Suchergebnisse

The article aims at a multidimensional discussion of the little-explored topic of the dramatic content of the philosophical problems in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky (1821—1881). There is proved that it was this feature of creativity that made the writer, with his philosophy of life and sharp, dramatically effective plot and psychological collisions, the most desirable and very productive author for the Russian theater art.Polyphony, dialogism, combined with the features of the tragic genre, are the basis for numerous theatrical embodiments of novels and novellas by F.M. Dostoevsky. The intensity of the action in his works gave rise to the expressions "novel-drama" or "drama in a novel", "novel-tragedy", and in theatrical practice it created the ground for the transformation of moral and philosophical problems into active stage action.The article reveals the context of F.M. Dostoevsky's works — the time and conditions for the emergence of novels and novellas, the problem field that united and separated him from the works of his predecessors and contemporaries, which is done on the basis of a brief description of several aspects of the philosophical-aesthetic and socio-moral systems. In this context, according to our concept, a special place is occupied by the idea that life in Russia is absurd and ridiculous, and the reflection of the absurd is the most important artistic paradigm.The article proves that the analyzed philosophy of F.M. Dostoevsky's life received polar genre embodiments in the theater. Thus, the dramatic and melodramatic beginning was characteristic of the performances that had in their center the so-called little man. The article presents an understanding of the most remarkable performances of the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century: "The Idiot" by G. Tovstonogov, with a new trend of searching for a "positively beautiful" person, which had a significant impact on many theatrical experiences in Russia; "The Petersburg Dreams" by Yu. Zavadsky, as a unique experience for Soviet art of creating a tragic work in full accordance with the aesthetic characteristics of this genre; "And I Will Go, and I Will Go" by V. Fokin, as the last emotional outburst of the young generation of Soviet creators who thought in the moral and psychological parameters of F.M. Dostoevsky's characters; "The Karamazovs" by K. Bogomolov — a postmodern experience of an absurdist reading of the multifaceted text of the classic.In the works of the writer and their theatrical embodiment, the article notes the signs of a carnival worldview, a combination of grotesque and subtle psychologism in the stage versions of F.M. Dostoevsky (in particular, when working with ironic and satirical texts, "Uncle's Dream" and especially "The Village of Stepanchikovo", where sympathy and negative connotations are integrated into a single artistic space). The article correlates the writer's works existential interpretations by theatrical creators of the 20th and early 21st centuries with socially significant problems, life choices, and dramatic conflicts that characterize Dostoevsky's philosophy.

The purpose of this article is to prove that world culture, whether it is a picture of the world in its generalized quality or specific artistic practices in different types of art, still remains under the unabated influence of A.P. Chekhov's personality and creativity. This applies not only to his characters, life conflicts, or individual artistic and aesthetic techniques, but also to the meaning-setting, qualitatively changed by A.P. Chekhov, which we define as "Chekhov's discourse". It is understood as a frame of reference in which intercultural communication takes place, and designated by a cultural matrix with its inherent codes and sometimes unexpected meanings, born of decades of Chekhov's attention and understanding.The author believes that the main features of Chekhov's discourse of world culture are: the creator's penetration, unique by its depth and paradoxical nature, into the social and moral world of man (a kind of "diagnosis"); the conceptual integration of the intertext and context of individual creativity and world cultural experience; and the formation of aesthetic foundations for the art of absurdity as a characteristic cultural phenomenon of the Chekhov and post-Chekhov eras.The "diagnosis" was a product of Chekhov's unique intellectual insight and intuitive talent. The property of Chekhov's diagnosis, and the explanation that there were no recipes, is the presence of Chekhov's figure and his picture of the world in the cultural continuum. The continuation of Chekhov's thoughts and imaginative systems, with all their details and models, are several layers of creative "products" created in different types of art and in different periods that have passed in the life of mankind after Chekhov.Chekhov's intertext is a dialogue between a Russian person and other epochs and authors; this dialogue is not without irony in relation to the "interlocutors", to the subject of discussion, to life itself, a source of unexpected associations and ideas about the paradoxical connections of life and being. The author believes that Chekhov's context as a semantic facet of Chekhov's discourse has been manifested primarily in those connections and influences that were and continue to be of a personalistic nature: researchers from different countries, followers in his creativity.In the space of eternity, against the background of paradoxical cultural trends, a phenomenon has been formed that we previously designated as the concept of "Russian absurdity" first introduced into scientific circulation. On the one hand, Chekhov's discourse of world culture, had unobtrusively introduced into artistic practice the principles of alogism, mutual misunderstanding, alienation, ironic discrepancies of everyday manifestations and details, on the other hand, it had marked the existence of ordinary people in the space of eternity, in an empty and dangerous, alien and incomprehensible world.

