Oksana Pushonkova
Urgency of the research. The relevance of the topic is due to the necessity to systematize visual studies, which should be built on the semantic dynamics of cultural changes, taking into account the peculiarities of modern polymethodology.
Target setting. A huge number of visual studies that need to be understood and organized appear with the expansion of the contexts of understanding the visual and visuality, with the emergence of new formats of media virtuality, with changing perceptions of reality and presence, with the spread of specific modes of perception and vision. We must rely on the critique of modern culture as an attempt to comprehend and evaluate these new phenomena.
Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. Most modern researchers pay attention to the need for to systematization of visual research in one way or another, because new theories must be understood in the context of previous achievements and in connection with modern interpretations of similar concepts and practices. It is productive to turn to the works of representatives of the “pictorial” (or “affective”) in visual research, media archeology, to the interdisciplinary discourse of cultural studies and to the discourse of archaization with its ideas of partici-pation and mimicry visuality. The ideas of D. Elkins, T. Mitchell, K. Batayeva, G. Jenkins, D. Crerey, F. Jamison are the most relevant in defining different contexts of visuality and “optics” of the picture of the world in their unity with artistic and everyday practices.
The research objective Identify approaches to creating a balanced model of the visual, which would take into account different points of view and through which you can explain not only the specific features of modern visual culture, but also to predict its development for the future.
The statement of basic materials. The article reveals the patterns of visual research, which are built around the understanding of the concepts of visual and visuality and the specifics of visual experience, which is the core concept of modern theories. Systematization of understanding the phenomenon of visuality historically unfolds within three approaches. The need to study the discourse of archaization and its constructive potential for modern visual research is emphasized.
Conclusions. In visual research of the XX – the beginning of the XXI century there is a transition from the art history paradigm to the cultural-anthropological paradigm. There is a tendency to form a balanced model of the visual in connection with the postmodern syncretism of theoretical concepts and cultural practices. It requires increasing attention to individual experience, which is the basis of visuality in the context of the destruction of standardized schemes of understanding the visual. The approaches outlined in the article (ontological-dichotomous, textual-contextual, postsyncretic (which reconciles socio-communicative and phenomenological-hermeneutic theory)) are built into the spectrum of polymethodology, which necessarily requires recourse to the discourse of archaization. The reorientation from the culture of contemplation to the culture of complicity, from the culture of consumption to the culture of creation, encourages the study of the possibilities of new modes of vision, primary pre-figurative experience of perception and prerequisites for the emergence and formation of visual thinking.
Key words: cultural practices, visual and visuality, visual experience, visual research studies, visual culture, archaization of visuality, modes of vision.
References:
1. Jenkins, H 2006, Convergence culture: where old and new media collide, New York: New York University Press, 336 p.
2. Mitchell, W 1994, Picture Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 445 p.
3. Bataeva, KV 2014, Fenomen media-vizualnosti: opyt sociokulturnogo analiza (The phenomenon of media visuality: the experience of sociocultural analysis). Dissertaciya doktora nauk, Harkovskij gumanitarnyj universitet “Narodnaya ukrainskaya akademiya”, Harkov, 465 s.
4. Burlaka, V 2006, “Globalnij realizm” v ukrayinskomu mistectvi seredini 2000-h rokiv, Narisi z istoriyi obrazotvorchogo mistectva Ukrayini XX st. (Elektronna kopiya) : u 2 kn., In-t probl. suchas. mistec. AMU, redkol.: VD Sidorenko (golova) ta in., Kiyiv: Intertehnologiya. Kn. 1: red.-uporyad O. Avramenko, elektron. tekst. dani (1 fajl: 305 Mb), Kiyiv: NBU im. Yaroslava Mudrogo, 2017, s. 393 – 423.
5. Gete, IV 1996, Hromatika, Psihologiya cveta (Chromatics, Psychology of color), Moskva: Refl Buk, Vakler, s. 281–349.
6. Dzhejmison, F 2000, ‘Postmodernizm i obshestvo potrebleniya (Postmodernism and the consumer society)’, Logos, Moskva: Izdatelstvo instituta Gajdara, № 4, s. 63–77.
7. Knabe, G 2006, ‘Dvuedinstvo kultury (The duality of culture)’, v kn. Izbrannye trudy: Teoriya i istoriya kultury, otv. red.: NI, Kuzmenko, Moskva: Letnij sad, s. 7–19.
8. Kreri, D 2014, Tehniki nablyudatelya. Videnie i sovremennost v XIX veke (Observer techniques. Vision and Modernity in the 19th Century), Moskva: V-A-C press, 256 s.
9. Panchenko, V 1998, Mistectvo v konteksti kulturi (Аrt in the context of culture), Kiyiv: TOV “Mizhnar. finansova agenciya”, 192 s.
10. Pavlenko, A 2004, ‘Teatr kak “opticheskij pribor predstavleniya” (Theater as an "optical performance device")’, Chelovek, № 1, s. 34 – 42.
11. Rozin, V 1996, Vizualnaya kultura i vospriyatie. Kak chelovek vidit i ponimaet mir (Visual culture and perception. How a person sees and understands the world), Moskva: Editorial URSS, 224 s.
12. Elkins, Dzh 2010, Issleduya vizualnyj mir (Exploring the visual world), Vilnyus: EGU, 534 s.