet science on art has a living and
dynamic history. It has gone through several —- at least four —
developmental stages. If we leave out of account its “prehistory”,
i.e. a) the development of Russian historiography of art in the
last third of the 19th Century, b) Russian science on art of the
early 2Oth Century before the Great October Socialist Revolution
which the Soviet science on art reacted upon and c) Marxist
thinking in prerevolutionary Russia as represented by both
Plekhanov and later particularly by Lenin and Lunacharsky, we
may divide it roughly as follows: Stage I: The twenties — birth
of the Soviet science on art; Stage II: The thirties (up to the
outbreak of World War II); Stage III: The postwar period (up
to the XXth congress of the Communist Party of the USSR);
Stage IV : The second half of the fifties and the sixties.
The history of Soviet artistic thinking, however, is not of an
anarchistic character with self-purposeful or purely immanent
cTBOBefliecKoro MBinuiema b TeneHne ero 60-jieTHero cy-
mecTBOBamM SBJiaeTca He Hen3MeHH0CTB, a pnHa.MHKa hocto-
îihhocth: MapKCHCTCKHM n MaTepnaJïHCTHHecKniî 6a3HC h npa-
Mas CBX3B c oôiuecTBOM. nepBBiii noßyacflaeT k KOHKpeTH3attHH,
h, cjieflOBaTejiBHO, k hoctoothbim noncxaM; BTopasi hphbhocht
b nayKy HCTopnnecKyio /iHHaMmcy tcm, hto craBHT ncKyccTBO-
BCpcHne nepept Bce hobbimh npoÔJieMaMH h 3aflanaMH. BHyrpeH-
HM« flHaJieKTHKa pa3BHTHSI COBeTCKOfO MCKycCTBOBepaeCKOrO
MBIHIJieHM OCHOBBIBaeTCa HM6HH0 Ha AHajieKTHVeCKOÍI B3aHM0-
CBH3H 3THX ABJ'X HaHaJI.’ HanpaBJieHHOCTH K HayHHOCTH (b CMbICJie
CTpeMJieHHH K OKOHHaTeJÏBHOH KOHKpeTH3aiJHH MapKCH3Ma)
H KOHKpeTHO-HCTOpHteCKOrO COLlHajIBHOrO yKOpeHeHHB H
(jiyHKHHOHanbHOCTH caMHX HayHHbix npoßjieivt H mctoíiob.
CTpeMJieHMe nocTpoMTB npoMuyjo CHCTeivty MapKCHCTCKoro
HCKyccTBOBefleHMH npoTeKaeT b /maneKTHK-e c pemeHHCM
KOHKpeTHBIX npOÖJICM, KOTOpbie npHHOCHT C co5oü flHHaMHKa
pasBHTHH ootnecTBa. McTopHHeCKoe piiHaMUMitoc hoctohhctbo
coBeTCKoro nCKyccTBOBepeima BBiTeKaeT iimchho h3 stoh flua-
jieKTHKH ero naehiroü h oômeCTBeHHoii yropeiieiiHOCTii.
*
IIpe/iJiaraeMaa craTba aßaaerca hohbitkoh BOcnpon3Bepe-
HHH nepeMeH B pa'iBMTHH COBeTCKOiî XyAOXeCTBeHHO-HCTOpH-
HecKOii MeTOflOJiorHH, oToxeciBneiuia nepBHHHoro coaep>KaHua,
BHyTpeHHeîi flHHaMHKH H CMbicjia ee OTflejiBHMX <Jia3HCOB pa3-
BMTHB Ha OCHOBe HepnaHHH H3 OnyÔJlHKOBaHHBIX COBeTCKHX
aHaiiH30B.
Art Historical Methodology
transformations. Changes in the Soviet science on art are not
autonomous, they hâve not become an end to themselves •—
change for the sake of change. Nor do they involve movements
from one extreme to the other; we find here no alternation of
absolutization always from a different aspect of reality. These
traits had in some measure been present in the Russian science on
art of the 19th and 20th Century and in the twenties during the
period of the postrevolutionary searching.
Beginning with the thirties, the historical transformations
in the Soviet science on art are balanced with constants that speak
for a firm social bond and laws. Ultimately, the historical trans-
formations in Soviet artistic thinking take place on a common
platform of dialectical materialism and Marxist sociology and
tend towards a common goal — an universal appréhension of art
as a social phenomenon. Hence, the constants of the Soviet
science on art are: materialist monism, a dialectico-sociological
appréhension of art; refusai of an autonomous and idealistic
treatment of artistic development; orienting towards a synthetical
image, based on a dialectical-materialist understanding of reality
and on historical-materialist interprétation of history; efforts at
a complex method of investigation, gnoseologic optimism;
conviction about objectivity being cognizable and about objecti-