Art criticism and art history in modern conditions

Abstract

Purpose of Research is to identify the similarities and differences between artistic criticism and art history in contemporary conditions. Methodology. The methodology is based on a theoretical analysis of scientific literature, a comparison of art criticism and art history, and systematization, which led to scientifically objective results. Scientific novelt consists in identifying the similarities and differences between artistic criticism and art history in modern conditions. Conclusions. Artistic criticism contextual (is within the artistic process, although not integrated into it), academic art history is out of context. Artistic criticism is characterized by operativity, urgency, peculiar intermediary functions between the event and its historical assessment, emotionality, immersion – in contrast to the accuracy, the removal of art history. Regarding the audience: art history in the professional field, criticism – in sociocultural. The nature of art criticism is epistemological, criticism is axiological, but today there is a shift towards interpretive methods of artistic criticism. Among the methods of interpretation are philosophical, aesthetic, biographical, psychoanalytic, historical-artistic, semiotic, sociological, historical-cultural, comparative-typological criticism. Interpretative methods of artistic criticism are consistent with the processes of decoding the work of art, which is one of the functions of criticism, levels of this decoding can be incredibly large. "Stuccato Structure," hypertextuality, interactivity, laconicism - features of artistic and critical speeches in the Internet media. Elements of artistic criticism form the basis or can be an integral part of a wide range of journalistic (review, creative portrait, problem presentation, review, interview, essay) and scientific (monograph dissertation) genres. Today, the need to expand the professional "boundaries" of art history and artistic critique has matured.