!
³ñíèê ÕÄÀÄÌ ¹ 3/2006
20. Èòîãè XXVII ïåðåäâèæíîé âûñòàâêè (îêîí÷àíèå). // Äíåïðîâñêàÿ ìîëâà.
31 îêòÿáðÿ 1899 ã. - ¹ 43. – Ñ.1360-1361.
21. XXXII ïåðåäâèæíàÿ âûñòàâêà êàðòèí. // Âåñòíèê þãà. 16 îêòÿáðÿ 1904
ã. - ¹ 748. – Ñ.2.
22. Îòðàæåíèÿ æèçíè (ó ïåðåäâèæíèêîâ). // Ïðèäíåïðîâñêèé êðàé. 10
îêòÿáðÿ 1900. - ¹ 984 ã. – Ñ.2.
23. Ìàëåíüêèé ôåëüåòîí. // Ïðèäíåïðîâñêèé êðàé. 13 îêòÿáðÿ 1900 ã. - ¹
987. – Ñ.2.
24. Ñ âûñòàâêè êàðòèí. // Ïðèäíåïðîâñêèé êðàé. 18 îêòÿáðÿ 1903 ã. - ¹
1966. – Ñ.3.
25. Íåñêîëüêî ìûñëåé î ñîâðåìåííîé æèâîïèñè (XXXII ïåðåäâèæíàÿ
âûñòàâêà êàðòèí). // Ïðèäíåïðîâñêèé êðàé. 30 îêòÿáðÿ 1904 ã. - ¹ 2327.
– Ñ.3.
Íàä³éøëà äî ðåäàêö³¿ 13.03.06
ART AS A SYMBOLIC FORM OF CULTURE
×åðíîâ Ä. Â., àñïèðàíò
Õàðüêîâñêàÿ ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ àêàäåìèÿ äèçàéíà è èñêóññòâ
Àííîòàöèÿ. ×åðíîâ Ä. Â. Èñêóññòâî êàê îäíà èç ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôîðì êóëüòóðû.
 ñòàòüå ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ èñêóññòâî êàê îäíà èç ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôîðì êóëüòóðû
è åãî ñâÿçü ñ ìèôîì, ÿçûêîì, ðåëèãèåé è ôèëîñîôèåé.
Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà. Èñêóññòâî, ôèëîñîôèÿ-êàê-èñêóññòâî, ñèìâîëè÷åñêàÿ ôîðìà,
ñèìâîëè÷åñêàÿ ôóíêöèÿ, ñèìâîë, ïåðâîáûòíîå èñêóññòâî.
Àíîòàö³ÿ. ×åðíîâ Ä. Â. Ìèñòåöòâî ÿê îäíà ç ñèìâîë³÷íèõ ôîðì êóëüòóðè. Â
ñòàòò³ ðîçãëÿäàºòüñÿ ìèñòåöòâî ÿê ñèìâîë³÷íà ôîðìà êóëüòóðè ³ éîãî çâ’ÿçîê ç
ì³ôîì, ìîâîþ, ðåë³ã³ºþ òà ô³ëîñîô³ºþ.
Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà. Ìèñòåöòâî, ô³ëîñîô³ÿ-ÿê-ìèñòåöòâî, ñèìâîë³÷íà ôîðìà,
ñèìâîë³÷íà ôóíêö³ÿ, ñèìâîë, ïåðâèííå ìèñòåöòâî.
Summary. Chernov D. V. Art as a Symbolic Form of Culture. The author regards art
as a symbolic form of culture in interconnectedness with myth, language, religion
and philosophy.
Key words. Art, philosophy-as-art, symbolic form, symbolic function, symbol, primitive art.
Introduction into the issue and analysis of latest research. Since Ernst
Cassirer’s “Philosophy of Symbolic Forms”, there has been a stable interest in the subject of ‘art as a symbolic form’ in Humanities. Even so,
Cassirer does not seem to have accomplished the intended systemic presentation of art as a symbolic form. Nevertheless, he develops the concept
of the autonomy of arts as an independent symbolic form. One of the
prominent works on the subject is Andreas Kü ker’s “Transformation,
Reflexion und Heterogenit ä t: Eine Untersuchung zu den
Deutungsperspektiven der Kunst in der Philosophie Ernst Cassirers” [1]
(Transformation, Reflection, Heterogenity: Research in Perspectives of
Interpretation of Art in Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy). K ü ker concludes
that language, myth and science, as well as art, are distinctive symbolic
Ìèñòåöòâîçíàâ÷³ òà êóëüòóðîëîã³÷í³ àñïåêòè äèçàéí-îñâ³òè
!!
forms, which in regard to the essential function of perception emerge as
unfailing elements of the whole cultural process.
Results of the research. Art seems to be an omnipresent phenomenon: wherever and whenever man lives, there and then you will find art.
With the development of “the human spirit”, all changes that take place
in culture are reflected in images and symbols of art. However, art is not
only a mere reflexion of changes in culture but part and parcel of culture.
Art itself evolves at the dawn of humankind. Then, art had a form of
syncretism, unalienable from other forms of human activities and cognitive functions of the primitive consciousness at the early stages of development. Ernst Cassirer states that “the issue of the wellsprings of art and
written language brings us back to the age when all of them were based on
primeval and nonsegmented wholeness of ‘mythological consciousness’”.
[2]. Cassirer points that mythological consciousness or ‘Volksgeist’ is a
substructure for the commencement of any symbolic forms of culture.
Cassirer studies functions of a language, myth and religion, art and
history as ‘symbolic forms’, all of which are aspects of human ability to
form a meaningful world through symbols. Hence, it follows that different ways of thinking and of cultural environments have a common ground
in symbolic formation, which characterizes human beings as animal
symbolicon.
A sign, symbol or symbolic form emerges as a method, which engenders mental and/or spiritual outward manifestations. The essence of
consciousness, Cassirer insists, reveals itself in ‘a symbolic function’ and
realizes itself through the unity of a thesis and an antithesis. The division
into thesis and antithesis is natural for the intellect, whereas the synthesis
of the opposites is an intrinsic feature of a cognitive process, as also called
a ‘symbolic function’. Primitive art comprises some elements of analysis
and synthesis, its images serving the foundation for further development
of a written language. Art in a primitive society was of paramount importance in translating abstract images, which, apparently, were exploited in
ancient religious cults and developed into some theoretical notions. In all
probability, early examples of primitive art reflected ancient notions of
the build up of the Universe. The latter presented the prototype for the
development of the notion of the beautiful and of a perfect shape.
Language evolved alongside the development of art. Language and
art seem to have been relatively self-sufficient for the mentality, to be
involved in the creative, as well as the reflecting process of human articulation. Symbolic notion in its nature is built on the basis of symbols and
signs. Cassirer examines various relationships of ‘symbolic forms’, which
occur, in particular, within a language, myth and art, as an entity mediated by the metaphor. “The research in the development of various sym-
!"
³ñíèê ÕÄÀÄÌ ¹ 3/2006
bolic forms clearly shows that their main feature does not only consist in
reflecting the world of tangible things or demonstrates transposing the
“inner world” outward, but because of them two main aspects ‘inner’ and
‘outer’, ‘I’ and the ‘otherness’ find their own determination and delineate
each other. Assuming that the mental ‘dispute’ between I and the
‘otherness’ is part and parcel of these forms, it does not necessarily mean
that ‘I’ and the ‘otherness’ must be understood as though they are a priori
given self-sufficient entities, i. e. constituents of an entity that merge later.
The importance of any symbolic form lies in the fact that it does not stipulate the perpetuated or determined boundary between ‘I’ and the ‘otherness’
but sets it up anew, every time in a different way”. [3].
Affinity of art, myth and religion. Dissolving the boundary between
the ‘outer world’ and ‘I’ defines the affinity between myth and art. This
means that reflexion with subject-object dichotomy is not typical of art or
of mythological consciousness. Artistic cognition of reality makes the
objective world change subjectively, inasmuch as the artist introduces some
individual features in his work alongside the features of his unconscious
(i. e., the unconscious as objective aspects belong to the sphere of the
collective unconscious). Human soul reflected in a piece of art seems to
materialize itself in some way. Despite the spirit of rationalism in our
time, which is applicable to art, and which permeates almost all spheres
of culture, the esthetic value is appreciated by the transformation of the
irrational soul into a visual image. In this respect, art can evoke a certain
psychological state in an individual, irrespective of his/her intellectual
development, akin to that of a primitive mentality, whereby his/her
thoughts were more closely related to the world of things and to the life
cycles than those of a human being of today. The depth of a symbolic
effect of a piece of art on a spectator is to transgress his/her thoughts
away from the present time and point of spatial locality. However, Cassirer
points out that myth, along with art and language, is a ‘fundamental medium’ delineating ‘I’ and the universum: “This delineation occurs when a
god or a patron appears between ‘I’ and the world to join and simultaneously separate them. The true ‘Self’ of a human being or ‘I’ finds itself in
a roundabout way through the ‘divine I’. Transforming from a special
god, who deals with a limited area of activity, into an individual god is a
new step in the way to the pure subjectivity as itself”. [4]. Hence, art seems
to be able to demarcate the universum and ‘I’ and contribute to the perception of their unity. This ambivalence and divergence results as a symbolic entity of art inasmuch as the essence of the symbol is fundamental in
uniting and separating.
Today’s beholder of a piece of art commences to ‘substantivize’ his
inner self in a visual image in the same way that his remote ancestor did,
for whom his own self was an immanent substance of the universum. In
Ìèñòåöòâîçíàâ÷³ òà êóëüòóðîëîã³÷í³ àñïåêòè äèçàéí-îñâ³òè
!#
other words, mental predispositions do not limit an immanence of the
soul to the body and the material substance. In Cassirer’s opinion, at the
wellsprings of mythological thinking ‘the soul’ could be visioned as a ‘thing’
as familiar as it was ‘nearly tangible’, as if it were a ‘physical entity’. [5].
However, the given substantive is subject to transformation, accumulating more and more spiritual content, so that the soul gradually transgresses into a “template” of spirit as it were. Cassirer also points out to
the affinity of art and religion: “Religion and art, postulated by their historical roles, appear to be so interconnected that they should look mutually-indistinct as to their subject-matter and inner ‘build-up’. As was
pointed, the ancient gods of Greece were due their genesis to Hesiod and
Homer”. [6]. This interosculation is revealed in the fact of the impossibility to practice any religious cult as well as religion itself without the relevant attributes of art, for instance, as far architectural space is concerned.
However, the interconnectedness of art and religion is linked to an age, a
culture and/or a civilization, which merge together in symbols of the beautiful and the sublime.
Affinity of art and philosophy. It is plausible that art as a symbolic
form should bear similarity with philosophy and science. Ya. Golosovker,
who studied features of creative thinking, emphasizes that art “can always be regarded as kind of knowledge (cognition)”. [7]. At the dawn of
humankind, the development of the picture of the universum went along
with that of art. Therefore, primitive philosophy does not seem to lend
itself to virtually differentiating from primitive art. Moreover, “‘philosophy-as-art’ of today has not lost its significance in the volume of knowledge, as a whole, irrespective of the fact, that philosophy itself being the
“mother” of all sciences, especially Humanities, claims its role as ultimate”. [8].
Conclusion. A symbol and, correspondingly, a ‘symbolic form’ is
polycemantic in its nature, and lends itself to numerous interpretations as
it embraces interconnected relationships, i. e. the latter unites a ‘symbolic
form’, the universum and, subsequently, phenomena of culture.
In Plato’s esthetics, the ‘true’ art was the cosmos itself. [9]. However
if the ‘cosmos’ is subject to extrapolation and hence should be understood
as nature, then A. Durer’s comment becomes clear: “Truly, art is the essence of nature; and he who reveals it should be called an artist.” [10]. Art
as a symbolic form of culture seems to be exploited, both deliberately
and/or subconsciously, as a “breach of gap” i. e. between ‘I’ and the
‘otherness’, nature and culture.
Further research is intended at the study of symbols occurring in art
through all cultures, which are of paramount importance in the analysis
of a piece of art.
!$
³ñíèê ÕÄÀÄÌ ¹ 3/2006
References
1. Kü ker, Andreas. Transformation Reflexion und Heterogenitä t: Eine
Untersuchung zu den Deutungsperspektiven der Kunst in der Philosophie Ernst
Cassirers. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie
an der Universitä t Trier. – Trier, 2000
2. Êàññèðåð Ý. Ôèëîñîôèÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôîðì. Ò. 2. Ìèôîëîãè÷åñêîå
ìûøëåíèå. — Ì.; ÑÏá.: Óíèâåðñèòåòñêàÿ êíèãà, 2002. — ñ. 8.
3. Êàññèðåð Ý. Ôèëîñîôèÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôîðì. Ò. 2. Ìèôîëîãè÷åñêîå
ìûøëåíèå. — Ì.; ÑÏá.: Óíèâåðñèòåòñêàÿ êíèãà, 2002. — ñ. 167.
4. Ibid, ñ. 211.
5. Ibid, ñ. 168.
6. Êàññèðåð Ý. Ôèëîñîôèÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ ôîðì. Ò. 1. ßçûê. – Ì.; ÑÏá.:
Óíèâåðñèòåòñêàÿ êíèãà, 2001. – ñ. 18-19.
7. Ãîëîñîâêåð ß. Ý. Ëîãèêà ìèôà. – Ì., 1987. – ñ. 114.
8. Ibid.
9. Ëîñåâ À. Ô. Èñòîðèÿ àíòè÷íîé ýñòåòèêè. Âûñîêàÿ êëàññèêà. – Ì.:
Èñêóññòâî, 1974. – ñ. 28.
10. Äþðåð À. ×åòûðå êíèãè î ïðîïîðöèè//Ýñòåòèêà Ðåíåññàíñà â 2 òîìàõ.
Ñîñòàâèòåëü Â. Ï. Øåñòàêîâ. Ò. 2. – Ì.: Èñêóññòâî, 1981. – ñ. 547.
Íàä³éøëà äî ðåäàêö³¿ 14.03.06