artistic fiction on the early stages the formation of art, as a rule, was not realized: the archaic consciousness did not distinguish between historical and artistic truth. But already in folk tales, which never pretend to be a mirror of reality, conscious fiction is quite pronounced. We find a judgment about fiction in Aristotle's Poetics (ch. 9 - the historian talks about what happened, the poet about the possible, about what could happen), as well as in the works of the philosophers of the Hellenistic era.

For a number of centuries, fiction appeared in literary works as a common property, as inherited by writers from their predecessors. Most often these were traditional characters and plots, which were somehow transformed each time (this was the case (92), in particular, in the dramaturgy of the Renaissance and classicism, which widely used ancient and medieval plots).

Much more than it used to be, fiction showed itself as an individual property of the author in the era of romanticism, when imagination and fantasy were recognized as the most important facet. human being. "Fantasy<...>- wrote Jean-Paul, - there is something higher, it is the soul of the world and the elemental spirit of the main forces (what are wit, insight, etc. - V.Kh.)<...>Fantasy is hieroglyphic alphabet nature." The cult of the imagination, characteristic of early XIX century, marked the emancipation of the individual, and in this sense constituted a positively significant fact of culture, but at the same time he had Negative consequences(artistic evidence of this is the appearance of Gogol's Manilov, the fate of the hero of Dostoevsky's "White Nights").

In the post-romantic era, fiction narrowed its scope somewhat. Flight of the imagination 19th writers in. often preferred direct observation of life: characters and plots were close to their prototypes. According to N.S. Leskov, real writer- this is a "scribe", not an inventor: "Where a writer ceases to be a writer and becomes an inventor, there disappears any connection between him and society." Let us also recall Dostoevsky's well-known judgment that the intent eye is capable of discovering "a depth that Shakespeare does not have" in the most ordinary fact. Russian classic literature was more a literature of conjecture" than of fiction as such. At the beginning of the XX century. fiction was sometimes regarded as something outdated, rejected in the name of recreating real fact, documented. This extreme has been disputed. The literature of our century, as before, relies extensively on both fiction and non-fictional events and persons. At the same time, the rejection of fiction in the name of following the truth of fact, in some cases justified and fruitful, can hardly become the mainstay of artistic creativity (93): without relying on fictional images, art and, in particular, literature are unimaginable.

Through fiction, the author summarizes the facts of reality, embodies his view of the world, and demonstrates his creative energy. Z. Freud argued that fiction is associated with unsatisfied inclinations and suppressed desires of the creator of the work and expresses them involuntarily.

The concept of fiction clarifies the boundaries (sometimes very vague) between works that claim to be art and documentary and informational. If documentary texts (verbal and visual) from the “threshold” exclude the possibility of fiction, then works with an orientation towards their perception as artistic willingly allow it (even in cases where the authors limit themselves to recreating real facts, events, persons). Messages in literary texts are, as it were, on the other side of truth and lies. At the same time, the phenomenon of artistry can also arise when perceiving a text created with an orientation towards documentary: “... for this it is enough to say that we are not interested in the truth of this story, that we read it, “as if it were the fruit of<...>writing."

The forms of “primary” reality (which again is absent in “pure” documentary) are reproduced by the writer (and the artist in general) selectively and somehow transformed, resulting in a phenomenon that D.S. Likhachev called internal the world of the work: “Each work of art reflects the world of reality in its creative perspectives<...>. World artwork reproduces reality in a certain "abbreviated", conditional version<...>. Literature takes only some of the phenomena of reality and then conventionally reduces or expands them.

There are two trends artistic imagery, which are denoted by the terms conventionality(emphasis by the author of non-identity, and even opposition between the depicted and the forms of reality) and lifelikeness(leveling such differences, creating the illusion of the identity of art and life). The distinction between conventionality and lifelikeness is already present in the statements of Goethe (the article “On Truth and Plausibility in Art”) and Pushkin (notes on dramaturgy and its implausibility). But the relationship between them was especially intensely discussed on turn of XIX- (94) XX centuries. Carefully rejected everything implausible and exaggerated L.N. Tolstoy in the article "On Shakespeare and his drama". For K.S. Stanislavsky, the expression "conventionality" was almost synonymous with the words "falsehood" and "false pathos". Such ideas are associated with an orientation towards the experience of the Russian realistic literature XIX century, the imagery of which was more lifelike than conditional. On the other hand, many artists of the early XX century. (for example, V.E. Meyerhold) preferred conventional forms, sometimes absolutizing their significance and rejecting lifelikeness as something routine. So, in the article P.O. Jacobson "About artistic realism”(1921), conventional, deforming, tricks that make it difficult for the reader (“to make it harder to guess”) rise to the shield and plausibility, identified with realism as the beginning of inert and epigone, is denied. Subsequently, in the 1930s - 1950s, on the contrary, lifelike forms were canonized. They were considered the only ones acceptable for literature. socialist realism and conventionality was suspected of being related to odious formalism (rejected as bourgeois aesthetics). In the l960s, the rights of artistic convention were again recognized. Nowadays, the view has been strengthened that lifelikeness and stratification are equal and fruitfully interacting tendencies of artistic imagery: “like two wings on which the creative fantasy in an indefatigable thirst to find the truth of life.

