“Culture,” wrote the French philosopher J.-P. Sartre, “saves and justifies nothing and no one. But it is the work of man - in it he seeks his reflection, in it he recognizes himself, only in this critical mirror he and can see your face." What did the author mean? Can you agree with him on everything? Can culture save a person?
Please help with this assignment :(
A14. A self-organizing system of naturally developing social relations between individuals, where everyone acts not as a citizen of the state, but as a private person who has his own special life goals, is called: 1. civil society 2. rule of law 3. politic system 4. political institutions
A15. The head of state of N. is the monarch, who received power by inheritance, the armed forces of the country and the church are subordinate to him. What information is needed to conclude that N. is an absolute monarchy in form of government? one. Large territory state 2. The presence of a functioning parliament 3. The unlimited power of the monarch 4. The monarch is a very educated person
A16. Which judgment is correct? A. The unification of several sovereign states created to solve common problems is called a confederation. B. A confederation is characterized by a contractual basis of formation 1. only A is true 2. only B is true 3. both judgments are correct 4. both judgments are incorrect
A17. the main objective pursued by the separation of powers in a democratic state is: 1. creating jobs for government officials 2. controlling the life of civil society 3. preventing excessive concentration of power by one person or one body 4. sovereignty, independence in the exercise of internal and foreign policy
A18. Authoritarian political regime characterized by: 1. the presence of a developed system of justice 2. the rights and freedoms of citizens as supreme value which are respected, protected and guaranteed by the state 3. allowing a certain ideological and political diversity, the boundaries of which are strictly defined 4. a clearly defined system of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial
A19. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russia is a constitutional state. Which of the following factors does not meet this definition: 1. the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to recognize as unconstitutional the decision of the head of the administration of the subject of the federation and its cancellation 2. initiation of a criminal case for non-payment of taxes against the Minister of Economy 3. registration for participation in the parliamentary elections of the 22nd political parties 4. arrest public figure, who criticized the economic policy of the state
A20. Are the judgments correct? A. Parliamentarism is a system of power in which the parliament is not only the highest legislative, but also a representative (elected) body of power B. Parliamentarism assumes that laws adopted by parliament cannot be repealed by any body state power 1. only A is correct 2. only B is correct 3. both judgments are correct 4. both judgments are incorrect
A21. The form of government, in which all power is concentrated in the hands of one person, is not limited by anyone or anything and is inherited, is called: 1. absolute monarchy 2. constitutional monarchy 3. parliamentary monarchy 4. republic
A22. The main purpose of the legislature is: 1. implementation of laws 2. control over the implementation of laws 3. adoption of laws 4. fight against ideological opponents
You are a witness to a dispute between two comrades. One believes that democracy is the unlimited freedom of the individual, the ability to do everything,you wish. Another argues that freedom, although it is one of the leading signs of democracy, nevertheless does not mean permissiveness, but implies restrictions (measures). You are given the floor. help me please
Guys, please help me with an essay on social science to write ... nothing comes into my head ... here are the topics (choose one): * Philosophy. humana person must unshakably believe that the incomprehensible is comprehensible otherwise he will not be able to explore anything
*social Psychology.
We love people not so much for the good they have done to us, but for the good we have done for them.
*economy.
politics has its own independent hand, acting in a direction opposite to that of the invisible hand of the market. *sociology. to appreciate family happiness, patience is necessary; impatient natures prefer unhappiness.
*political science.
*jurisprudence
If I had to evaluate two provisions: “do not do iniquity” and “do not endure iniquity”, according to their practical importance for the community, then I would say that the rule “do not endure iniquity” should come first, and “do not do it " - on the second.
