ИМПЛИЦИТНАЯ ЭСТЕТИКА, ПРИНЦИП РЕЛЬЕФА И ТЕОРИЯ ФОРМООБРАЗОВАНИЯ В АРХИТЕКТОНИЧЕСКИ-ИЗОБРАЗИТЕЛЬНЫХ ИСКУССТВАХ

Власов В.Г.

Доктор искусствоведения, профессор кафедры истории западноевропейского искусства,

ФГБОУ ВПО Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет

ИМПЛИЦИТНАЯ ЭСТЕТИКА, ПРИНЦИП РЕЛЬЕФА И ТЕОРИЯ ФОРМООБРАЗОВАНИЯ В АРХИТЕКТОНИЧЕСКИ-ИЗОБРАЗИТЕЛЬНЫХ ИСКУССТВАХ

Аннотация

В статье рассматриваются возможности «скрытой» (имплицитной) эстетики, создаваемой  самими художниками. Их главное внимание всегда привлекали вопросы  формы и формообразования, но не в качестве отвлеченной игры, а как органичный и целостный процесс созидания специфической содержательно-формальной целостности. Подобный метод «мышления формой» автор предлагает именовать архитектоническим. Архитектоника выражает художественно-образный смысл формы во всех визуальных видах искусства. Поэтому мы можем  называть их архитектонически-изобразительными искусствами, а собственно архитектоническую форму «общим знаменателем» всех видов «пластических искусств». 

Ключевые слова: архитектоника, имплицитная эстетика, принцип рельефа, формообразование.

Vlasov V.G.

PhD in Art Studies, professor of the History of Western European Art department,

VPO  St. Petersburg State University

IMPLICIT AESTHETICS, RELIEF PRINCIPLE AND THE THEORY OF FORMBUILDING IN ARCHITECTONIC-VISUAL ARTS

Abstract

The article considers the possibility of "hidden" (implicit) aesthetics created by the artists. Their main focus was always attracted to the questions of form and formbuilding, but not as an abstract game, but as an organic and holistic process of creating content-specific formal integrity. This method of "thinking by form" the author proposes to call architectonical. Architectonica expresses artistic image  meaning  in all forms of visual arts. Therefore, we can call them architectonically-visual arts, and the actual architectonic form of the "common denominator" of all kinds of "plastic arts".

Keywords: architectonic, implicit aesthetics, the principle of relief, formbuilding.

Aesthetics as a universal science of the beautiful in the life and in the art are divided into two types: explicit (as a branch of philosophy) and implicit (as a free interpretation of the aesthetic experience in other types of the creative activities). The first concerns the actual nature of a theoretical discipline, the other, implicit ("hidden") aesthetics is represents, a particularly, theoretical reflection of the artists.

It would seem, that the artist  does  like better than others can explain how it works. However, understanding and dialogue between historian, theorist, artist and viewer complicated fundamental difference of perception of amateur and professional "way of looking". The artist, who every day, over many years working on a pictorial form, develops other than ordinary, a special way of a reality perception.  Theorists forms his own impressions about the art, to a larger extent on  reflecting on the theme of reading  or discussion with colleagues, such as scribes, as they did.  Artists tend to dislike theorists and regard them as too far removed from the problems of professional work. Academic critics respond that the artists theorize differently as amateurs in science, their cause – a brush and paints.  Art critics – mediators, and the attitude towards them from the creators of artistic works purely pragmatic. The conflict is predetermined.

In 1976 the magazine "Decorative Art of the USSR" published an article by V. L. Glazychev "210 lines about the intrinsic value" [1]. Vyacheslav Leonidovich Glazychev (1940–2012), architect and theorist of architecture and design, critic and social activist, defended the idea of "intrinsic value", the independence of the works of  monumental and decorative arts – wall painting, mosaics, stained glass – on the environment, because "the quality of form" is the same for all types of art. Glazychev from 1964 with E. A. Rosenblum led the experimental studio of the Soviet Union of Artists on the design in an urban environment.