Early historical stages art was dominated by forms of representation, which are now perceived as conditional. This is, firstly, generated by a public and solemn ritual idealizing hyperbole traditional high genres (epopee, tragedy), the heroes of which manifested themselves in pathetic, theatrical spectacular words, poses, gestures and had exceptional features of appearance that embodied their strength and power, beauty and charm. (Remember epic heroes or Gogol's Taras Bulba). And secondly, this grotesque, which was formed and consolidated as part of the carnival festivities, acting as a parodic, comical "double" of the solemnly pathetic, and later acquired programmatic significance for the romantics. It is customary to call the grotesque the artistic transformation of life forms, leading to some kind of ugly inconsistency, to the combination of the incompatible. The grotesque in art is akin to a paradox in (95) logic. MM. Bakhtin, who studied the traditional grotesque imagery, considered it the embodiment of a festively cheerful free thought: “The grotesque frees from all forms of inhuman necessity that permeate the prevailing ideas about the world<...>debunks this need as relative and limited; grotesque form helps liberation<...>from walking truths, allows you to look at the world in a new way, to feel<...>the possibility of a completely different world order. In the art of the last two centuries, the grotesque, however, often loses its cheerfulness and expresses a total rejection of the world as chaotic, frightening, hostile (Goya and Hoffmann, Kafka and the theater of the absurd, to a large extent Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin).

In art, from the very beginning there are also life-like principles that made themselves felt in the Bible, the classical epics of antiquity, and the dialogues of Plato. In the art of modern times, lifelikeness almost dominates (the most striking evidence of this is the realistic narrative prose XIX century, in particular -L.N. Tolstoy and A.P. Chekhov). It is essential for authors who show a person in his diversity, and most importantly, who seek to bring the depicted closer to the reader, to minimize the distance between the characters and the perceiving consciousness. However, in art XIX–XX centuries conditional forms were activated (and updated at the same time). Nowadays, this is not only traditional hyperbole and grotesque, but also all kinds of fantastic assumptions (“Kholstomer” by L.N. Tolstoy, “Pilgrimage to the Land of the East” by G. Hesse), demonstrative schematization of the depicted (B. Brecht’s plays), exposure of the device (“ Eugene Onegin "A.S. Pushkin), effects mounting composition(unmotivated changes in place and time of action, sharp chronological "breaks", etc.).

3. Artistic fiction. Conditionality and lifelikeness

artistic fiction in the early stages of the formation of art, as a rule, was not realized: the archaic consciousness did not distinguish between historical and artistic truth. But already in folk tales, which never pretend to be a mirror of reality, conscious fiction is quite clearly expressed. We find a judgment about fiction in Aristotle's Poetics (ch. 9 - the historian talks about what happened, the poet about the possible, about what could happen), as well as in the works of the philosophers of the Hellenistic era.

For a number of centuries, fiction appeared in literary works as a common property, as inherited by writers from their predecessors. Most often these were traditional characters and plots, which were somehow transformed each time (this was the case (92), in particular, in the dramaturgy of the Renaissance and classicism, which widely used ancient and medieval plots).

Much more than before, fiction manifested itself as an individual property of the author in the era of romanticism, when imagination and fantasy were recognized as the most important facet of human existence. "Fantasy<...>- wrote Jean-Paul, - there is something higher, it is the soul of the world and the elemental spirit of the main forces (what are wit, insight, etc. - V.Kh.)<...>Fantasy is hieroglyphic alphabet nature" 1 . The cult of the imagination, characteristic of the beginning of the 19th century, marked the emancipation of the individual, and in this sense constituted a positively significant fact of culture, but at the same time it had negative consequences (artistic evidence of this is the appearance of Gogol's Manilov, the fate of the hero of Dostoevsky's "White Nights") .