Question: I would be very grateful to you if you answer this question :) "Culture," wrote the French philosopher Jean-P. Sartre, "saves and does not justify anyone or anything. But it is the work of man - in it he seeks his reflection , in it he recognizes himself, only in this critical mirror can he see his own face. What did the author mean? Can you agree with him on everything? Can culture save a person? Please help with this assignment :(
I would be very grateful to you if you answer this question :) “Culture,” wrote the French philosopher Jean-P. Sartre, “saves and does not justify anyone or anything. in it he recognizes himself, only in this critical mirror can he see his own face. What did the author mean? Can you agree with him on everything? Can culture save a person? Please help with this assignment :(
Answers:
Culture is the creation of spiritual and cultural values by a person. Directly, any creation of a person can be perceived both from a critical point of view and perceived, finding in it features similar to one’s inner opinion. A person truly reveals himself as inspiration comes from within himself!
Similar questions
- What is the genre of the work, Best of all, Leo Tolstoy
- How can you form verbs with the suffix sya from the noun earth?
- Sinwein to the words letterist and obtemist
- do not support me there is every chance to become a millionaire in Moscow and Russia
- On Tuesday, 11 identical jackets were sewn in the atelier, on Wednesday 13 of the same jackets. In total, 72 m of fabric were used up from them. How many meters of fabric were used on each of these days.
It is important to understand the place of Orthodox culture among world cultures, and at the same time to comprehend the work of art created within the framework of Orthodox culture. Let us formulate more precisely what is supposed to be understood by culture.
Since our goal is to comprehend the metaphysical picture of reality, the question of culture should be put in the most general view. Such a formulation of the problem leads to the consideration of a person as acting, because in this context, the analysis of the cultural action of a person is able to raise our constructions to an ontological level. We believe that art is the fruit of an activity that recreates human being in its integrity, and culture realizes this being precisely as human in its entirety. Therefore, when defining the concept of "culture", it is important for us to emphasize the active, dynamic, procedural nature of culture. The ultimate generality is also important, from the point of view of which it is necessary to formulate the concept of culture. But if this or that culture studied by us does not seem to exist, but really exists, then, therefore, we are talking about the definition of culture as becoming. Therefore, it is proposed to understand culture as the result of such an action, in which an integral human being is.
Our reasoning is based on the conviction that with the emergence on a certain historical stage Orthodox culture, cultural phenomena of a qualitatively different order become possible. It is characteristic of cultural action within this new order that it is no longer only man who creates. Therefore, we can say that all subsequent cultural epochs allocated in European history, must be considered from the standpoint of assessing their loyalty or betrayal to the new order of reality established with the emergence of Christian culture.
Thus, the aesthetically contemplative nature of the Renaissance is directly connected with a fundamental ontological change. Art takes on a completely different character, the emphasis shifts from the ethical-theurgic sphere to the realm of pure aesthetics. What is this root cause? It seems that with the falling away of Catholicism from church unity and, as a consequence of this, with a change in the very nature of cultural action.
Having lost God as the living source of all cultural action, the Renaissance caused the secularization of art. Painting abandons reverse perspective and moves to direct, creating optical illusion three-dimensional space. Man in work of art ceases to be an iconic image, turns into an image in which the anatomical proportions of the body are observed. Gogol in his story "Portrait" is horrified by the groundless naturalism of such an image: "It was no longer art, it destroyed the harmony of the portrait itself. They were alive, they were human eyes! It seemed as if they were cut out of a living person and inserted here.
The next historical shift is associated with the Reformation movement and the emergence of Protestantism, with the emergence of a corresponding cultural shell. In Protestant culture, not only the basis, but also the very method of salvation has been lost. The place of Orthodox mental work is occupied by considerations of reason. “Protestantism,” says P. Florensky, “is also a religion, also communication, but communication in concepts. Hegel and Kant were deeply religious - but in concepts. Therefore, Protestants do not and cannot have magic. Kant thought: "God is the unity of the universe" - true, but abstractly. In another place, Florensky writes that in the confrontation between Kant and Plato, "the principle of truth from man collided with the principle of truth from God." Man is capable of knowing only what is immanent to himself. Therefore, the knowledge of God is possible if God "lives" in a person, otherwise the knowledge of God is profaned, replaced by self-knowledge.
