The subject and the object of perception in various systems of art interaction

The article is devoted to revealing the qualitative features of various communicative systems of art interaction. The novelty and the urgency of this topic are dictated by existence of various ideas about the process of art perception, art experts and objects, and also about the subjects of art interaction that have not yet been integrated into a uniform system. The problem of the given article was an attempt to see all the elements of art interaction (the art object, the subject of perception, the way of art interaction) in a uniform structured space. In the beginning of the article the concept of the system of art interaction as a formationspontaneous at a certain time interval, which develops during the interaction of the subject of perception and the art object, is considered. Further, using the basic concepts of the concept of metaindividuality of art (Dorfman), the general structural components of the subsystem of the subject of perception and the object of perception have been considered. In the body of the article, on the basis of an experimental research of perception of painting, three systems of art interaction are analysed: classical, modernist, postmodernist. The qualitative features of the subject of perception, the art object and the way of their interaction are considered depending on the system they belong to. These qualitative features are defined by the fact that each system assumes three various positions of the subject of perception (the addressee, the analyst, the co-author), three types of the art object (the product, the aesthetic object, the interpretation) and three vectors, fixing the attitude of the subject of perception to the object, expressed by its directed activity (translation, structural analysis, deconstruction). The basic criteria of the subject's and object's belonging to this or that system of interaction have been given. Each of the systems of interaction has been illustrated by concrete examples of statements of respondents. The general conclusion is made that it is possible to understand the three systems of interaction as various ways of knowledge and existence in information space of the same person.

Keywords

Authors

References