The Russian theatre of the last centuries is a distinctly formed identity code, possessing certain content (social and moral) and formal (artistic and aesthe­tic, including those genre and verbal) features. The purpose of this article is to justify the presence of the Russian theater as an identity code, of which we believe there are two discourses — civilizational and mental.Drama is defined as a borderline civilizational code of the Russian theatre. This is both a kind of literature that has developed dynamically, paradoxically, creating an outstanding repertoire for the theater, and the definition of a life situation that characteri­zes theatricality as a specific feature of Russian identity. The civilizational discourse of the Russian theatre manifests itself through the paradoxes of conflict in psychological drama. The unique (mentally deterministic) cultural dimension of the Russian drama forms a logical chain: time, space, and a person lost in time and space. The drama comes into the person's life not only as a kind of literature, but also as a situation of their existence.Russian directing is defined as a mental/specific and, at the same time, civilizational/universal code. The civilizational discourse in the Russian, as well as the world theatre represents the paradox associated with the institutionalization of director's profession as an embodiment of the demiurgic beginning and the sphere of self-realization of individual peculiarities of a creative personality (which can be seen in the experience of V. Meyerhold and E. Vakhtangov, G. Tovstonogov and Yu. Lyubimov, and many of the existing directors of today).An actor in Russia is more than an actor; paraphrasing the well-known formula, we pay attention to the characteristic of mental identity code inhe­rent in acting. The triad of playwright—director—actor undoubtedly forms the basis of the Russian artistic tradition and affirms the importance of professional intentions and the cultural and philosophical mea­ning of creative activity of each of the three authors of a theatrical work. The actor in this chain is the final link.The civilizational discourse, based on the universals of cultural practices, is associated with transformation of styles, methods, eternal matters, reflecting primarily in drama. The mental discourse, fully specific, is associated with local themes (acting) and paradoxical receptions of world practices and influence on them (directing).

The article raises the problem of formation of the socio-cultural research algorithm that allows to reveal the unique ratio of the layers of Russian mass culture identified by the authors. There is presented the basis of sampling and content of survey materials. Particular attention is paid to the fact of continuity of studying the Russian discourse of mass culture in theoretical-methodological and empirical terms.The article defines the conceptual grounds that became the core of the socio-cultural survey: the Russian discourse of mass culture is correlated with the globalizational and authentic layers, the presence in which characterizes both the activity of creators and the work of mass consciousness in the perception of mass culture phenomena and self-consciousness.The article summarizes the globalizational challen­ges and authentic answers presented in the materials of 300 questionnaires that were received, du­ring the period from April 15 to December 30, 2017, from respondents representing geographically almost the whole of Russia (the cities of Murmansk, Kineshma, Krasnoyarsk, Rybinsk, Simferopol, Tambov; the major regional centers of Krasnoyarsk, Samara, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Tyumen, Kazan; the small towns of Severomorsk, Novokuibyshevsk, Vsevolozhsk, Bolshoe Selo, Tutaev, Achinsk).The article proves that mass culture is not indiffe­rent for Russians — it is a challenge for formation of both active and passive position of its consumer. Having systematized the results of the socio-cultural survey of 2017, the article confirms the effectiveness of the integrative algorithm for socio-cultural study of mass culture perception, previously developed and tested in 2015. As a result, the article verifies the historically determined existence of modern mass culture in the consciousness of our contemporary as a signi­ficant environment of life, not reflected on the level of personal intentions of self-consciousness.