Here it is appropriate to raise the question of the connection between the world of fine art and the moral world. From Kant comes the tradition of justifying morality independent of religion. According to Kant, morality is autonomous in relation to religion. To be more precise, this very conceptual religion, devoid of a vital source and a sure way, is equated with morality. And therefore morality ceases to be a living and vital inspiration of goodness and becomes external rules of conduct, devoid of connection, and therefore accidental.
Kant's aesthetics is also connected with this attitude. The aesthetic faculty of judgment is directly and immediately connected in Kant with reason, the legislator of morality. “Beautiful,” says the philosopher, “is a symbol of the morally good.” And the sublime in him becomes the measure of morality, but morality is so flawedly understood. However, an important remark should be made: although Kant's mind is related to the aesthetic state, but its relation, in contrast to the situation when it comes to the feeling of the sublime, is not meaningful, but formal.
Schiller, correcting Kant, turns the aesthetic into an intermediate link between the moral and the sensual, that is, he accepts the formal moment of reason, expressed in expediency. internal state individual, for content. Art now in Schiller acquired an important social significance, because, delivering aesthetic pleasure to a person, it simultaneously performed the task of familiarizing him with morality.
This is how a romantic worldview is born, according to which the aesthetically beautiful itself is capable of vitally influencing the moral sphere. But it is important to understand that such a correlation is correct and is able to function only in the case when it is considered within a correctly ontologically rooted and correctly oriented cultural environment. That is, when every action within the culture-creating subject of history has God as its source and goal. It is then possible to infallibly apply moral predicates to aesthetic phenomena. Our thought is confirmed by the following words of Vladyka Sergius (Stragorodsky): “In the mind of the Orthodox Church, the concepts of goodness and bliss have always had an inner conformity and kinship; ... but in order to be at the level of this church teaching, in order to understand the internal conformity of doing good and eternal life, for this it is necessary to rise to that stage of spiritual and moral development, when virtue ceases to be an external law and a feat and becomes the highest good of man. As perceived by Romanticism, such a correlation is ineffective and inevitably leads to distortions within the framework of a culture that has a religious cult as its core, devoid of a vitally functioning, true (that is, divine) Source.
We have come to the following conclusion that the interaction of the aesthetic and moral spheres depends on the structure of the cultural environment. Aesthetic phenomena are able to vitally interact with the sphere of the moral only when their relationship arises within a truly ontologically rooted and correctly oriented cultural environment.
It is most convenient, when considering the resulting distortion, to turn to the analysis creative evolution N. V. Gogol, since it becomes obvious in it and is overcome in the pursuit of Orthodox culture the one-sidedness of the worldview of German romanticism and the aesthetic anthropology associated with it.
Quite rightly, researchers see in "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" a spirit, akin to creativity Hoffmann, the interweaving of motives of German romantic demonology and Ukrainian folk tale. For this time, which V. Zenkovsky calls "the period of aesthetic romanticism", characteristic in Gogol's worldview is the glorification of the aesthetically beautiful and confidence in the morally beneficial influence of beauty, typical of romanticism. This trend appears most vividly and with all clarity in Gogol's article "Woman", in which, according to Mochulsky, he "sings the divine basis of love and the ennobling influence of beauty."
Also characteristic is the following remark by Mochulsky that Gogol during this period was characterized by "lack of a sense of reality, an inability to distinguish truth from fiction." That is, the ontological falsity of romanticism comes into play. The writer is alien to the truth of otherness, reality in his mind is either idealistic or does not exist at all. Gogol's tragedy lay in the fact that, having retained a sense of vital, non-fictional truth on a non-rational level, he consciously follows the wrong principles of romantic idealism, in the beautiful he wants to find a source of moral perfection. Moreover, the Gogolromantic comes to the conclusion that it is possible to really transform with his work, to make morally more perfect a society mired in sins. And when this fails, the unfortunate writer, not in a fit of clouded mind, but quite consciously, burns his best work, thereby exposing the falsity of his original aspiration, understands the extra-moralism and even immorality of such an attitude of consciousness.