In the post-romantic era, fiction narrowed its scope somewhat. The flight of imagination writers of the XIX century. often preferred direct observation of life: characters and plots were close to their prototypes. According to N.S. Leskov, a real writer is a “scribe”, not an inventor: “Where a writer ceases to be a scribe and becomes an inventor, there disappears any connection between him and society” 2 . Let us also recall Dostoevsky's well-known judgment that the intent eye is capable of discovering in the most ordinary fact "a depth that Shakespeare lacks" 3 . Russian classical literature was more a literature of conjecture than fiction as such 4 . At the beginning of the XX century. fiction was sometimes regarded as something outdated, rejected in the name of recreating a real fact, documented. This extreme has been disputed 5 . The literature of our century, as before, relies extensively on both fiction and non-fictional events and persons. At the same time, the rejection of fiction in the name of following the truth of fact, in some cases justified and fruitful 6 , can hardly become the mainstay of artistic creativity (93): without relying on fictional images, art and, in particular, literature are unimaginable.

Through fiction, the author summarizes the facts of reality, embodies his view of the world, and demonstrates his creative energy. Z. Freud argued that fiction is associated with unsatisfied inclinations and suppressed desires of the creator of the work and expresses them involuntarily 7 .

The concept of fiction clarifies the boundaries (sometimes very vague) between works that claim to be art and documentary and informational. If documentary texts (verbal and visual) from the “threshold” exclude the possibility of fiction, then works with an orientation towards their perception as artistic willingly allow it (even in cases where the authors limit themselves to recreating real facts, events, persons). Messages in literary texts are, as it were, on the other side of truth and lies. At the same time, the phenomenon of artistry can also arise when perceiving a text created with an orientation towards documentary: “... for this it is enough to say that we are not interested in the truth of this story, that we read it, “as if it were the fruit of<...>writing" 1 .

The forms of “primary” reality (which again is absent in “pure” documentary) are reproduced by the writer (and the artist in general) selectively and somehow transformed, resulting in a phenomenon that D.S. Likhachev called internal the world of the work: “Each work of art reflects the world of reality in its creative perspectives<...>. The world of a work of art reproduces reality in a kind of "abbreviated", conditional version.<...>. Literature takes only certain phenomena of reality and then conventionally shortens or expands them” 2 .

At the same time, there are two trends in artistic imagery, which are denoted by the terms conventionality(emphasis by the author of non-identity, and even opposition between the depicted and the forms of reality) and lifelikeness(leveling such differences, creating the illusion of the identity of art and life). The distinction between conventionality and lifelikeness is already present in the statements of Goethe (the article “On Truth and Plausibility in Art”) and Pushkin (notes on dramaturgy and its implausibility). But the relationship between them was especially intensely discussed at the turn of the 19th - (94) 20th centuries. Carefully rejected everything implausible and exaggerated L.N. Tolstoy in the article "On Shakespeare and his drama". For K.S. Stanislavsky, the expression "conventionality" was almost synonymous with the words "falsehood" and "false pathos". Such ideas are associated with an orientation towards the experience of Russian realistic art. literature XIX century, the imagery of which was more life-like than conditional. On the other hand, many artists of the early XX century. (for example, V.E. Meyerhold) preferred conventional forms, sometimes absolutizing their significance and rejecting lifelikeness as something routine. So, in the article P.O. Yakobson's "On Artistic Realism" (1921) rises to the shield conditional, deforming, tricks that make it difficult for the reader ("to make it harder to guess") and denies plausibility, identified with realism as the beginning of inert and epigone 3 . Subsequently, in the 1930s - 1950s, on the contrary, lifelike forms were canonized. They were considered the only acceptable ones for the literature of socialist realism, and conventionality was suspected of being related to odious formalism (rejected as bourgeois aesthetics). In the l960s, the rights of artistic convention were again recognized. Nowadays, the view has been strengthened that lifelikeness and conventionality are equal and fruitfully interacting tendencies of artistic imagery: “like two wings on which creative imagination relies in an indefatigable thirst to find the truth of life” 4 .

In the early historical stages, art was dominated by forms of representation, which are now perceived as conditional. This is, firstly, generated by a public and solemn ritual idealizing hyperbole traditional high genres (epopee, tragedy), the heroes of which manifested themselves in pathetic, theatrical spectacular words, poses, gestures and had exceptional features of appearance that embodied their strength and power, beauty and charm. (Remember the epic heroes or Gogol's Taras Bulba). And secondly, this grotesque, which was formed and consolidated in the composition of the carnival festivities, acting as a parodic, comical "double" of the solemnly pathetic, and later acquired a programmatic significance for the romantics 1 . It is customary to call the grotesque the artistic transformation of life forms, leading to some kind of ugly inconsistency, to the combination of the incompatible. The grotesque in art is akin to a paradox in (95) logic. MM. Bakhtin, who studied the traditional grotesque imagery, considered it the embodiment of a festively cheerful free thought: “The grotesque frees from all forms of inhuman necessity that permeate the prevailing ideas about the world<...>debunks this need as relative and limited; grotesque form helps liberation<...>from walking truths, allows you to look at the world in a new way, to feel<...>the possibility of a completely different world order. In the art of the last two centuries, the grotesque, however, often loses its cheerfulness and expresses a total rejection of the world as chaotic, frightening, hostile (Goya and Hoffmann, Kafka and the theater of the absurd, to a large extent Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin).

