Nikolay Soloviev as a Criticm of Chernyshevsky’s Aesthetic Theory

IF 0.2 0 LITERATURE
V. Shcherbakov
{"title":"Nikolay Soloviev as a Criticm of Chernyshevsky’s Aesthetic Theory","authors":"V. Shcherbakov","doi":"10.22455/2500-4247-2023-8-1-46-63","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dissertation of Nikolay Chernyshevsky “The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality” (1855) is one of the most controversial works in the history of humanitarian sciences. Even during the author’s life, it was estimated ambiguous (and also sharply negative). Among the early responses to this work, a prominent place is occupied by the critical cycle of Nikolay Ivanovich Solovyov (1831–1874) “The Art Issue” (1865). The critic analyzes Chernyshevsky’s concepts of the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic and comes to the conclusion that his definitions are untenable. Solovyov also finds little solidity in Chernyshevsky’s judgments about certain kinds of art, noting this tendency to emphasize the imperfection of artistic works in comparison with nature. Solovyov’s main conclusions are as follows: Chernyshevsky’s “theory of reproduction” is an attempt to revive the theory of imitation of nature, while the appearance of novelty is created by pointing to “real direction of thoughts” of the author Chernyshevsky very vaguely characterizes the beautiful; grossly simplifies the tasks of art (“reproduction”); discredits the creative imagination and the artist’s craving for the ideal; seeks to lower the high status of art in the range of human interests. Solovyov’s analysis is distinguished by consistency, respect for the convictions of his opponent, as well as his own view of the issues raised by Chernyshevsky. In “The Art Issue” and other articles Solovyov defended his belief that Chernyshevsky’s “theory of reproduction” was the prototype of the utilitarian and nihilistic views on art in journalism of the 1860s. This article presents for the first time a detailed analysis of Nikolay Solovyov’ s views on art in comparison with Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic theory.","PeriodicalId":41001,"journal":{"name":"Studia Litterarum","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Litterarum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2023-8-1-46-63","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dissertation of Nikolay Chernyshevsky “The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality” (1855) is one of the most controversial works in the history of humanitarian sciences. Even during the author’s life, it was estimated ambiguous (and also sharply negative). Among the early responses to this work, a prominent place is occupied by the critical cycle of Nikolay Ivanovich Solovyov (1831–1874) “The Art Issue” (1865). The critic analyzes Chernyshevsky’s concepts of the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic and comes to the conclusion that his definitions are untenable. Solovyov also finds little solidity in Chernyshevsky’s judgments about certain kinds of art, noting this tendency to emphasize the imperfection of artistic works in comparison with nature. Solovyov’s main conclusions are as follows: Chernyshevsky’s “theory of reproduction” is an attempt to revive the theory of imitation of nature, while the appearance of novelty is created by pointing to “real direction of thoughts” of the author Chernyshevsky very vaguely characterizes the beautiful; grossly simplifies the tasks of art (“reproduction”); discredits the creative imagination and the artist’s craving for the ideal; seeks to lower the high status of art in the range of human interests. Solovyov’s analysis is distinguished by consistency, respect for the convictions of his opponent, as well as his own view of the issues raised by Chernyshevsky. In “The Art Issue” and other articles Solovyov defended his belief that Chernyshevsky’s “theory of reproduction” was the prototype of the utilitarian and nihilistic views on art in journalism of the 1860s. This article presents for the first time a detailed analysis of Nikolay Solovyov’ s views on art in comparison with Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic theory.
索洛维耶夫对车尔尼雪夫斯基美学理论的批判
车尔尼雪夫斯基的论文《艺术与现实的美学关系》(1855)是人文科学史上最具争议的著作之一。即使在作者在世的时候,它也被认为是模棱两可的(而且是非常消极的)。在对这项工作的早期回应中,尼古拉·伊万诺维奇·索洛维约夫(1831-1874)的“艺术问题”(1865)的关键周期占据了一个突出的位置。评论家分析了车尔尼雪夫斯基的美的、崇高的、悲剧的概念,得出了车尔尼雪夫斯基的定义是站不住脚的结论。索洛维约夫还发现车尔尼雪夫斯基对某些艺术种类的判断缺乏可靠性,注意到这种倾向于强调艺术作品与自然相比的不完美。索洛维约夫的主要结论是:车尔尼雪夫斯基的“再生产论”是对模仿自然理论的复兴尝试,而新奇的表象是通过指向作者的“真正思想方向”而创造出来的,车尔尼雪夫斯基非常模糊地刻画了美的特征;极大地简化了艺术任务(“复制”);使创造性想象力和艺术家对理想的渴望蒙羞;试图降低艺术在人类利益范围内的高地位。索洛维约夫的分析以其一致性、对对手信念的尊重以及对车尔尼雪夫斯基提出的问题的个人观点而著称。在“艺术问题”和其他文章中,索洛维约夫捍卫了他的信念,即车尔尼雪夫斯基的“再生产理论”是19世纪60年代新闻学中功利主义和虚无主义艺术观的原型。本文首次将索洛维约夫的艺术观与车尔尼雪夫斯基的美学理论进行比较,详细分析索洛维约夫的艺术观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studia Litterarum
Studia Litterarum LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信