In his work, Gogol wanted to see a magical tool that could change reality. But what can really have such power? Let us turn to the arguments of Pavel Florensky. “Communication of man and mankind with the absolute Personality — God is the sacrament. This "magic", so to speak, "white magic", magic is bright, blessed, Christian. In Orthodoxy, God is baptism, confession, communion, prayer - all these are sacraments. Our God is available for communication. So, a real transformation of reality is possible only when "God is available for communication", that is, within the framework of Orthodox culture. And Gogol comes, rushes to the Church. The acquisition by the great writer of a positive basis for creativity is fully revealed in his book "Selected passages from correspondence with friends." Here thoughts are expressed about the fate of people, wandering on the path of life without God, but, above all, the belief that “through a return to Christ, humanity can gain new strength.” However, this will require a "spiritual turning point in modernity", that is, a metaphysical transformation, which, according to Gogol, must take place "within its old forms."
Yes, in Gogol's experience, as researchers of his life note, there are undoubted elements of an ascetic anguish, a painful overstrain of repentant reflection. But it is important for us that with this sharp asceticism he combines a persistent will to public action. And if the writer comes to the Church precisely on this path, then doesn’t this indicate that social transformation is possible only through the involvement of society itself on the path of a qualitatively different being in an environment that has the never-ending Source of truth and true being as the last beginning of its manifestation? .
With the emergence of Christianity, a different structure of reality is potentially affirmed, and therefore becomes possible. The Church is born, in which this new structure is actualized. According to its universal design, it is designed to embrace all of humanity, to call all people to the path of existence within the framework of this new reality. The religious cult is changing, and at the same time, cultural action. A culture arises in which it is no longer a man who creates, not only a man, but God Himself incarnated “wonderfully paints heavenly images in the hearts of people,” according to the words of one holy father. Such is Orthodox culture, which most fully and purely manifested in the world a different, qualitatively new order existence. This is how we approach the definition of another type of cultural historical subject, the realization of which is Orthodox culture. Here it is no longer man himself who creates, not only man, but God Himself is the source of cultural action. There is, as it were, a doubling of the world, a revelation of its depths, it is not reduced only to the natural order of things. Christ in the described tradition no longer appears as an object of human creativity, but the usual subject-object relationship is reversed, and St. Macarius of Egypt sees Christ as an icon painter who writes His image in us: “If someone does not strive for Him unceasingly and does not despise everything else, then the Lord does not write His image in him with His light.”
Orthodox culture, which arose as a result of overcoming the natural order of reality, can really, vitally introduce a person into the realm of the one saved by God, due to the fact that a characteristic feature of Orthodox culture is its close relationship with the divine-human organism, the Church. Orthodox culture is essentially one of the phenomena in the world of the Church, its natural shell.
N. Berdyaev in his book "The Meaning of Creativity" speaks of the participation of man "in the eighth day of creation", equates genius with holiness, explains the essence of art as the theurgical ability of man. Obviously, such a view of art could only be formed within the framework of Orthodox culture, as a distortion of it. Theurgic in its essence is a cult, not an art. Orthodox art is only a consequence of a deeper reality - the ascent of man to God in prayer. It seems that Berdyaev violates priorities here. What can be said about a religious and cult action, he says about a derivative sphere, only indirectly connected with a real theurgical ascent.
Coming close to the question of the moral significance of cultural phenomena, the possibility of their impact on a person who is involved in this culture, it is appropriate to mention the work of Pavel Florensky “Temple Action as a Synthesis of Arts”. I have heard accusations against this article that the Eucharist is not at all a synthesis of the arts, but something much more. But Florensky does not even speak of the Eucharist, but speaks only of a cultural phenomenon or phenomena that accompany the Eucharist, arise from it, and do not give rise to it. That is, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between realities of completely different orders. It's one thing when it comes to ontological transformation human nature but quite different when it comes to cultural phenomena, this is the ontological transformation of the attendants. Culture is a derivative of a religious cult, but as characteristic of a certain people, a nation, culture is a very specific, becoming unit. historical process. Can culture save a person? No, because in itself it functions in a much more external area of being than that in which a person is rooted. But a person is saved in the sphere of a religious cult. To save a person means to overcome his very existential root.
In the light of the above reasoning, one can understand and evaluate the features of Orthodox and Catholic culture. It is easy to see that the objects of the field of aesthetic experience, as well as this experience itself, differ significantly in Western and Orthodox culture. It is clear that for Orthodox music, painting is characterized by balance, the absence of a passionate impulse, symbolism. The subject to which the artist strives has already been partly acquired by him. The icon teaches about an already transfigured person. This experience of real communion with the Truth is always experienced as a kind of fullness, and hence, peace. “After all, churchliness,” writes Fr. Pavel Florensky, - this is the name of that haven, where the anxiety of the heart subsides, where the pretensions of the mind are subdued, where great peace descends into the mind.
The statement of Pope Pius XII is interesting: “Sacred music does not sound during the liturgy, it is not added to the liturgy, it is the liturgy itself”. It is characteristic of Catholic culture and sounds quite in the spirit of the romantic worldview. In the Orthodox religious cult, when God Himself is involved in the cultural process, an integral act performed, which includes music, painting, architecture, and movement, can be understood as a single liturgical sacrament. Although this, of course, does not exclude the possibility of the Liturgy without a cultural shell. Fine Catholic art, losing its only possible in religious art source, is no longer images of the mountain world, but inner world an artist who proclaimed himself the source of aesthetic truth.
The culture generated by the church of distorted Christianity is, albeit with correct aspirations, but a natural subject that creates its own natural, objective culture. Objective, because the final result of aspirations is God, is perceived only objectively, within the framework of the relationship between subject (Church) and object (God). Within the framework of the culture generated by the Orthodox religious cult, the subject is realized, which is overcome by the divine incarnation, itself becomes an object in the system of relations subject (God) - object (Church).
So, it is necessary to distinguish between the Church and the cultural environment generated by it. It can be said that the components religious life, which in Orthodoxy are determined by the Church, are the basis of all cultural phenomena, and these latter are a superstructure above them. I repeat the question: is culture capable of saving a person? No, it can only accompany or introduce, organically combine with the area in which the ontological transformation of the horizon of human existence is really possible.
Based on the formulated provisions, the following types of cultural subjects in history can be distinguished:
a subject in which God is an ontological source, as well as the ultimate goal of cultural action (Orthodox culture);
a subject, devoid of an absolute source, but possessing a correct goal; striving, but never really acquiring this goal (Old Testament Judaism, natural religiosity; here we can also include the distorted subject of history - catholic church in which one can see the loss of the source while maintaining the right aspirations; the brightest cultural phenomenon such an order of reality was the aesthetics of the Renaissance; in the loss of the reverse perspective of the pictorial image, in the transition to a direct perspective, one can see the consequence, the phenomenon of the ontological revolution that has occurred);
a subject that does not have a true source, and is also deprived of a true method, that is, not striving for a worthy goal. As an example, we point to german romanticism and German classical philosophy as a cultural shell and Protestant church as the core of this shell.
Logically continuing the classification, one could point to the subject, devoid of ontological striving, but possessing the right rootedness. But it seems that in the historical perspective there can be no reality that fully corresponds to such a model. It is important to understand that the above design scheme reflects priorities rather than real situation of things.
When it comes to culture, no one can take away the palm from the French: extraordinary, amazing, sophisticated - that's distinctive features French culture. Without a doubt, only long and rich story could lead to the emergence of such a rich culture. It was in France that many currents of world culture were born, which had a significant impact on the course of history, the development of science, art and literature in general. The cultural heritage of France is truly enormous. This country has been and remains the center of world art for many centuries. France may be a small country in terms of geography, but it is one of the greatest when it comes to creativity, art, philosophy, science and technology.
Great writers, poets, playwrights, artists, actors, fashion designers, musicians and scientists, haute couture and haute cuisine - all this is an integral part of the very concept of "France". It is to the French that we owe the appearance cinema and cinematography(The Lumiere brothers). French cinema was formed after the Second World War: the following received worldwide recognition: "Parma Monastery" (1948), "Red and Black" (1954), "Teresa Raquin". In the 1940s and early 1950s, such brilliant actors like: Gerard Philippe, Bourville, Jean Marais, Marie Cazares, Louis de Funes, Serge Reggiani. " New wave French cinema has become a separate phenomenon in world culture. Thanks to Francois Truffaut, Claude Lelouch and other young talented directors, France has become one of the centers of world cinema. In the 1960s, Jeanne Moreau, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Gerard Depardieu, Catherine Deneuve, Alain Delon, Annie Girardot, French comedians Pierre Richard and Coluche entered the French cinema scene. The tone of modern French cinema is set by such directors as Luc Besson, Jean-Pierre Genet, Francois Ozon, Philippe Garrel. Speaking of actors, it is worth mentioning Jean Reno, Audrey Tautou, Sophie Marceau, Christian Clavier, Matthew Kassovitz, who have become world stars. It is in France, since 1946, that the famous International Film Festival in Cannes has been held.
If there is anything related to France and known to everyone, then it is most likely haute couture. The great French fashion designers Chanel (Chanel), Dior (Dior), Yves Saint Laurent ( Yves Saint Laurent) raised clothing modeling to the rank of a real art. To whom, if not the famous Coco Chanel, we owe the appearance in our wardrobe of such things familiar to us: shoulder bag, metal jewelry, chains, small black dress, blouses and trousers for men. (Recall that back in 1932, the head of the French police forbade Marlene Dietrich to go out in trousers on the street). After the war in France, real revolution in the world of fashion: in 1946 the first bikini swimsuit appears, in 1947 Christian Dior creates his own special new style. Soon, Yves Saint Laurent, the chief fashion designer of the House of Dior, released his first sensational collection.
Literature in France, it begins to develop in the 9th century, in any case, the memoirs of literature that have come down to us date from this century. of his heyday literary creativity reaches in the 12th century. This is evidenced by the famous epic poem "The Song of Roland", chivalric literature ("Tristan and Isolde"), the poetry of trouveurs and troubadours. In the Renaissance, Rabelais' novel "Gargantua and Pantagruel" appears, Michel Montaigne publishes his "Experiments". In the era of classicism, along with literature, philosophy actively develops. The names of such French philosophers, writers and playwrights like Descartes, Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Charles Perrault, Jean de La Fontaine are familiar to everyone educated person. Each literary era(Enlightenment, realism, romanticism, symbolism) in France is associated with names that are known all over the world today: Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas, Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, the Goncourt brothers, Charles Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud.
In the XX century, French literature (the literature of modernism) is developing intensively, as well as itself French. Marcel Proust, André Gide, Anatole France and Romain Rolland, Francois Mauriac and Paul Claudel, Apollinaire, Cocteau, Breton, Aragon, Camus, Ionesco and Beckett became the founders of various literary schools and currents. French writers of our time (Christian Bobin, Amelie Nothombe, Frederic Begbeder, Muruel Barberry, David Fonkinos, Anna Gavalda, Michel Houellebecq, etc.) in their own way reflect the "spirit of the age" in their works. French literature distinguished by social sharpness, humanism, refinement and beauty of form.
Painting in France began to develop very early. Already in the 17th century, it occupied leading place in cultural life countries. France gave us such styles of art as Rococo (Antoine Watteau, Francois Boucher), Impressionism. For many centuries, the art of Italy had a significant impact on the development of the fine arts of France. However, already in the 1860s french art makes a real breakthrough, after which France becomes the undisputed leader. This breakthrough is associated primarily with the work of impressionist artists: Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas, Auguste Renoir, Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, Gustave Caillebotte and others. Post-impressionism is known to us from the work of such major artists like Paul Gauguin, Vincent van Gogh and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. France is gradually developing new art schools and trends in painting: pointillism (Georges Seurat, Paul Signac), the Nabis group appears (Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis), Fauvism (Henri Matisse, Andre Derain), Cubism (Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque).
musical culture France is no less interesting and diverse - this is due to the fact that the French language itself is extremely melodic, the rhythm of the song often coincides with the rhythm of the language. Jazz came to France in the 1920s, most prominent representative which was Stefan Grappelli. In the XX century. At the peak of popularity were Edith Piaf, Charles Aznavour, Georges Brassens. revived folk music(folk music), piano and accordion are two instruments that we always associate with french music. In the second half of the 20th century, pop music begins to take a leading position not only in France, but throughout the world, we are well acquainted with such performers as: Mireille Mathieu, Dalida, Joe Dassin, Patricia Kaas, Mylene Farmer and many others.
Don't worry too much, Zoya. The ethnos is not dying out because of dirt. Culture is like a stream. And no matter how much you hold her, she will still make her way. And the stronger you hold, the stronger the flow will be later. true culture always had a vector directed upwards. She always tried to free herself from the oppression of the earthly and corruptible. She wanted a breakthrough. Longed for the highest attainment. And the more it was oppressed by the state, society, the ruling cohort, the stronger its powerful stream broke through after the destruction of the dam holding it back. It has always been so.
The current of the Renaissance arose out of the religious pressure of medieval Catholicism. The revolution of 1917 swept away the seemingly correct foundations of classical society. But in this society, according to L. N. Gumilyov creative elite has already largely lost the ability to be creative, and the uncreative - the lower majority, has gained Creative skills as a result of a revolutionary upheaval, having formed a completely different culture, and in art - the avant-garde. Stalinism, holding back culture ideologically, having collapsed, gave place to the optimistically seething flow of the “thaw”. The same is observed at the level of subculture. In places of detention, where there seems to be a terrible pressure on the individual, the subculture flourishes brightly, accommodating clear communication principles, a certain existential philosophy, worldview, and several well-developed art genres available.
Moreover, where a certain culture meets oppression and is forced to manifest itself as a subculture - covertly and underground, it has a clear outline and certainty, vivid expressiveness, and also for those who are at least somehow oriented towards it - the indisputability of its values. These qualities come from a culture's focus on resisting its own oppression. So it was, for example, with rock culture or earlier with jazz, in Soviet society. But as soon as this culture is “resolved”, it immediately begins to assimilate, lose its liveliness, sharpness, forbidden attractiveness, becoming first a fashion and part of mass culture, and then an almost traditional form and even a classic.
You might think that in modern society, which is characterized by cultural liberalism, nothing and no one oppresses culture. But it's not. The world is dominated by a kitsch form of culture. This false culture is pushing Culture out of capital letter. This new type oppression occurs not only on the basis of the interpenetration of cultures, "cultivation" and expansion, but, above all, from the penetration of pop culture and anti-culture through the means mass media to any culture.
Everything high is replaced by low, everything inspired is standard, logical, accessible to any meager mind and idea. At the level of emotions, worship of the replicated "values" is implanted, the desire to possess them, and happiness is imposed as standard set these "values". Vulgarity and cynicism, penetrating the weak minds and fragile souls of people, multiply and receive a chain of rebirths into even more vulgar and cynical, dirt and decay. … But this is the fertile ground for the fresh shoots of the New Culture.
On the one hand, modern the developed countries approach, turning into new form universal culture. On the other hand, within each society there is an unprecedented stratification into internal subcultures, according to interests. Both that and another is a consequence of modern high communicativeness. These two forms interact with each other, mutually enriching and feeding each other. For example, rapidly developing recent times The Internet contributes both to stratification according to the principle of interests, and to unification through its super-informativeness. As a result, each individual receives the freedom to choose their cultural interests, their cultural development and manifestations. The world is becoming culturally transparent. This is a completely new state in the history of mankind. This is a huge cultural and historical plus.
Small fontanels, scattered for the time being, originating from human hearts, merge into a single powerful stream. And there is no way to stop him now. Dam