In art, from the very beginning there are also life-like principles that made themselves felt in the Bible, the classical epics of antiquity, and the dialogues of Plato. In the art of modern times, lifelikeness almost dominates (the most striking evidence of this is the realistic narrative prose of the 19th century, especially L.N. Tolstoy and A.P. Chekhov). It is essential for authors who show a person in his diversity, and most importantly, who seek to bring the depicted closer to the reader, to minimize the distance between the characters and the perceiving consciousness. However, in the art of the XIX-XX centuries. conditional forms were activated (and updated at the same time). Nowadays, this is not only traditional hyperbole and grotesque, but also all kinds of fantastic assumptions (“Kholstomer” by L.N. Tolstoy, “Pilgrimage to the Land of the East” by G. Hesse), demonstrative schematization of the depicted (B. Brecht’s plays), exposure of the device (“ Evgeny Onegin" by A.S. Pushkin), the effects of the montage composition (unmotivated changes in place and time of action, sharp chronological "breaks", etc.).

Artistic invention.

Conditionality and lifelikeness

artistic fiction in the early stages of the formation of art, as a rule, was not realized: the archaic consciousness did not distinguish between historical and artistic truth. But already in folk tales, which never pretend to be a mirror of reality, conscious fiction is quite clearly expressed. We find a judgment about fiction in Aristotle's Poetics (ch. 9 - the historian talks about what happened, the poet - about the possible, about what could happen), as well as in the works of the philosophers of the Hellenistic era.

For a number of centuries, fiction appeared in literary works as a common property, as inherited by writers from their predecessors. Most often, these were traditional characters and plots, which were somehow transformed each time (this was the case, in particular, in the dramaturgy of the Renaissance and classicism, which widely used ancient and medieval plots).

Much more than before, fiction manifested itself as an individual property of the author in the era of romanticism, when imagination and fantasy were recognized as the most important facet of human existence. "Fantasy<…>- wrote Jean-Paul, - there is something higher, it is the soul of the world and the elemental spirit of the main forces (what are wit, insight, etc. - V.Kh.)<…>Fantasy is hieroglyphic alphabet nature." The cult of the imagination, characteristic of the beginning of the 19th century, marked the emancipation of the individual, and in this sense constituted a positively significant fact of culture, but at the same time it had negative consequences (artistic evidence of this is the appearance of Gogol's Manilov, the fate of the hero of Dostoevsky's "White Nights") .

In the post-romantic era, fiction narrowed its scope somewhat. The flight of imagination writers of the XIX century. often preferred direct observation of life: characters and plots were close to their prototypes. According to N.S. Leskov, a real writer is a "scribe" and not an inventor: "Where a writer ceases to be a writer and becomes an inventor, there disappears all connection between him and society." Let us also recall Dostoevsky's well-known judgment that the intent eye is capable of discovering "a depth that Shakespeare does not have" in the most ordinary fact. Russian classical literature was more a literature of conjecture than fiction as such. At the beginning of the XX century. fiction was sometimes regarded as something outdated, rejected in the name of recreating a real fact, documented. This extreme has been disputed. The literature of our century - as before - widely relies both on fiction and on non-fictional events and persons. At the same time, the rejection of fiction in the name of following the truth of fact, in some cases justified and fruitful, can hardly become the mainstay of artistic creativity: without relying on fictional images, art and, in particular, literature are unimaginable.

Through fiction, the author summarizes the facts of reality, embodies his view of the world, and demonstrates his creative energy. Z. Freud argued that fiction is associated with unsatisfied inclinations and suppressed desires of the creator of the work and expresses them involuntarily.

The concept of fiction clarifies the boundaries (sometimes very vague) between works that claim to be art and documentary and informational. If documentary texts (verbal and visual) from the “threshold” exclude the possibility of fiction, then works with an orientation towards their perception as artistic willingly allow it (even in cases where the authors limit themselves to recreating real facts, events, persons). Messages in literary texts are, as it were, on the other side of truth and lies. At the same time, the phenomenon of artistry can also arise when perceiving a text created with an orientation towards documentary: “... for this it is enough to say that we are not interested in the truth of this story, that we read it,“ as if it were the fruit of<…>writing."

The forms of “primary” reality (which again is absent in “pure” documentary) are reproduced by the writer (and the artist in general) selectively and somehow transformed, resulting in a phenomenon that D.S. Likhachev called internal the world of the work: “Each work of art reflects the world of reality in its creative perspectives<…>. The world of a work of art reproduces reality in a kind of "abbreviated", conditional version.<…>. Literature takes only some of the phenomena of reality and then conventionally reduces or expands them.

At the same time, there are two trends in artistic imagery, which are denoted by the terms conventionality(emphasis by the author of non-identity, and even opposition between the depicted and the forms of reality) and lifelikeness(leveling such differences, creating the illusion of the identity of art and life). The distinction between conventionality and lifelikeness is already present in the statements of Goethe (the article "On Truth and Plausibility in Art") and Pushkin (notes on dramaturgy and its implausibility). But the relationship between them was especially intensely discussed at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Carefully rejected everything implausible and exaggerated L.N. Tolstoy in the article "On Shakespeare and his drama". For K.S. Stanislavsky, the expression "conventionality" was almost synonymous with the words "falsehood" and "false pathos". Such ideas are connected with the orientation to the experience of Russian realistic literature of the 19th century, the imagery of which was more life-like than conditional. On the other hand, many artists of the early XX century. (for example, V.E. Meyerhold) preferred conventional forms, sometimes absolutizing their significance and rejecting lifelikeness as something routine. So, in the article P.O. Yakobson's "On Artistic Realism" (1921), the conventional, deforming, tricks that make it difficult for the reader ("to make it harder to guess") rise to the shield and plausibility, identified with realism as the beginning of inert and epigone, is denied. Subsequently, in the 1930s - 1950s, on the contrary, lifelike forms were canonized. They were considered the only acceptable ones for the literature of socialist realism, and conventionality was suspected of being related to odious formalism (rejected as bourgeois aesthetics). In the l960s, the rights of artistic convention were again recognized. Now the view has been strengthened, according to which lifelikeness and conventionality are equal and fruitfully interacting tendencies of artistic imagery: "as if two wings on which creative imagination relies in an indefatigable thirst to find the truth of life."

In the early historical stages, art was dominated by forms of representation, which are now perceived as conditional. This is, firstly, generated by a public and solemn ritual idealizing hyperbole traditional high genres (epopee, tragedy), the heroes of which manifested themselves in pathetic, theatrical spectacular words, poses, gestures and had exceptional features of appearance that embodied their strength and power, beauty and charm. (Remember the epic heroes or Gogol's Taras Bulba). And secondly, this grotesque, which was formed and consolidated as part of the carnival festivities, acting as a parodic, comical "double" of the solemnly pathetic, and later acquired programmatic significance for the romantics. It is customary to call the grotesque the artistic transformation of life forms, leading to some kind of ugly inconsistency, to the combination of the incompatible. The grotesque in art is akin to a paradox in logic. MM. Bakhtin, who studied the traditional grotesque imagery, considered it the embodiment of a festively cheerful free thought: “The grotesque frees from all forms of inhuman necessity that permeate the prevailing ideas about the world<…>debunks this need as relative and limited; grotesque form helps liberation<…>from walking truths, allows you to look at the world in a new way, to feel<…>the possibility of a completely different world order. In the art of the last two centuries, the grotesque, however, often loses its cheerfulness and expresses a total rejection of the world as chaotic, frightening, hostile (Goya and Hoffmann, Kafka and the theater of the absurd, to a large extent Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin).

In art, from the very beginning there are also life-like principles that made themselves felt in the Bible, the classical epics of antiquity, and the dialogues of Plato. In the art of modern times, lifelikeness almost dominates (the most striking evidence of this is the realistic narrative prose of the 19th century, especially L.N. Tolstoy and A.P. Chekhov). It is vital for authors who show a person in his diversity, and most importantly, who seek to bring the depicted closer to the reader, to minimize the distance between the characters and the perceiving consciousness. However, in the art of the XIX-XX centuries. conditional forms were activated (and updated at the same time). Nowadays, this is not only traditional hyperbole and grotesque, but also all kinds of fantastic assumptions (“Kholstomer” by L.N. Tolstoy, “Pilgrimage to the Land of the East” by G. Hesse), demonstrative schematization of the depicted (B. Brecht’s plays), exposure of the device (“ Evgeny Onegin" by A.S. Pushkin), the effects of the montage composition (unmotivated changes in place and time of action, sharp chronological "breaks", etc.).