Cite item


The article deals with the  problem of poiesis in the art of the second half of the XX century, as well as the problem of finding means for conceptualization and describing «a new integrity» the construction of which is conceived by Moscow conceptualists as a function through art. It is not about re-creation «(mimesis), but about» creating «a new (poiesis)» structure of the experience of the subject of aesthetic activity. It is this feature of the vision of the aesthetic act, consistently formalized since the beginning of the twentieth Century, is reflected in The works of D. Prigov. The concept of autopoiesis — given the lack of scientific instrumentation for such type of creativity — can help this is a new vision to conceptualize and describe. Two paradigms of constructing an art works are compared in the aspect of the type of its subject: «classical» (traditional) and post-nonclassical;   the «traditional artist» who prefer  «confessional» forms and discursive models, aims to «authenticity», to the expression of his own a priori unique experience of the  unique personality. The artist  who  works in a  post-nonclassical type of aesthetics, on the contrary, aims to work with a self-destructive personality. The stage in this process is the «artist-character», considered as a simulation of the author’s personality, which makes it possible to present in the works  the  integrative, integral  identity, which is the opposite of  the  author’s personality. The experience that is explicated in the  particular work  is considered within   post-non-classical aesthetics not as a direct experience of the «I» (mimesis), but as a result of analyzing the structure of experience and, as a consequence, creating a new («poiesis») structure of experience. An artistic work in this cast is the act of  an identification  of the discursive mechanism or the   mechanism of transgression, which is more important,  and the explication of this mechanism in the  text as a result of this work. The impossibility of finding «identitas» is compensated by the permissibility of its construction as the «Me as the Significant  Other». it is the poetics of the game in the area  between the «Me» and the «not-Me».

About the authors

E. A. Nechaeva

Samara National Research University

Author for correspondence.
Email: morenov@ssau.ru


Copyright (c) 2018 Nechaeva E.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies