Artistic synthesis in architectural form, from the totalitarian to indifferent

Authors

  • Oleksii Rohotchenko Modern Art Research Institute of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.1.2019.166956

Keywords:

style, architecture, synthesis, socialist realism, ideology, totalitarianism

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to study the problems of styles and styles, which led to the unification and merging of independent trends in the fine arts and architecture of the period of origin and the formation of socialist realism.  Scientific novelty. Features of the emergence and development of the synthesis of arts in the USSR and its largest republic – Ukraine still remains unexplored. In the author's proposed interpretation of the synthesis of arts of the "Soviet model" criterion of the holistic perception of the stylistic unity of paintings, sculptural and architectural works is the totalitarian dependence of the artist from the hostile society. According to the author's version, the perception of architectural problems in Ukraine in the given period is considered in the arts, political and economic area and proves the crime of the ideology of totalitarianism. The methodology of the research of the declared theme is to combine art studies and historical intelligence. In accordance with the set tasks in the article applied research methods, complementary cultural, historical, art-study aspects. Chronological analysis and synthesis, comparative, biographical and cross-cultural methods were also used. Scientific novelty consists of highlighting and studying little-known facts, which confirm the author's doctrine concerning the distortion of the concept in the Soviet society of a concept as a synthesis of art. The association of fine arts with architecture was perceived more predominantly from the point of view of the works of Soviet ideologues, historians, art historians. The question of the indifference and lack of resistance in the conditions of a totalitarian cultural dictatorship concerning the interrelation of spatial arts and architecture at the angle of culturological interpretation was not considered at all. Conclusions. The analysis of architectural styles, their tasks, ways of development, the definition of the role of a person in the work (painting, sculptural, architectural), the influence of society and its dependence, comparing the current time with the events seventy years ago – is the way of true revival. The result of this work was an attempt to understand, study and make correct conclusions about the phenomenon of the synthesis of Ukrainian art and architecture of pre-war years. The only answer to the questions can be only solid cultural and artistic intelligence that will reveal the truth about the little-studied period of Ukrainian culture.

Author Biography

Oleksii Rohotchenko, Modern Art Research Institute of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine

Senior Researcher Scientific, Doctor of Science in Art chief scientific officer

References

Иванов С.Г. Архитектура в культуротворчестве тоталитаризма: философско-эстетический анализ. К.: Стилос, 2001. 168 с.

Муріна Є. Проблеми синтезу просторових мистецтв. М.: Архітектура, 1982. 127 c.

Збірник архітектурно-будівельної інформації. К.: Упр. в справах архітектури при Раді Міністрів УРСР, БНТІ, 1947. 65 с.

Гильдебранд А. Проблема формы в изобразительном искусстве. М.: Изд-во МПЦ, 1991. 137с.:ил.

Вефлін Г. Предисловие к первому изданию “Проблема формы в изобразительном искусстве”. СПб, 1896. С.5-9.

Степанов А., Іванов Г., Нечаєв Н. Архітектура і психологія. М.: Стройиздат, 1993. 109 с.

Каплун А. Стиль и архитектура. М.: Стройиздат, 1985. 232 с.

Пучков А. Три парадокса тоталитарных сред // А.С.С. 1998. № 2. С. 34.

Роготченко О. Сьогоднішнє мистецтво здалеку й зблизька // Українське мистецтво. 2003. №1. С. 54-55.

Каракис Йосиф: Судьба и творчество: Альбом - каталог. К.: Символ-Т , 2002. 103 с.: ил.

Творческие Союзы в СССР. М.: Юридическая литература, 1970. 287 с.

Ivanov S.G. (2001). Architecture in totalitarianism culture: a philosophical and aesthetic analysis. Kyiv: Stilos [in Russian].

Murina Je. (1982). Problems of synthesis of spatial arts. Moscow: Arkhitektura. [in Ukrainian].

Zbirnyk arkhitekturno-budiveljnoji informaciji. (1947). Kyiv: Upr. v spravakh arkhitektury pry Radi Ministriv URSR, BNTI. [in Ukrainian].

Gildebrand A. (1991). The problem of form in art. Moscow: Izd-vo MPTs. [in Russian].

Veflіn G.(1896). The Preface to the first edition “The Problem of form in art”. Saint Petersburg: SPb. [in Russian].

Stepanov A., Іvanov G., Nechaєv N. (1993). Architectural and Psychology. Moscow: Stroyizdat. [in Russian].

Kaplun A. (1985). Style and architecture. Moscow: Stroyizdat. [in Russian].

Puchkov A.(1998). Three paradoxes of totalitarian environments. A.S.S., 2, 34 [in Ukrainian].

Rohotchenko O. (2003). Today's art is far from distant and close. Ukrajinsjke mystectvo, 1, 54-55. [in Ukrainian].

Karakis Yosif: The fate and creativity: Albom - katalog. (2002). Kyiv: Simvol-T. [in Ukrainian].

Creative Unions in the USSR. (1970). Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, [in Russian].

Published

2019-01-22

Issue

Section

Мистецтвознавство