Opposing simplified understanding of the monumentality and decorativeness as the coarsening and schematization of forms (which has become a fashionable stereotype of the domestic arts in 1960–1970), Glazychev put forward two criteria for allowing, in his opinion, to carry out "quality tested" works of monumental art. This is "complexity" and "detail". Paphos of the article is understandable, but the main idea of the author leads to the paradox of "intrinsic value", and in fact –  turn off the product of the spatial context. And this, as it is known, is inexcusable for an artist of monumental and decorative art, whose work is intended to solve the problem of organic interaction of painting and sculpture with architecture space. It was strange to expect a different view of the man who devoted himself to the fight for the integrity of the urban and social environment.

In response to the article by V. L. Glazychev artist A. V. Vasnezov published own under the title "Criteria of the intrinsic value and stylization temptation" [2]. Andrey Vladimirovich Vasnezov (1924–2009) – an artist of monumental art, a descendant of the famous Russian painters Victor Mikhailovich Vasnezov and Apollinaris Mikhailovich Vasnezov. The the article Vasnezov wrote, that the "complexity" of the work of art and the ability to withstand the fragmentary enlargements can not testify to its artistic quality, as in this area it is not determined by the autonomy, but harmony to the  environment. This fact has not been questioned, so Vasnezov suggested to understand first the notion of "quality".

For this, he compared the two works: the famed "School of Athens" by Raphael Santi and created in imitation of this work in the middle of the XIX century fresco "Renaissance" by Wilhelm von Kaulbach in the Berlin Museum (not preserved, known for engraving 1867).

In Raphael's work, wrote A. V. Vasnezov, "the ancient theater ... each figure refers to the whole as a structural element ...". In Kaulbach "figures, each of which takes its pre-image position, but we can not escape the impression that this is a just a crowd of people, for some reason, an unnatural posture, committing stupid movements". Even more striking difference in the plastic structure of this works, continues the author of the article. "Vertical columns and horizontal ladders play in Raphael work decisive role. Groups are strictly subject to this system. But this amazing matching verticals and horizontals, giving integrity and harmony of the whole,  Kaulbach  did not see and do not understand ... I do not understand it, and the meaning of Raphael's perspective: in Raphael's fresco first and second tiers of the figures, anyway, by weight, equal; thus he achieves relief and maintains the unity of the infamous plane wall. In our memory fans of "flat" style asserted that any depth destroys the plane of the picture, but you can be sure: in  Raphael's work it organizes the plane, and at Kaulbach really destroys. Kaulbach fails the background and throws out the front of the plane of the picture ... Kaulbach manufacture  huge amount of details: faces, hands, clothes, folds, which are almost independent of each other. Raphael each stroke is related to the whole, every detail is required ... ". Of course, the author notes, Raphael helps the architecture, painted on the wall in the background of the figures, and why connections of the figures acquire  quality of alignment, architectonical. It is possible that a comparison of the two artists is historically incorrect. In one case it is the great masterpiece of outstanding epoch, in the other case –  work of the time  lost  classical tradition and disorder holistic worldview.

But, A. V. Vasnezov mind, not discussed epoch and artists, but principles of composition. In the first case, the obvious clarity and integrity of artistic "thinking by form," generated by a great epoch, and in the second – the lost of this ability, manifested in the inability to connect the elements of the composition in a whole.

The reason for this striking contrast is obvious: the organic connection the art of painting with  architectural space (including the architecture depicted within the fresco) in the Renaissance epoch and the lack of architectural molding power in the second half of the XIX century. Which is a consequence of the general discord between art and life, artist and his time.

Continuing the theme, Vasnezov compared works of Giotto di Bondone and E. Burne-Jones, english preraphaelit, trying to emulate the great Italians. "If in Giotto work every detail right applies to the whole as a structural element of the whole and not only picture, but also the entire architectural space, and even, one might say, of the whole universe (as understood by Giotto), then in Burne-Jones work attention to detail  is determined by the  literature rather than plastic understanding". Next A. V. Vasnezov correlated mosaics of Ravenna by VI century and  paintings by Cezanne at the end of XIX century. "And today – the artist wrote, – came to the exhibition of fragments of  Ravenna mosaics, I find that the work of Cezanne are in their plastic expression closer to that than any repetitions of Byzantine stylization of the second half of the XIX century, although there was a time when such stylizations is not called only a continuation, but improvement of  "Byzantine style"... But Cezanne, unlike Ravenna mosaicists, did not worked in architecture. "But the significance of Cezanne for monumental artist, – wrote further Vasnezov, –  in my opinion, is huge –  it is that the artist saw in nature basics of organized pictural forms." Cezanne opened in the very nature plastic system ... He also relied on the classics ... and build its own opening the color  relief coincided with efforts of the medieval masters ... "

