Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

Features of the development of clay toys based on folk crafts in modern Russia

Lyu Tianchi

Postgraduate student, Department of Art History and Pedagogy of Art, A.I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University

191186, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, nab. R. Moiki, 48, korp. 6, kab. 51

138885570@qq.com

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0757.2022.8.38489

EDN:

XAYJVX

Received:

21-07-2022


Published:

03-09-2022


Abstract: The current situation in the manufacture and positioning of clay toys in Russia — a country with rich traditions of the existence of large and small crafts of this kind — is ambiguous, but has positive dynamics. The appeal to the activities of individual toy makers, both amateur and professional artists, provides the basis for understanding the current state of the craft. Of interest is the analysis of the search by craftsmen from different parts of the country for new artistic solutions both in terms of the shape of products and their decoration, in conditions of following the principles of craftsmen of the past. Currently, there is a surge of interest in clay toys in the works of modern masters from Russian researchers. However, a comprehensive study of its existence in various villages and cities of Russia has not been conducted. This determines the need to establish "hotbeds" of craft development, identify the most prominent representatives, establish links between modern creative activity and the traditions of the past, as well as identify new things that artists offer in their activities. The study also includes those crafts that have emerged recently and are not the result of continuity, but have a rather distinctive form and use elements of the artistic language of other crafts.


Keywords:

folk art, clay toy, Russia, contemporary art, specificity, author's toy, kargopol toy, samara toy, artistic tradition, ceramics

This article is automatically translated.

 

The purpose of this article is to study the artistic features of modern clay toys, which are created by Russian amateur, professional authors or creative teams in order to continue the once-existing crafts or the formation of new ones. Of interest is how the toy makers rethink the previous artistic forms, synthesize and develop them in order to create a completely new and in-demand product today. Many of the works included in the study are created on the personal initiative of the masters, and some are supported by the state or business. Naturally, this product has lost its former function of an object for children's games and fun, and, moreover, the ancient sacred semantics. Now such products function at the level of a souvenir, which is bought in connection with the desire to preserve the memory and connection with a particular place and its distinctive cultural component. Therefore, the object of the proposed study should be considered the activity of Russian toy makers of the beginning of the XXI century, and the subject is the process of existence of one of the modern directions of artistic creativity, namely, the manufacture of clay toys at the present time.

Russia is a country rich in the traditions of creating ceramics and, in particular, the products of toy makers. Large and small crafts of clay toys existed at different times in different villages and cities. They received a special heyday in the XIX century, and in the XX century the attention of researchers was again attracted to this amazing phenomenon. In Soviet Russia, a theoretical and methodological basis was formed for further research in this area. In the late 1990s - early 2000s, in some parts of the Russian Federation, the centers of creation of clay toys began to "light up" again. Of course, their scale and nature are significantly different from what was observed earlier. In some cases, these are still the works of single artists, in some cases the result of the activities of creative collectives, as a rule, associated with additional art education. Not the least role in this is played by the active assistance of the state, which focuses on the preservation of ethno-cultural diversity.

Over the past two decades, the works of authors who turn to the existence of modern crafts have been published. M.V. Krzhizhevsky [1] and A.B. Mulyzeva [2] have discovered the originality of the varieties of Samara toys. In his numerous publications, the latter author examines the problem of the author's clay toys, analyzes Samara motifs, pays special attention to the peculiarities of the formation of ornithomorphic and anthropomorphic images, as well as those that can be classified as "avant-garde". S.A. Pilyak revealed the distinctive features of whistles from Kostroma [3]. E.N. Gubanov explores the Voronezh clay toy [4]. The appearance of these studies indicates the relevance of a comprehensive analysis of the features of the artistic form of products that indicate the existence of this phenomenon associated with the national identity of the Russian people.

It is known that small-scale fishing in villages located on the territory of the modern Samara region originated at the beginning of the XVII century, and became especially widespread in the second half of the XIX century [5, p. 113]. In local museums there are a sufficient number of objects, first of all, whistles of different sizes in the form of birds, animals and very rarely people (mothers and shepherds), giving an idea of the traditions of shaping [6]. The following can be considered characteristic features of the products: the preservation of the yellow-gray color of clay and the "boring" of patterns using stamps of different shapes. In the 1960s, the fishery began to disappear, but at the beginning of the XXI century, its gradual revival began.

In many ways, this was facilitated by the position of the regional authorities, who in every possible way helped the masters and creative teams in this matter. So, within the framework of the sociocultural project "The Good Toy of the Saratov Land" (since 2013) attention to the problem of preserving and studying this phenomenon is being updated" [7]. A key role in this process was played by the master toy maker P.P. Afrikantov, who created original products based on the artistic forms and techniques of decorating the masters of the past (Fig. 1). The technology of raw material preparation, the composition of watering and paints were already lost at that time, so the master replaced them with modern ones.

Fig. 1. Afrikantov PP Clay toy. Photo. Saratov Regional Center of Folk Art named after L.A. Ruslanova. A source: https://www.socnt.ru/mastera-dpi/afrikantov-pjotr-petrovich

Another variant of the development of clay toys in the Samara region is offered by the artist L.K. Gorodetskaya. She does not seek to create products within the framework of old traditions, but creates new ones, but inspired by local culture and folklore. Images of ladies and gentlemen, children in bright outfits, chickens, bears, goats, etc. come out from under her hands (Fig. 2). L.K. Gorodetskaya makes scenes from figures, adding benches, facades of houses, trees with bright flowers. They do not feel archaic, as in the works of P.P. Afrikantov. At the same time, in terms of the softness of the molding and the smoothness of the work, they resemble Abashevsky toys, and in shape and color — Dymkovsky, but more restrained, without gold and lush folds. It is known that the source of inspiration for the master was the works of Samara carvers and, in particular, their favorite motif of the blooming mallow flower, which is often found in her products [8].

Âñòðåòèëèñü èãðóøêè è ôîòîãðàôèè. Â Ñàìàðå îòêðûëàñü âûñòàâêà «Ãîðîäñêèå ñêàçêè»

Fig. 2. Gorodetskaya L.K. Clay toys. Photo. The exhibition "Urban Fairy Tales" at the Samara Regional Art Museum (2021). A source: https://sgpress.ru/news/286568

The artist has been working in the field of animation for a long time, which probably influenced the desire to create objects close to the children's world. Moreover, the artistic language of toys was developed while working in the studio with children — direct recipients of products. To the question of the correspondent of "Samara news" about what is the peculiarity of Samara toys, the master answered the following: "Probably, first of all, in the personal approach. I pass every work through my heart. Each is a reflection of some moments in my life, people dear to me, the history and appearance of my beloved Samara and its heroes. Here is a blooming tree — a memory of my grandmother's cherry orchard, where I spent my childhood. Here is a lady with a baby — this is how I portrayed my youngest daughter with her grandson. I have a lot of different clay windows — in memory of the windows in my favorite Samara wooden houses — here they are, with a cat, with a geranium on the windowsill, with a kettle <...> that is interesting to me personally. I have a lot of different goats — this is a well-known symbol of Samara, a heavenly goat ..." [9].

The clay toy in the village of Teplovka was "born" quite recently, namely in 2000, when the creative collective "Clay Fairy Tale" was created on the basis of the House of Children's Creativity under the leadership of V.A. Fedyunina. Artists-teachers together with students continue the work of local craftsmen, which faded away in the first half of the XX century. However, due to the lack of documentary and archaeological evidence, the authors chose the path of synthesis of the features of the Dymkovsky, Kargopol and Filimonov toys. The storylines are all the same ladies and gentlemen, domestic and forest animals, birds. It is noteworthy that in the works of modern masters he feels a connection with the works of P.P. Afrikantov. This also applies to the simplicity of the form, some angularity of the figures, as well as the laconism of the design, since they retain the reddish color of the clay, slightly outlining patterns with colored lines. We also note the absence of characteristic punctures and rivets. They were replaced by an uneven surface slightly pressed to the fingers (Fig. 3).

https://sun9-east.userapi.com/sun9-74/s/v1/if2/PrtLjPad_hB4ZVRQQg1LFYM-jUBFwJct6D48zikHxq12mp1qiYutV5RzOFwJFfIpC4jRDSwo56ELgx01rsuT7BMJ.jpg?size=1600x1066&quality=96&type=album

Fig. 3. Fedyunina V.A. Clay toys. Photo (2022). A source: https://vk.com/public194185938?z=photo-168129014_457255727%2Fwall-194185938_958

It is obvious that the craftsmen from Samara and the Samara region do not seek to revive the crafts that once developed here exactly. Rather, they synthesize the most interesting features of such products from different parts of the country, which generates a wide variety of forms and decorating techniques. At the same time, it is no longer a question of preserving the previous technologies, since the masters use muffle furnaces and modern materials. The exception, perhaps, is the local clays, which serve as the basis for creative activity.

Amateur craftsmen also work in the traditions of making clay toys in the Kirov region. Researcher Ya.A. Vznuzdanov even sees in their activities signs of the revival of the fishery, which once existed in the local territories [10]. Special attention should be paid to the so—called "noble toy" - clay figurines and whistles from the village of Nobles. They are only partly connected with the old traditions of creating ceramics in these places, as they have a completely new and original form and decoration techniques. N.M. Kolchin gave an incentive to a new fishery. Thanks to her, figures of animals and birds, whistles, horseshoe charms, as well as angels and swans, painted in white and blue, appeared. The artist tells the following about the reason for choosing this particular color: "Blue is the color of the Virgin. On the holidays in honor of the Most Holy Theotokos in 1999, I was invited to participate in an international exhibition in Italy dedicated to the 2000th anniversary of Christianity, then I returned to the "noble" tradition of painting toys in blue and white tones and received the first prize for it. You can see eight-pointed stars on my toys. The eight-pointed star is called the star of the Virgin" [11]. The master connects both color and decor with the Christian faith. The proportions of her toys are elongated, like those of the Filimonov masters. However, they are more elegant and there are many neat decorative patches in them, and the painting in the form of dots and droplets is subtle and harmonious (Fig. 4).

Êíèãà  https://sun9-west.userapi.com/sun9-3/s/v1/if2/NwyDlE4KsTdocX7d0Ky4oWZrhb3tDgp7l9rU8M83M-R7oWuVQQXseHKAgAjE4UsiXX-V38m9FYiArmsoImLpAP97.jpg?size=520x390&quality=96&type=album

Fig. 4. Kolchina N.A. Clay toys. Photo (2022). A source: https://vk.com/wall-189088844?z=photo-189088844_457239110%2Falbum-189088844_00%2Frev

Master I.V. Yakushkova, a student of N.A. Kolchina, works in the Kirov region. Her style of performance resembles the teacher's toys, but the young artist does not cover the figures with whitewash, but writes with white and red paint directly on the burnt brown clay [10, p. 312]. Another craftswoman L.N. Lutoshkina uses decorative elements characteristic only for her, as well as shiny paints. Variations in decoration while maintaining a similar form indicate that as such, the tradition in relation to the artistic language of noble toys has not yet been developed, but is only being formed by the works of toy makers.

Another thing happens with the Petrovsky ceramic toy from the Kostroma region. It is considered one of the most original and rather archaic crafts [3, p. 498]. P.A. Ivanov was one of the hereditary potters. It was he who in the 1970s, based on the technology of kneading, firing and decoration of clay products known to him, began to create toys. After his death, the craft was carried out by the son of the master toy maker and his students, in particular M.A. Shmarov, S.A. Pimanova, A.N. Chechulin and G.S. Tikhomirova. Through constant repetition and interpretation, the characteristic features of an already modern toy were developed [12]. First of all, a set of images was formed, consisting of animals and birds, as well as women, water carriers, harmonicists and balalaika. The figures stand on three supports, which gives the anthropomorphic images a fabulous look. The decor is a pit—comb ornament with a small number of rivets (Fig. 5). The surface of the toy is abundantly covered with tinted green-yellow or brown glaze, which is as close as possible to the works of masters of the past.

https://nkhp.ru/uploaded/thumbnails/5951_1140xauto_keep_ratio-2141903494.jpg

Fig. 5. Unknown author. Peter's toy. Photo (2017). A source: https://nkhp.ru/promyislyi/hudozhestvennaya-keramika-farfor-fayans/petrovskaya-igrushka/

An example of following old traditions is the Voronezh toy. The first products of this kind, according to archaeological research, appeared here already in the XVI — early XVII centuries [4, p. 14]. These are whistles, animal figures (horse, ram, duck), images of ladies, as well as rattles and pipes. A distinctive feature of the products were the headdresses of ladies with two curls — "seleznev curls". The hands of anthropomorphic images and the paws of animals resemble rakes with incisions. The eyes and mouths are squeezed out with a stick (Fig. 6). The painting is presented in the form of lines and their crosshairs of red, blue, green, purple and silver.

Fig. 6. Unknown author. Voronezh ladies. The beginning of the XX century. From the album by I.Ya. Boguslavskaya "Russian clay toy". A source: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_37152547_59030282.pdf

The merit of the revival of the fishery in the second half of the XX century belonged to G.I. Arefieva. Currently, her students and followers work in different villages of the Voronezh region. In the village of Karachun, the traditions of local potters were developed by V.I. Lyamzin, forming a special pictorial language, coarser in comparison with the work of G.I. Arefieva, but at the same time lively and dynamic. A distinctive feature was the absence of painting. Instead, toys were abundantly glazed with lead watering. The case of V.I. Lyamzin is now being developed by his student G.I. Kotelnikova, as well as L.V. Dedov and L.I. Ostroverkhova. These masters develop storylines and the artistic language of their teachers. However, their modeling is more complex and accurate, and the shapes of the figures are more pronounced (Fig. 7).

https://static.insales-cdn.com/images/products/1/5291/217175211/baba-s-kuvshinom-karachunskaya-igrushka.jpg

Fig. 7. Kotelnikova G.I. Girl with a jug. Karachun toy. 2018. Private collection. A source: https://store.russianarts.online/collection/karachunskaya-igrushka/product/baba-s-kuvshinom-karachunskaya-igrushka

In the Arkhangelsk region, new authors are following in the footsteps of Kargopol toy makers of the XX century I.V. Druzhinin and U.I. Babkina. Some work in the cursive manner of the first master, applying patterns to the surface with quick brush strokes. Others use bright and dense colors, striving, like Ulyana Ivanovna, to "dress up" a toy [28, p. 67]. Modeling techniques do not differ from the previous ones, but the forms are more smoothed. The color of the products made up of modern dyes looks brighter and richer (Fig. 8). The traditional repertoire of such products remains untouchable: single figures in motion, pairs and "quadrilles" with harmonists.

Fig. 8. Yakovleva S.N. Deer. 2003.

Private collection. Source: Pilikina N.N. Artistic originality of the Kargopol clay toy // Society. Wednesday. Development (Terra Humana), 2010. p. 115.

The fate of the Zhbannikov clay toy from the Nizhny Novgorod region, which is considered a "little-known folk craft", is interesting and indicative [13, p. 40]. The first mention of it began in the middle of the XIX century, although the products were found in the archaeological layers of the XIII century. The masters created one type of toy, namely curly whistles on two short legs. Only the shape of the heads of horses, roosters, cows, rams, ducks and lapwings differs. The resemblance to real animals was denoted very generically. The painting was presented in the form of a tychkov ornament and multicolored stripes. Since the middle of the last century, aluminum paint has been used for tinting horns, horse manes and other small details. At the same time, out of a desire to make the toy more marketable, it was decided to synthesize zhbannik forms and Khokhloma painting as part of the activities of the factory "Khokhloma Artist" in the village of Semino (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9. Sirotkin V. Horse. Zhbannikov's toy. The 1970s.

Darwin Museum, Moscow. A source: https://sovmuseum.com/publ/sidimdoma/vse_o_remesle/tradicii_v_gline_zhbannikovskaja_gorodeckaja_igrushka/13-1-0-818

Such a free treatment of traditions did not cause a response in the hearts of people, and gradually the toy went back into the work of individual toy makers. The most famous of them is P.S. Timofeeva, the creator of the museum of Zhbannikov toys, as well as her fellow villagers. Their works are characterized by strict adherence to the canons in the modeling of the form and decoration (Fig. 10). The new thing is that they often add their life observations to the images, but absolutely without fantastic hyperbolization and kitsch.

Æáàííèêîâñêàÿ èãðóøêà

Fig. 10. Timofeeva P.S. Zhbannikova toy. 1970-80-ies.

Museum of the History of Arts and Crafts of the Nizhny Novgorod region. A source: https://www.showbell.ru/promysly/?st=zhbannikovo

Thus, the analysis showed that the number of artistic features of modern clay toys should include the gradual loss of the former generality and archaic forms, smoother modeling of products, the use of modern technologies and materials that were not previously available to toy makers. The authors preserve the traditional figurative range of such products: animals and birds, and anthropomorphic figures presented in ancient costumes. An innovation is Christian symbolism, which is manifested in the painting of toys by a number of artists. Due to the techniques of decoration, the search for new variants of execution often takes place. So, now painted toys with spectacular contrasting color combinations prevail. Perhaps this fact is due to the fact that the products are mainly created as souvenirs. Their shape corresponds to the buyer's ideas about an old toy made of clay, but at the same time it should attract attention, which happens with the help of color. It is likely that the demand for such products, which is increasing due to the development of domestic tourism, will contribute to and influence the further creative searches of toy makers.

References
1. Krzhizhevsky, M. V. (2011) Traditional crafts and crafts of the Samara region and the possibilities of their use in tourism: study guide. Samara, 84 p.
2. Mulyzeva, A.B. (2015) Clay toy in the cultural space of the Russian province. Summary of Ph.D. dissertation. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, 2015, 22 ð.
3. Pilyak, S. A. (2019) Crafts as a manifestation of the cultural identity of the region (on the example of the author's interpretation of the craft of the Petrovsky whistle), Actual problems of regional history: the relationship of the center and regions in historical dynamics : materials of the I All-Russian scientific conference with international participation dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Alexandrov (1919-2010) and the 85th anniversary of the birth of Anatoly Ivanovich Sukhanov (1934-1989) (Izhevsk, 2019). Izhevsk: Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science "Udmurt Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences", pp. 498-503.
4. Gubanova, O. V. (2018) The main trends in the development of clay toys in the Voronezh region, Pedagogical regional studies, No. 2 (14), pp. 14-22.
5. Kholodkova, E. A. (2018) Saratov clay toy, Cultural heritage of Saratov and the Saratov region: Materials of the VII International Scientific and Practical Conference (Saratov, 2018.). – Saratov: Saratov source, pp. 112-118.
6. A good toy of the Saratov land (2013). Radishchevsky Museum. Retrieved from http://radmuseumart.ru/news/announcements/1643/
7. Tsareva, T. B. (2013) Saratov clay toy — the revival of the identity and traditions of the region. Radishchevsky Museum. Retrieved from http://radmuseumart.ru/news/announcements/1961/?sphrase_id=12650
8. Exhibition "The World of clay toys by Laura Gorodetskaya" (2013). Retrieved from https://vk.com/wall-40543939_12894
9. Blomerius, I. (2015) Clay toy of Laura Gorodetskaya. Retrieved from https://augustnews.ru/glinyanaya-igrushka-lory-gorodetskoj/
10. Vznuzdanov, Ya. A. (2017) Yaransk as a center for the revival of clay craft in the Volga region, Wealth of Finno-Ugric peoples: materials of the IV International Finno-Ugric Student Forum (Yoshkar-Ola, 2017). Yoshkar-Ola: Mari State University, pp. 311-314.
11. Technology of making clay toys — Nina Mikhailovna Kolchina, Lyudmila Nikolaevna Lutoshkina : website "studylib.ru — Documents for students and teachers." Retrieved from https://ws.studylib.ru/doc/4296632/glinyanaya-igrushka
12. Folk art of the Kostroma region (2005). Photo album, Kostroma: Kostroma-izdat LLC, 100 p.
13. Gulyaev, V. A. (1968) Zhbannikov toys, Decorative art of the USSR, 1968, No. 5, pp. 40-41.
14. Durasov, G. P. (1986) Kargopol clay toy. L.: Artist of the RSFSR, 1986, 248 p.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article "History and modern features of Russian folk clay toys" submitted for review is small in volume. This remark is extremely important in view of a very extensive and very interesting topic, which the author does not narrow down or specify in any way either in the introduction or in the text of the article. From the very first lines of the text, it seems that the author was in a hurry and sent a draft of the article to the editor, because the first paragraph already contains typos, incomplete sentences, and a number of categorical judgments not supported by references. There are no formal provisions giving an idea of the research methodology (subject, object of research, scientific novelty, relevance, goals and objectives, description of territorial and chronological frameworks, characteristics of methods and sources, hypotheses) in the text. A cursory acquaintance with the bibliography only strengthens my opinion that the text sent for review is a draft version of the article. Here is an example of incorrect and fragmentary design of bibliographic references for numbers 1 and 2: "1. Kuleshov A.G. Traditional Russian clay toy. Origin and development // From Congress to Congress. Materials of the Second All-Russian Congress of Folklorists. Collection of reports. Volume 2. — M.: State Republican Center of Russian Folklore, 2011. — pp. 351-368. 2. Gilevich E.V. Ornament as a semiotic structure for the modern world // Culture and Society, 2011. No. 2. — pp. 79-83." etc. Therefore, for this review, it is enough to analyze the first paragraph, which gives an idea of how ready the author is to publish in a serious publication on the stated topic, how deep the conclusions will be drawn, and, accordingly, whether this text can arouse significant interest among a wide readership. For example, the first sentence of the article raises questions: "The most ancient samples of clay toys in Slavic culture originate from the X century and represent clay figurines of animals and birds" – are we talking, probably, about those toys that are known to the author according to archaeological data? Which one exactly? On what archaeological material does the author draw conclusions, what are the territorial limits? Did the Slavs not make clay toys until the 10th century? Or did the Slavs themselves not exist at all? Have you ever made anthropomorphic toys? The second sentence "Although the main material known to us belongs to the XIX–XX centuries [1, p. 80]" contradicts the first one. The third sentence "They all reflect the pagan beliefs of the Slavs" is doubtful from the point of view that a children's toy in its functionality is not obliged to reflect either pagan, Christian, or any other beliefs. At the same time, the author does not consider the obvious connection of a children's toy with the economic structure, the calendar cycle, the prevailing aesthetic ideas and social role models at all. The fourth sentence also contradicts the first: "The origins of the clay toy lead to those times when man was just discovering the secrets and laws of nature, the beginnings of mythology were being formed." The chronology and territorial framework do not clarify the further narrative: "The evolution of the ancient Russian toy is well represented by the materials of archaeological excavations in the Smolensk and Novgorod regions, as well as others (which ones? – Rec.) corners of Russia. For example, when studying the cultural layers of the XV–XVIII centuries in Kolomna, it turned out that in the XIV century the first toys appeared-skates made of red clay and decorated with spots of white angoba, and from the XVII century products made of white clay, which were painted with red rings, began to appear [4, p. 115]. Thus, from the initial generalized primitive forms, toys gradually acquired more and more details, at the same time they continued to meet a certain artistic canon, preserving the monumental character and frontal composition." That is, the initial forms here are the XIV century. Further, the author's thesis about the primary and main function of clay toys as an element of pagan rituals hangs without support. The most interesting fragment of the article is its conclusion, which contains interesting observations about the modern Samara clay toy, how the masters work, what images they use in their work. We recommend that the author expand this particular part of the text, give the names of the masters, fragments of interviews with them, photographs of products, perhaps an analysis of supply and demand for a modern clay toy in the Samara region.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research of the reviewed article is most likely the process of existence of one of the modern directions of artistic creativity, namely, the manufacture of clay toys by Russian craftsmen of the early XXI century. The author's formulation of the object and subject of the study does not fully correspond to the content disclosed in the article and needs to be clarified. The author writes: "The object of the proposed study should be considered a clay toy as a phenomenon of modern artistic culture, and its subject is the formation and existence of a clay toy in the works of Russian masters of the early XXI century." Let's pay attention to logical errors of a formal nature. 1) The subject of the study (singular) cannot be expressed in a multitude ("formation and existence"), — in this case we are talking about the process of existence in a certain historical period of one of the directions of artistic creativity; the author's desire to present this process syncretically is "formation/existence" at the beginning of the XXI century, contradicts reality, because the artistic traditions revived by individual masters, as the author mentions, were formed mainly in the XIX century, and the formation of this most ancient type of artistic creativity generally goes back centuries. 2) Implicitly, the author indicated the formally correct object, i.e. the area under study in which the subject of research is located, "in the works of Russian masters of the beginning of the XXI century," but, contradicting himself, argues that "the object ... should be considered a clay toy as a phenomenon of modern artistic culture." 3) Goal setting allows you to clarify the correct subject of research. The author writes somewhat veiled and metaphorically: "the purpose of the work should be considered the analysis of those ways of developing the manufacture of clay toys, which are followed by modern toy makers in different parts of Russia," i.e. the work of Russian masters of the early XXI century. nevertheless, it is the object of research, which studies the manufacture of clay toys. 4) Note that the author's statement about the "object of research" contains another subject of research (a clay toy) in another object: in modern artistic culture. A broadly formulated object (modern art culture) is represented by a sample of the creativity of toy makers, which characterizes a certain object one-sidedly and leads the reader to misconception about the richness and diversity of modern art culture. To reveal such a wide object, the article does not have the necessary definition of the place of a clay toy among other results of artistic creativity (for example, dances, songs, tattoos, etc.), there is no necessary level of comparisons to reasonably generalize. As a result, the uncertainty of the object and subject of the study did not allow the author to formulate a scientifically significant conclusion. Resorting to metaphors and epithets, the author eclectically and unreasonably concludes: "... a modern clay toy balances between mass production as a souvenir product with the inevitable loss or emasculation of connection with the past and the work of individual authors and their followers. Amazing processes are currently being observed in the field of author's toys, as evidenced by the renaissance of Samara, Voronezh, and Petrovsky products of this kind." Firstly, in the presented study, the mass production of souvenirs has not been studied. Secondly, the artistic creativity discussed in the article, as the author consistently tried to justify, is of a mass nature, having gained a foothold in the field of additional children's education and being part of the leisure folk culture, in the vanguard of which stand outstanding masters. The conclusion, therefore, contradicts the content of the main part of the study. The research methodology, according to the author, "is based on such methods as comparative historical, semantic and typological analysis, which contributes to the assessment of the artistic qualities of a clay toy as a work of art and its comparison with folk art of the past." However, the techniques of stylistic analysis of individual author's schools of modern masters are much more valuable in the work, allowing further typology and attribution of clay toys. The lack of a clear research program in the introduction (solving which tasks and by what methods allows you to achieve the designated goal) led to the absence of a result in the final conclusion. The relevance of the topic is justified by the author quite convincingly. Of course, a comprehensive analysis of the manufacture of clay toys by Russian craftsmen at the beginning of the XXI century is necessary. to establish the conformity of the principles of modern artistic creation with the principles of traditional folk crafts. However, the author's final conclusions do not in any way bring the solution of this problem closer. The scientific novelty remains controversial. It is difficult to separate the author's thought from the literature cited by him. At the same time, the individual analyzed elements of the author's styles of toy makers are of scientific interest. The style of the article requires serious revision: 1) completely unjustified overload of the word "given" of successive sentences: "these products", "this fact", "at the moment", "this phenomenon"; 2) a lot of inconsistent turns: (for example, "... they allow ...", "... there were unusual headdresses of ladies, similar to the local "seleznev curls", etc.); 3) individual statements are overloaded with unnecessary words that make it difficult to read the author's thought (for example, "... active public attention to the problem has begun ...", "From the above it is quite possible to conclude that ...", etc.); 4) sometimes there are definitions that are unacceptable for academic writing ("craftswoman" instead of master, etc.). The text needs detailed author's proofreading and stylistic editing. The bibliography generally reflects the problem area, although it is not neatly designed everywhere. The appeal to the opponents is correct. The article may be of interest to the readership of the journal "Philosophy and Culture" only after revision.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

In the journal Philosophy and Culture, the author presented his article "Peculiarities of the development of clay toys based on folk crafts in modern Russia", which conducted a study of the creativity of toy makers, their reinterpretation, synthesis and development of traditional artistic forms in order to create a completely new and in-demand product today. The author proceeds in studying this issue from the fact that our country is rich in the traditions of creating ceramics and, in particular, the products of toy makers. As noted by the author, large and small crafts of clay toys existed at different times in various villages and towns. They received a special heyday in the XIX century, and in the XX century the attention of researchers was again attracted to this amazing phenomenon. In Soviet Russia, a theoretical and methodological basis was formed for further research in this area. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, pockets of clay toy creation began to "light up" again in some parts of the Russian Federation. Of course, their scale and nature differ significantly from what was observed earlier. The relevance of the study lies in the popularity of ceramic products, and in particular clay toys, in many regions of our country. Therefore, a scientific approach is needed to systematize, preserve and broadcast the experience and skills accumulated by the masters in this field. The scientific novelty of the study is an artistic comparative analysis of samples of clay toys from various regions of modern Russia. The purpose of this article is to study the artistic features of modern clay toys, which are created by Russian amateur, professional authors or creative teams in order to continue once-existing crafts or establish new ones. The object of the study should be considered the activity of Russian toy makers at the beginning of the XXI century, and the subject is the process of existence of one of the modern directions of artistic creativity, namely, the manufacture of clay toys at the present time. The methodological basis was an integrated approach that includes comparative, historical, socio-cultural and artistic analysis. The theoretical basis of the article is the concepts and leading theoretical positions on the problem of decorative and applied art, industrial art, research of modern regional specifics of decorative and applied art and regional stylistics of fine and decorative arts by such researchers as M.V. Krzhizhevsky, A.B. Mulyzeva, E.N. Gubanova, T.B. Tsareva, etc. The appearance of these works, as the author states, indicates the relevance of a comprehensive analysis of those features of the artistic form of products that indicate the existence of this phenomenon associated with the national identity of the Russian people. Empirical sources of research are samples of modern decorative and applied art. Studying the history of the issue under study, the author notes that small-scale fishing originated at the beginning of the XVII century, and became especially widespread in the second half of the XIX century. There are a sufficient number of objects in local museums, first of all, whistles of different sizes in the form of birds, animals and very rarely people (mothers and shepherds), giving an idea of the traditions of shaping. The author considers the preservation of the color of clay and the "boring" of patterns using stamps of different shapes to be characteristic features of the products. In the 1960s, the fishery began to disappear, but at the beginning of the XXI century, its gradual revival began. The author attaches great importance to the state's assistance in preserving, developing and teaching the process of creating a clay toy. In the process of studying the activities of toy craftsmen of the Samara, Saratov, Kirov, Kostroma, Arkhangelsk, Voronezh, Nizhny Novgorod regions and their works, the author identified a number of the most significant artists. In the article, the author presents the results of a detailed analysis of the works of such creators of modern toys as P.P. Afrikantov, L.K. Gorodetskaya, V.A. Fedyunina, N.M. Kolchina, I.V. Yakushkova, P.A. Ivanov, G.I. Arefieva, V.I. Lyamzin, I.V. Druzhinina. The author describes in detail the products created by the craftsmen, the variety of technologies and techniques they use, their preferred plots and forms. The main characteristic feature of all modern masters, as the author of the article notes, is the idea of synthesizing old traditions, plots inspired by local culture and folklore, with modern technologies and techniques. Only the material remains unchanged: clay from local deposits. In conclusion, the author presents a conclusion on the conducted research, which contains all the key provisions of the presented material. The author notes the gradual loss of the former generality and archaic forms, smoother modeling of products, the use of modern technologies and materials that were not previously available to toy makers. The authors preserve the traditional figurative range of such products: animals and birds, and anthropomorphic figures presented in antique costumes. The author expresses the hope that the demand for such products, which is increasing due to the development of domestic tourism, will contribute to and influence the further creative searches of toy makers. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the study and preservation of the cultural and artistic heritage of the regions of our country is of undoubted scientific and practical cultural interest and deserves further study. It should be noted that the author has achieved his goal. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. The bibliographic list of the study consists of 14 sources, which seems sufficient for the generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the subject under study. It should be noted that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication.