Cultural and psychological concept of art (continuing and overcoming M. Bakhtin and L.Vygotsky)

         Discussing the nature of art, one cannot pass by the concepts of Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Vygotsky. On the one hand, they clearly read the same books and fed on similar philosophical and theoretical ideas, which, as they are figuratively expressed, were in the air at that time (the need to analyze the form and structure of works of art in order to understand the essence of art, semiotic interpretation of a literary text, consideration of a work of art in a broader context ? psychological Vygotsky and philosophical in Bakhtin). On the other hand, their approaches and the results of the interpretation of art are very different.

Vygotsky explores art for the purposes of new education ("life-building", the formation of a new person) and the explanation of the strong impact of art on a person (Aristotelian catharsis), and how a psychologist identifies and describes the mental mechanism operating during the creation or experience of a work of art. Bakhtin tries to understand art as an art critic (literary critic) and a philosopher, therefore discusses the relation of the reality of a work of art to life, the role and activity of an individual (author or hero) in art, as well as the difference between aesthetic action, as a way of completing the whole, from scientific knowledge and moral action.

"Since," Vygotsky writes in the Psychology of Art, "the plan of the future undoubtedly includes not only the reconstruction of all mankind on new principles, not only the mastery of social and economic processes, but also the "melting down of man," the role of art will undoubtedly change. It is impossible to imagine what role art will be called upon to play in this melting of a person, what forces already existing, but inactive in our body, it will call for the formation of a new person... Without a new art, there will be no new person. <…>  The general direction of this method can be expressed by the following formula: from the form of an artistic work through the functional analysis of its elements and structure to the reconstruction of an aesthetic reaction and to the establishment of its general laws <...> we look at an artistic work as "a set of aesthetic signs aimed at arousing emotions in people", and try on the basis of analysis of these signs to recreate the emotions corresponding to them <...> We could say that the basis of the aesthetic reaction is the affects evoked by art, which we experience with all reality and force, but find a discharge in the activity of fantasy that the perception of art requires from us every time… All art is based on this unity of feeling and fantasy. Its closest feature is that, by causing us to have oppositely directed affects, it delays the motor expression of emotions only due to the beginning of the antithesis and, by colliding opposite impulses, destroys the affects of content, the affects of form, leading to an explosion, to the discharge of nervous energy. In this transformation of affects, in their self-combustion, in an explosive reaction leading to the discharge of those emotions that were immediately triggered, lies the catharsis of the aesthetic reaction" ^{[1, pp. 330, 40, 18, 271]}.

But Bakhtin's deep thoughts about art, which, however, in order to understand them correctly, still need to be deciphered, which we will do a little later, prepared the ground for this. "An aesthetically creative attitude towards the hero and his world is an attitude towards him as having to die (moriturus), opposing his semantic tension of saving completion; for this, it is clearly necessary to see in a person and his world exactly what he does not see in himself in principle, remaining in himself and seriously experiencing his life, the ability to approach it not from the point of view of life, but from another — out-of-life active. The artist is able to be out of life active, not only from the inside involved in life (practical, social, political, moral, religious) and understanding it from the inside, but also loving it from the outside ? where it is not for itself, where it is turned outside of itself and needs extra-ordinary and extra-semantic activity. The divinity of the artist is in his communion with the supreme non?necessity. But this non-involvement in the event of other people's lives and the world of this life is, of course, a special and justified kind of involvement in the event of being. Finding a substantial approach to life from the outside is the task of the artist. By this, the artist and art in general create a completely new vision of the world, an image of the world, the reality of the mortal flesh of the world, which none of the other cultural and creative activities knows. And this external (and internal-external) definiteness of the world, which finds its highest expression and consolidation in art, always accompanies our emotional thinking about the world and about life. Aesthetic activity gathers the world scattered in the sense and condenses it into a complete and self-sufficient image, finds an emotional equivalent for the transient in the world (for its present, past, its existence), animating and protecting it, finds a value position from which the transient of the world acquires value event weight, receives significance and stable certainty. An aesthetic act gives birth to being in a new value plan of the world, a new person and a new value context will be born — a plan of thinking about the human world" ^{[2, p. 65]}.

I am sure that for most readers, just as for me when I first read this text, the meaning of what Bakhtin is talking about here and the individual statements that make up the text are absolutely incomprehensible. But I will try to clarify this meaning further. Although many of Bakhtin's ideas are close to me (the Bakhtin version of the humanitarian approach, the semiotic understanding of the text and the statement that there is a unique personality behind the text, the requirement to give a voice to the one we study, and a number of others ^{[6, pp. 64-66]}), nevertheless my discourse differs significantly from Bakhtin's. It is mostly methodological, in my opinion, behind the text there is not only the person who creates or uses it (tries to understand), but also culture, an important plan (side) of an artistic work, as I try to show, forms an "artistic reality" ^[7].

This reality is created by a writer (composer, artist), relating to life, comprehending it, solving his problems, a reader (listener, viewer) enters it, living the events of artistic reality, who, in turn, relates to life, comprehends it, solves his problems. At the same time, both of them are forced to meet the requirements of artistic communication, which are set by the concepts of genre, convention, composition, drama and others. I also consider the text of works of art as a specific "semiosis", but, firstly, I analyze what it is, and secondly, I distinguish the meanings and denotations of the language of art from the events of artistic reality (although it is these denotations and meanings that allow us to pass to the corresponding events, the latter do not relate to the artistic language, but to the artistic reality, to the objectivity of the work of art) ^[8]. I understand that my distinctions also need clarification, which I will do if possible by offering an illustration below.  

I will also explain the tasks for which I analyze art. One of them is to understand the mystery of art, to disenchant its effect on the reader, and to comprehend not only the phenomenon of catharsis, but also just the beneficial effects of a good work of art. An equally important, educational task: how to introduce a young person to art, how to introduce him to it, how to avoid misunderstandings of works of art, especially modern ones. As a philosopher, I am also interested in the problem of understanding the essence of art, its differences from other symbolic practices (games, communication, dreams), the life-giving influence of art on personal development, the role of art in culture, etc. If we take into account what has been said, it is clear that these tasks are similar to those that Bakhtin and Vygotsky had in mind when analyzing art.

Now an illustration, or rather a case for analysis, is a novel by the famous Israeli writer Meir Shalev "Two bears Came out of the forest." I will follow Bakhtin's advice, give a voice to readers and Shalev himself, which is one of the most important conditions for humanitarian research ^{[6, p. 129]}.

Valery-varul. "Israel, the period from 1930 to the early 2000s. Agricultural settlement (moshava). The family of Zeeva Tavori has been living here since the 30s of the 20th century. The story of the family is led by his granddaughter Ruth. The story is dark and bright at the same time. The fact is that all family members are honest and friendly people, including Ruth's husband Eyton, who, because of his great sympathy for Grandfather Zeev, took his wife's surname. But all the friendliness and goodwill of the family ends where deception and betrayal are committed against them. Then their goal becomes revenge, and they do not rest until they take revenge…Beautifully told about love, cruelly about revenge, frankly about the heavy burden of the father's guilt in the death of the child… The plot is very masterfully constructed: first revenge, and then the reasons that led to it. You read and think, but what would you do in these circumstances: I would have bent over, accepting them, or cut this knot, like one of the characters, and defended my honor and continued to live on, but with a heavy burden in my heart. Or moral and physical hard labor imposed on himself by a happy father, guilty of the death of his eight-year-old son. I do not understand: how can a man suddenly lose all his courage?.. He did everything he could to save his son, he was defeated, he reported, as a loyal soldier should, everything that needs to be reported, as it is done when investigating a military failure, and that's it. He has faded away, and he is no more."^[5]          Riha. A very strange, rude and unpleasant book. Interesting form and unsightly content. You almost immediately find yourself in the epicenter of the narrative and watch what is happening. The story of one family, with unsightly skeletons in the closet. We will learn about all the secrets from the interview, literally from the first mouth. Absolutely not my book, I would not like to read something like that. There remains a very unpleasant aftertaste" ^[5].         

Panda007. Don't kill? Kill, kill! A powerful, beautiful and scary novel. Once again, I am convinced that it is not the essence of what the writer is talking about: the plot of Shalev can be retold in a few sentences. And the story will be the most banal, especially if you remove the bloody details. And it's impossible to break away. I strongly suspect that the point here is emotional persuasiveness. The novel is written as if in one breath. You get into this whirlpool of strong emotions... the current picks you up, carries you, and you can't cope with it anymore. And I don't want to cope. The author's persuasiveness is such that while you are reading, you perceive the family story being told simply as a fact – “it was like that.” And only after reading it, you fall into a kind of stupor. The story is about the fact that (according to the apt expression of Lars von Trier) “all shits”. Or, as the heroine of the famous movie said: “Gentlemen, you are animals.” Actually, after that, the question is “How was the Holocaust possible?” removed from the agenda. Here you have the real destruction in one absolutely beautiful Jewish village. Two brutal and targeted murders. Everyone knows everything, everyone is silent. And here's the killer's granddaughter, who also knows everything, but continues to live with her beloved grandfather until his death. All so thin, sonorous, transparent, Bialika quotes every now and then. And he doesn't even sleep with a student (although he wants to) – he waits until he grows up enough. Well, just the epitome of morality. The husband became a murderer? Yes, it's okay, the main thing came to life, began to speak and perform marital duties. Incredible adaptability, amazing double morality. A friend died – a tragedy, a stranger was killed – a new one will grow up" ^[5].         

Meir Shalev (interview in the magazine "Lehaim"). (Interviewer Anna Solovey asks Shalev a question: "There is another plot in your novel that remains behind the scenes, but is invisibly present all the time. It is indicated in the title: “Two bears came out of the forest.” This is a direct quote from the biblical story of the prophet Elisha, who cursed the children who mocked him. After his curse, “two bears came out of the forest and mauled forty-two children.” Is that, as I understand it, the key to the whole book?").

"In the story of Elisha and the bears," Shalev replies, "G?d behaves the same way as the inhabitants of this village. He sits on the sidelines, watches and even supports the murder. If you, say, curse someone, then no bears will come out of the forest. When the prophet Elisha curses, bears come out and tear the children apart. G?d stands aside at the same time. You could even say that he supports the killing of children, releases bears from the forest. In both cases, we are talking about completely arbitrary cruelty that could have been prevented, but it did not happen <...> I have friends who, after the book was published, began to wonder if I was all right. Maybe I went through some kind of crisis or a disaster happened to me? They did not understand where this novel came from... Indeed, I included cases of extreme cruelty in it, although it was not easy for me to write about them myself. But this is not my personal experience that needs to be thrown out. I am very interested in revenge as a literary idea. It turns me on. The desire for revenge, in my eyes, is much stronger than jealousy or some religious feelings. Its consequences are tragic. There are three murders in the novel: in the thirtieth year, grandfather Zeev, then still young, kills his wife's lover, then the girl who is born to her, and seventy years later, Eitan, the husband of his granddaughter, takes blood revenge and destroys the bandits who killed grandfather Zeev. Revenge turns out to be healing for Eitan, heals him from the mental coma in which he remains for many years after the death of his son. Yes, the only thing that pulls him out of his illness is blood feud. And this angered some of my Israeli readers, they said: it is immoral to write that murder has a therapeutic effect, murder cannot cure! Well, you say, “impossible.” But the fact is that it is possible for certain people, as happened in my novel" ^[11].          Let us now try, relying on these voices-statements and the text of the novel, to reconstruct, firstly, the problems that could have worried Shalev and his readers, secondly, some features of the author's work that made it possible to create the artistic reality of this work, thirdly, the features of this artistic reality that are important for our analysis, in-fourth, a kind of mechanism that generates strong emotions of readers of the novel "Two bears Came out of the forest".

In the philosophy of art, one can distinguish the discussion of at least three relations of art to life: "imitation" in poetics (this relation, as is known, was first introduced by Aristotle), "beautiful and sublime" in aesthetics and "any relationship" (expressions, irony, deconstruction, comprehension, negation, reminiscence, creation based on the observed life of another world, etc.) in postmodernism. The question is, what type of artistic aesthetics did Shalev realize in this novel? Mostly postmodern, though with some elements of imitation. Indeed, after all, Shalev was trying to understand why divine providence and protection ceased to work (children do not yet realize what they are doing, and for some reason God stands aside). Shalev was also worried about the problem of revenge (he is trying to think artistically about what it is), as well as, it is not difficult to assume, the problem of universal egoism, characteristic of our time. So the Panda 007 reader is trying to comprehend the last two problems, but notRiha, which does not understand them at all and does not accept them. And Shalev uses the facts of life only as material.

Meir Shalev. "Look, I told exactly what I wanted to tell. If we talk about truthfulness, then the story of the murder of a lover is taken from life, at least I have heard about it, but whether there was a murder of a baby, it is difficult to say ... There are people who claim that such a story actually happened, while others say that it did not. After I published the novel, I can't even go near the village where I heard all this"^[11].   

This case and other works of art suggest that, building an artistic reality, the author uses the facts and events of life in different ways - imitating, expressing, comprehending life or his problems, creating a new world and events of interest to him, etc. Recall Bakhtin: "Aesthetic activity collects the world scattered in the sense and thickens it becomes a complete and self-sufficient image, finds an emotional equivalent for the transitory in the world (for its present, past, its existence), animates and protects it, finds a value position from which the transitory of the world acquires a value event weight, receives significance and stable certainty." I am sure that in this respect the reader does not differ from the author, another thing is that in some cases the problems and work of the author and the reader coincide, and in others they do not. In this latter case, as readers say likeRiha "the novel is not mine", "I don't understand".  

The next question is, how does the author create the artistic reality of the work? From the point of view of art criticism and the theory of creativity, he develops and applies certain techniques, as well as uses expressive means. For example, Shalev understands (sets himself a task) that he is writing a novel, that the published novel is likely to be read, and Shalev roughly imagines that the novel will have a plot and a plot, certain themes and dramaturgy, accents, climax, tie and denouement, resolution of tensions, heroes and so on ? everything this implies professional knowledge of expressive means. You can also specify how many techniques.

Firstly, these are stories of at least three types: tracing paper or reminiscences from biblical plots (say, the same story with the prophet Elish and the children), a kind of detective stories (three murders, but they are investigated not by the investigator, but by Shalev himself and the reader) and psychological stories, and not one (the most striking example is the experiences of the main character Ruth). Secondly, an important technique is the construction of discourses of revenge, selfishness and love. For example, revenge involves a tie and a denouement (killing someone from your family members and retaliatory murder as revenge), special experiences, hatching a plan and scenario of revenge, their implementation. Thirdly, the events in Shalev's novels are most often subordinated not to modern relations, but to archaic, Old Testament, inspired by the Bible. After all, the idea of revenge, as it is revealed in the novel "Two bears Came Out of the Forest", is not characteristic of modernity, but it is perfectly represented by many examples in the Bible. However, maybe this is not a special technique, but Shalev's attitude, otherwise it is difficult to explain the similarity of many relationships and actions of the heroes of his works with archaic, Old Testament ones.   

And why does the artistic reality of the work have such a strong effect on the reader, up to catharsis ? a question that interested Vygotsky very much? To explain this by techniques alone (we noted only a few main ones in Shalev's novel), of course, is impossible. It is also necessary to take into account an important point that Bakhtin drew attention to in his research, namely, that in a work of fiction (more broadly, in art), on the one hand, the reader can observe the events of artistic reality, enter into them and experience them, on the other ? be outside of these events at the same time, not belong to them naturally.

Indeed, on the one hand, when reading the novel, we perceive and experience the murder of a newly born child by Ze'ev, the slow painful killing of him, but on the other ? after all, in fact, both Ze'ev and the child and the murder are given to us only in words and our imagination. As a result, we are not directly involved in the murder, we are free from remorse, we can focus on observation, experience and comprehension. In particular, since Shalev told us the background (it turns out that Ze'ev could not live with his young wife right after the wedding, he had a mental breakdown that made him impotent for a while; later he accidentally stumbled upon his wife and lover, spying on their relationship; finally, brutally kills his wife's lover, which she also knows about), insofar as we understand the motives of the murder, and the guilt of Ze'ev, and the partial innocence of his wife. By the way, this is another technique used by the writer ? the latter, telling the background, shows the reader the whole.

However, maybe the presentation of murder in words (artistic language) cannot be equated to the situation of a real murder, if we suddenly found ourselves in this situation? They are equated in terms of the power of impressions and emotions. Nothing like that, observations show that art sometimes affects us more than ordinary life. The question is, why? Firstly, because for the psyche, correctly chosen words (sounds of music, images, body movements, etc.) open access to events no less natural and real than the events of ordinary life. Secondly, since these are not separate events (say, the murder of a small child), but a reality where this event is put in connection with other events, as a result we experience a tuple of events, the whole world). Thirdly, the writer emphasizes for us and pedals precisely those moments of what is happening that allow us to understand the phenomenon we are interested in more deeply, so to speak, to grasp its essence (in this case, the essence of revenge, injustice and suffering of the mother who gave birth, from whom her child is killed).

Naturally, here it is necessary to explain how artistic language can reveal events and reality for us, no less natural and authentic than ordinary life. To do this, consider two more cases. The first is a beautiful quatrain by Marina Tsvetaeva.

Like a warm tear

A drop dripped into my eyes,-

There, in the heavenly silence

Someone is crying for me.

It is not difficult to identify the signs (words) on the basis of which this poem is built: "tear", "eyes", "silence", "sky", "cry", etc. The denotations of these signs introduce us to the artistic reality of this work. But only enter, they do not coincide with the events of this reality. Events can be, for example, as follows: a certain heavenly being (perhaps the Mother of God or Christ) grieves, sharing grief with me, and her tears in the form of rain flow down my cheeks. Naturally, this is only one interpretation and understanding, there may be others. In this case, the crystallization of events is due to our understanding of poetry, its conventions, reading Tsvetaeva's works, the mood at the moment, the work of our imagination, the wealth of images we have and, perhaps, some other factors and contexts. I just want to draw attention to the fact that, firstly, the events of Tsvetaev's poem are radically different from the listed denotations, and secondly, that these events are perceived by us as if we see them.   

The second case is the story of my daughter's discovery of the image of the sun. When Lena was about two and a half years old, I began to teach her to draw. I took gouache and paper and drew a red sun. "Look," I said to Lena, "here's the sun." No effect! After suffering for about an hour, I realized that she could not see the sun. Yes, and why, I thought to myself, a child should see the sun. It is high in the sky, it warms, moves, hides behind clouds, and here she is shown a paper, Lena sees a red round spot. Well, is this a living sun? He left her alone, but continued to draw the sun and scatter papers with images on the table and even on the grass (it was at the dacha, not far from the Volga). A week later in the evening we went to watch the sunset on the Volga. "Look," I said to Lena without any second thought, "what a big red sun, like on paper." The next day I went out into the garden and saw Lena dipping a brush into a jar of gouache and clumsily drawing a round spot on paper. "Look, Dad," she cried, "what a red sun." Literally, a week later, Lena confidently drew the sun and something else green and brown under it, and clearly played, saying: "The sun is walking across the sky, warming the grass, looking at Lena and Dad, hooray."

How can you understand what happened? Yes, at first Lena saw only a red spot, but she was confused that dad for some reason calls him the sun. She used to trust me, if Dad says that the sun is here, it should be. But he wasn't there. Then Lena sees the setting sun on the Volga, and suddenly, after my phrase ("what a big red sun, like on paper"), she notices that the setting sun really looks like a drawing ? also red and round and also looks in the sky, as if against the background of paper.    

Much later I was able to explain what happened. I plunged my daughter into a "problem situation" ? I created a drawing on paper, but insisted that it was the sun. However, Lena did not see the sun, although, trusting me, she wanted to find it. On the Volga, she sees the setting sun and hears my phrase "what a big red sun, like on paper." In semiotics, this expression can be summed up under the concept of "scheme". As I show, the scheme allows you to solve a problematic situation, sets a new reality and understanding, and also creates conditions for new actions. In this case, my phrase allowed Lena to actualize (realize, use) the "perception experience" that she had when perceiving the sun on the material of the drawing (red, round spot). At this amazing moment, a metamorphosis (a real transmutation) took place ? a new object was born for Lena (the sun on paper). And soon she discovered (how, I don't know) that although this sun does not live in the sky and does not warm, but it can be created by herself, it is convenient to play and talk with him.

Now the question is, how much is this picturesque (pictorial) sun natural and real? I am sure that Lena's consciousness is no less real than the sun in the sky. They are similar visually, but completely different ? just two suns, one in the sky, the other on paper, one shines and warms, and you can play and talk with the other. But involuntarily, the ordinary sun begins to be seen and comprehended with the help of paper, and vice versa.   

Returning to Shalev, shouldn't we consider that his novel introduces us to reality and events no less, but even more real and natural than the events of life? They are more real and natural because, as we have analyzed, Shalev opens the way for us to the events of artistic reality, allows us to see the whole, emphasizes the most important. Of course, Shalev's genius as a storyteller also plays a big role here, his wonderful language, by the way, as well as the language of his two translators.

Russian Russian translator and essayist Pyotr Kriksunov said in an interview, "It seems to me that fifty percent of Meir Shalev's entire Russian fame, if not more, belongs to the translators Raphael Nudelman and Alla Furman, the remaining fifty, rightfully, to the author... Sometimes I even contrasted their Russian phrases with the original. You see, Raf Nudelman's translation turned out to be the same brilliant text that only great writers have in the original" ^[3]. Shalev himself "notes that he often hears enthusiastic reviews of the Russian translation of his books from readers who speak both languages: "Don't be offended, they say, but the translation is better than the original. I take it as a compliment – including to myself, not only to translators"" ^[4].

Speaking about the naturalness and reality of the events of artistic reality, I do not mean their similarity in terms of structure and logic. On the contrary, they tend to belong to different worlds. This is often not understood. For example, on the Internet you can find accusations of Shalev both in demonstrating excessive cruelty and in sexual pathology. To which Shalev explains: "... Yes, the only thing that pulls him out of the disease is blood feud. And this angered some of my Israeli readers, they said: it is immoral to write that murder has a therapeutic effect, murder cannot cure! Well, you say, “impossible.” But the fact is that it is possible for certain people, as happened in my novel" ^[11]. "I would call it not eroticism, but sensuality. I do not give detailed physiological descriptions of sexual contacts anywhere. But I am a sensual person, I appreciate sensations – taste, smell, touch, variety of colors – and share them with the reader…

As for homosexuality, I do not find it a perversion or a disease, it is a variant of normal personal and sexual relations of consenting adults. As, by the way, what is called “adultery”, and the relationship of two men and one woman, two women and one man, two couples. It's their own business…

As for the prohibition of “distribution” – no one can and should forbid a writer to describe life in all its manifestations. Following the logic of those who forbid novels about perversions, it is necessary to prohibit the printing of “Crime and Punishment” Dostoevsky as propaganda of murder and prostitution" ^[12]. 

One can also recall Aristotle, who wrote in Poetics that one can imitate not only the good and what is, but also the bad. And Tsvetaeva, who in a wonderful essay "Art in the light of Conscience" argues that, getting into artistic reality, the poet turns out to be beyond morality. A poet, not a person, I would clarify. It is no accident that Bakhtin writes that: "An aesthetically creative attitude towards the hero and his world is an attitude towards him as having to die (moriturus), opposing his semantic tension of saving completion; for this, it is clearly necessary to see in a person and his world exactly what he does not see in himself in principle, remaining in himself experiencing your life seriously, the ability to approach it not from the point of view of life, but from another — out-of-life active. The artist is able to be out of life active, not only from the inside involved in life (practical, social, political, moral, religious) and understanding it from the inside, but also loving it from the outside ? where it is not for itself, where it is turned outside of itself and needs extra-ordinary and extra-semantic activity. The divinity of the artist lies in his communion with the supreme being."

A person dies (Shalev as an ordinary person, his heroes, not as heroes, but as ordinary people), but as an artist ? he is an author and joins the world of artistic reality, in which he must take a position of "non-necessity" in relation to ordinary life, including in relation to himself, must begin another life, "higher", as Bakhtin writes. Many people are interested in how this is possible, is a person able to get out of his skin, get out of himself? Perhaps because art is a special sphere and form of life where a person is freed from ordinary worries and work, where he can communicate and observe others, experiment and violate accepted norms, reflect on life and himself, i.e. free and free again. It is also possible because the "artistic semiosis" (language, works) allows you to pass into other worlds and events. But also because a person is a "contextual" being: plunging into the context and reality of art, he really transforms, his psyche passes into another, let's call it "aesthetic", mode of existence, he becomes a different person for a while ^[9].

At this point, it is worth paying attention to the fact that artists themselves (writers, composers) rarely realize the features and nature of their work, because they compose and write, create works of art. At the same time, it is necessary to do this, otherwise the events of artistic reality will be identified with the events of other realities (ordinary life, games, dreams, communication). At one time, Aristotle realized this by writing "Poetics", where he divorced the reality of art from the reality of history and philosophy, and gave the first definitions of the events of works of art. But as art changes and develops, this work of understanding art and its works has to be done over and over again. In the last century, we see examples of such work in the works of Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Ortega y Gasset, Umberto Eco, Roman Ingarden and other famous philosophers of art, art historians and psychologists.    

The cultural-psychological and semiotic concept outlined here contains two parts. The first one offers an understanding of a work of art as an artistic psychic reality opposed to other realities. In the artistic reality, the author distinguishes between events that obey a certain logic and convention. A person, entering reality, lives through these events and thereby solves his problems. In the second part of the concept, artistic reality is defined differently: on the one hand, as a world opposed to the ordinary world and simultaneously connected with it, on the other ? as artistic communication. A writer (artist, composer) creates a work of art and is its first reader (viewer, listener). The reader enters an artistic reality (similar to the author's or not), in a certain sense also creates it, and lives the events of this reality. The necessary conditions for creating an artistic reality and living its events are the semiosis of art and a special form of human life in art (leisure according to Aristotle, "non?utilitarian form of life", according to the author, providing freedom and the possibility of creativity ^[10]). A person's life in art is not only full-fledged and real, but also allows solving problems that cannot be solved in ordinary life.