Medieval  mosaics of Ravenna "may be in the museum, and they will be fine. But their quality could appear only as a part of the whole ", i. e. architecture. And therein lies their great artistic power. "They can be seen as a museum piece, but established so they could not be." In other words, the artistic quality is not the "intrinsic valuable," and there is some way as a result of understanding the artist connection of his work with the environment. This conclusion is consistent with the essential definition of the phenomenon  of decorativeness is not secondary decoration, but as a fundamental way of artistic thinking. It sounds strange, but such a definition has long been known. According to a study by K. A. Makarov, the composition called decorative, because artistic sense which is in interaction with the environment – space,  mass, plane size, surface quality, to be decorated [3]. And a major role in the formation of  such artificial environment plays an architecture. In the case when it comes to easel painting, sculpture and graphics, influence of architecture  historical indirectly, but no less powerful.

Many architects, painters, graphic artists, sculptors and art teachers, concerns about the composition problems, converged in the main. Following the tradition of architectonic (alignment) of the composition as it is real or mental mediated communication with architecture space ensures consistency, clarity, expressiveness and integrity of all elements of the picture. These are the qualities that make the iconic process into high art. Organic connection of internal (conceptual) space of visual art work with the outside space of the architecture and, more broadly, with the space of the artist's life and work, his agreement with the world, gives the best composite solutions. Such works we call classical. Note also, that the A. V. Vasnezov not casually mentioned in connection with the works of Cezanne's "discovery of constructing a color relief." As we shall see, it is a fundamental principle of the  formation process in all kinds of art.

An outstanding painter and engraver on wood, theorist of art  Vladimir Andreevich  Favorsky  (1886–1964), a very peculiar way, in his characteristic style, in the spirit of implicit aesthetics, explained to his disciples: "Imagine a painting by Aivazovsky: sea, waves, sky, clouds. You look at, look on  moving the picture, reaching the edge, turned the corner, and then nails! – Where hammered nails – in the clouds, into the water? ... What, I say, nails,  the picture has frame.

Yes, the frame, and not only to mask the nails. Frame – is a transition from our space to another fine with other laws, scale ... Frame says that it is not only the sea, the sky ... but the thing, that associates with a chair, a cupboard, a table" [4].

It is the interaction of internal space-time continuum of images and outer space of the material world. This topic has been studied by I. E. Danilova, B.V. Rauschenbach, B. A. Uspensky, S. M. Daniel and other scientists.

Truly a work of art is inherent in the dual ontology: as a subject in the surrounding physical space and the relatively closed world with its own space-time relations. But it is the nature of composite relations entirely depends on the subject-object relationships, on how they are perceived by the viewer. This feature is termed "the psychology of forms":  psychology of perception mediates the formal structure of a work of art.

The next important point of implicit aesthetics, which is especially appreciated by artists: spontaneous formal thinking. Artist of visual art thinks through volumes, spatial relations, the data in the way of formbuilding, in the unity of content and form. Art idea as a creative plan arises in the mind spontaneously and directly into the form. This idea, as a rule, it is difficult to express in words. That is why many art critics lengthy descriptions of works of art, in spite of their literary merit, seem far-fetched, superficial or simply unnecessary.

In the Russian art history XX century, mainly works by theoretically minded artists, educators, and the few critics who came out of the school of practical work in the field of architecture, design, painting, drawing, graphics, consistently developed the theory of composition and artistic form. This kind of artistic art science, or special theory of morphogenesis, most in demand in the teaching of art, and which was carried out artists,  practice prone to self-reflection.  In particular, V. A. Favorsky emphasized that the terms "form" and "content" should not be opposed. "This separation of the whole,  – wrote Favorsky, – methodically wrong ... It seems to us that the work of art can all be viewed as a form, and, in turn, everything can not be regarded as a form, that is not the perception of integrity, and the material ... Under the form we would like to understand a work of art in general, considered from the point of perception of integrity. Therefore, if to oppose the form of something, not the content, but the material ... " [5, p. 195-196].

Artists often use the term "an idea in the form," or "thought-form" (Lat. Forma formans). This also occurs the expressions "thinking through the form" and "formatted form" (Lat. Forma formata). N. N. Punin used the concept "structure of plan". He wrote that the idea is only the "total commitment of the artist, the desire to design", but the idea appears to composite artist, as if already created, instantly and in the material of his art. Punin referred to the words of artist  J. Whistler: "The work done at the time of its emergence" [6]. V.A. Favorsky in this regard recalls the metaphor of the "Black Raven at the Snow", under the impression of that  image  V. I. Surikov, in his own words, painted the picture " Boyarina Morozova". In relation to his own work Favorsky said that, having received the theme, for example, from the publishing house, he immediately "thought it as a form" [5, p.239].

In essence, we are talking about a special method of transformation of visual impressions that the German sculptor and outstanding art theorist Adolf Hildebrand (1847–1921) referred to architectonical. V. A. Favorsky, studied Hildebrand's book "The problem of form in the visual art" (1893),  developed the ideas of the German theorist at the Moscow VHUTEMAS. In 1913 he was in partnership with N. B. Rosenfeld translated this book from German into Russian (published 1914).

In his theory  Hildebrand came from the fact that the meaning of visual art is not to copy the objects of reality, and in the sequential abstraction and transformation of the individual visual impressions into a new whole. Therefore, observed in nature yet to be transform "by the method of the image." This process is referred to as formbuilding, and it is nothing else than the "further development of the powers of perception." A. Hildebrand argued that the task of the artist is to create a complete image of the object. A feature of the holistic "thinking through the form"  inherent in the artist of classical art, is that he "transforms the spatial and formal representations ... consisting of numerous motor representations" to the image, which no longer requires the viewer "motional activity", because it has convincingly drawn by the artist work.

Even in the process of drawing from nature "form of existence" (in the terminology of Hildebrand), or "objective  form of the object" should be mentally convert to "form phenomena" (for example, to show how the object  is seen from a certain point of view, in a perspective and reducing lighting conditions). But this, visible form is still insufficient for the "form of influence" and "form of presentation", it should be enriched by our feelings and knowledge of the object. As a result, there is a clear and solid form, which combines various objective and subjective content sides. However, not all visual perceptions, further claims Hildebrand, give a clear, comprehensive view of the subject, therefore, "representation of the form is the output received by us from comparing the types of phenomena," which should be separated from random [7, с. 22– 27].

In the concept of Favorsky persuasiveness of the image based on the harmony of  construction and composition. Visual construction is based "on the motional representations", composition – on "purely visual", but these concepts are "distracted outside." They interact, however in the practice the artist operates there derivatives. "Art is always  strives to penetrate the construction by composition and the composition by construction," – wrote V. A. Favorsky. The physical experience of motion (tactile presentations) determines the construction of the image (motional space), and the imaginary, visual motion (plastic form) creates compositional integrity. And the artist's attitude to the visual space, epitomized by the "picture plane" of foreground, differently, it has historically developed, that determines the style of artwork.

After Hildebrand Favorsky emphasized that a variety of visual-motional representations in all kinds of visual arts, including painting and architecture, "is the unity by the "picture plane of foreground." Methodically, this is done by the mental movement of plane of the foreground (in the painting "picture plane") in depth. For clarity, "imagine two parallel glass walls and standing between them a figure, whose position is such,  that its endpoints concern them, – wrote Hildebrand, – a figure, when it’s viewed from the front through the glass wall, combined in a single planar layer ... its extreme points, touching the glass walls, are represented, even if the walls silently discard,  lying on a common plane. " This method is universal for all types of "visual arts" and a necessary condition for a holistic, t. e. artistic perception of form and space. At the same time the principle of a relief  "is  a form views,  at all times is an indicator of the artistic expression of feelings and immutable laws. The disadvantage of this kind of feeling is a lack  of artistic relation to nature " [7, p. 195].

According to the principle of the relief constructed visual space of the ancient Egyptian images in stone, on papyrus and in murals, ancient paintings and a fronton sculptures, ancient Greek vase painting and relief metopes. V. A. Favorsky in his lectures on "Theory of Composition" in VHUTEMAS (1921–1925) recalled method, invented by Michelangelo, who  immerse in water a wax model of the future  statue, and then slowly lifted  it, watching over the surface of the water appear in terms of volume, lying in the same frontal plans [8]. Hildebrand explained  this technique: "the sculptor  must put in the foundation of sculptural image  visual or pictorial representation, and only on this basis move on," in the depth of the mass of the stone block. Simply put, you must first draw a picture on the front surface of the stone, and then mentally "move" in to the depth. At the same time, "it is crucial to present and always carving at the same time that is appears  in the same plane. Only when the developed first layer image, I can move to the next ... but otherwise obtained some holes " [7, p.73].

Similarly, this method described by the sculptor Benvenuto Cellini (1500–1571), referring to the Michelangelo: "The best way ever seen is the one, which enjoyed great Michelagnolo. This same method is that, after a drawn main view, you need the same side to begin removing the marble using iron tools, as if the sculptor was going to make half-relief figure, and so little by little to reveal her " [9]. Principle of the relief strictly followed the painter Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665). Poussin used volume maquette of the composition of the future  picture: a wooden box like a theater stage, in which he placed the figures in clay, putting their tissues. Through the openings in the top and sides of the box penetrating light, which helped the artist to "dismantle" the figures of the spatial plans.

Measure the depth of the real or imaginary relief (in engraving or painting) does not coincide with the actual distances in nature, but it is in this "compressed" pictural space, ordered according to the plans (spatial layers), each figure, the element of composition or point of the surface  receives a plastic definition (such certainty Favorsky  called function of space). This gives a convincing clarity and integrity of the artwork.

According to the principle of the relief being built not only the relief images, but all classical statues. They suggest a consistent viewing at a round-trip, but be sure the front, have one main point. B. R. Whipper wrote that many photographers in search of the most spectacular angles properly photographed classical statues. Thus they distort their figurative meaning. They need to fix the front, because this is what the sculptor counted. The same applies to the classical architecture. Architectural historian Nikolai Ivanovich Brunow (1898–1971) wrote about the composition of the Parthenon of the Acropolis of Athens (447–438  BC): "The principle of the relief composition is a significant start, combining architectural and sculptural forms. The relief character  of the frontons sculpture, metopes and the ionic frieze is obvious. Convex figures in relief increases ... to frontons ... ".  But even for freestanding figures  "characterized orientation to the background wall behind – hence derives some of their flatness" [10]. Therefore, in architecturally ancient Greek temple appears as a monumental pedestal for the sculptures, and sculptures – the natural end of the architecture.

Analyzing the principle of the relief Favorsky  in the summaries of lectures on the theory of composition made seemingly paradoxical observation: "The volume perception of the world makes the flat image ... Who takes the volume, he draws a flat. This we have seen in the drawings of sculptors " [5, p.87]. Favorsky compared the "sculptural drawing" and the method of work of the sculptor: "When the sculptor cuts of stone and carve large chunks, introduces air in the sculpture, these pieces of stone is not completely destroyed and converted into a space integrally with figure. The same in engraving " [11].

The sculptor, when he drawing, mentally feeling depicted object from all sides, as it goes around and fixes it in points of volume  belonging to an individual spatial plans. This feature explains the artist, engraver and teacher P. Y. Pavlinov: "Specificity typical tactile approach to the work of the sculptor can be explained by a failure to abstract his thoughts with respect to the sheet of paper. Observing the drawing of the sculptor, you can see how he streaks individual lines and strokes literally the whole picture, as though trying to touch every point on the surface of the imaging volume in the plane – just as it happens in the sculpture " [12]. Using tactile method sculptors depict not only the surface facing to them, but also in some measure its side surfaces is not visible to the viewer. Volumetric form unfolds, flattens on the plane. This image appears flattened.

Qualities of clarity, persuasiveness spatial organization of forms,  according to the principle of the relief creates a phenomenon that we call the integrity of plastic form. The absence of these qualities indicates naturalistic, non-artistic image. Favorsky  formulated this thesis as follows: "Any realistic image will be based on object-spatial form of understanding of reality, and in this object-spatial form will be expressed world outlook, any particular artistic understanding of reality collide with the object and space, and with the relationship of one to the other. We can say that the subject-spatial form, relationship of the object to the space, will express the basic style of the work and will be image form of worldview. "

The function of the composition Favorsky saw in "reduced" construction of the image as "the expression of form in motion" through the plastic ties to underscore the integrity of the artistic image. In the representation  of objects on the plane "arbitrarily", without taking into account  the logic of these links  the Russian artist and theorist saw the lack of compositional thinking, naturalism, accident, passivity, "lethargy" and, ultimately, lack of spirituality. According to his words, Michelangelo was the first of the artists, who was able to overcome the Renaissance illusionism. In his mature works, the spatial integrity is based on a deep unity of structural and semantic relationships, that can only be achieved by the compositional method [13].

Art-imaged "thinking of form" – is primarily a compositional, connected and holistic thinking by the system of clearly perceived relationships  of internal and external. The compositional method it is logical to call architectonical. When we looking at the classical picture, sculpture or building there a clear image that the whole is reflected in the details, and more – in the small. This property we call the architectonic. It is a consequence of the definition of the functional and spatial values. Recalling the ancient myths about the singer Orpheus or Amphion, to move your music rocks, you can add that architecture, in a broader sense architectonic –not so much frozen music as a moving symphony. Moreover, the architectonic is a music for eyes not only in the stone, but also in colors, shapes and lines.

Architectonic expresses artistic-image meaning of form in all kinds of visual arts. Therefore, we can also call them architectonical-visual arts, and architectonic form – "common denominator" of all kinds of "plastic arts". Giving qualities of architectonic to human ideas about the structure of the world, artistic thinking wins time, which becomes architectonic. "At higher levels of both nature and art, where art becomes a truly symbolic, it discards the boundaries of finite simple laws ..." Art is able to portray "the universe is not only through a form, but at the same time  in its essence and in its form" [14].

References

1. Glazychev V. L. 210 lines about the intrinsic value // Decorative Art of the USSR. – 1976. – № 5. – P. 5-7.
2. Vasnezov A. V. Criteria of the intrinsic value and stylization temptation // Decorative Art of the USSR. – 1978. – № 1. – P. 11-15.
3. Makarov K. A. Decorativeness as an expression of beauty: Author. Dis. cand. – M., 1966. – 25 p.
4. Rabinovich M. A. As Favorsky taught to assemble the dish. Notes of the artist // Decorative Art of the USSR. – 1986. – № 10. – P. 22.
5. Favorsky V. A. The literary-theoretical heritage. – M .: Soviet artist, 1988. – 588 p.
6. Punin N. N. Problems of composition (1945) // Punin’s readings – 2001: Proceedings of the conference. – St. Petersburg : St. Petersburg State University, 2002. – P. 240.
7. Hildebrand A. The problem of form in the visual art and a collection of articles. – M .: Publishing House of the MPI, 1991.
8. Vasari G. Lives of the most famous painters, sculptors and architects: In 5 Vol. – M .: Terra, 1993–1994. – Vol.1. – P. 96.
9. Masters of art about art: In 7 Vol. – M .: Art, 1965-1970. – Vol.2. –P. 225.
10. Brunov N. I. The monuments of the Acropolis of Athens: the Parthenon and the Erechtheion. – M .: Art, 1973. – P.80-82.
11. Favorsky: The exhibition catalog. – M .: Soviet Artist, 1986. –P. 99.
12. Pavlinov P. Y. For those who are draws. –M .: Soviet Artist, 1965. – P. 18.
13. Chalaminsky U.Y. Vladimir Andreevich Favorsky. – М.: Art, 1964. – P.101, 105, 106.
14. Schelling F. W. Philosophy of Art. – M .: Thought, 1966. – P.281-282.