Oksana Anatoliivna PUSHONKOVA


Introduction. In contemporary visual studies, not so much dynamic changing field of new visual images as visual practices are of interest. As a result of some contextual expansion of the art discourse, the problem of the aesthetic is exacerbated. With the expansion of ideas of visual and the visuality in contemporary interdisciplinary cultural and philosophical studies, there is a need for a deeper reflection of aesthetic practices in visual-anthropological discourse. The subject of research is increasingly becoming the psychology of image perception, its understanding as the unity of certain social visualities, the aesthetization of contemporary consciousness in the contexts of everyday life and art, aesthetics of the environment.

Рurpose. The purpose of the article is to investing ate the aesthetic parameters of visual practices in the context of contemporary visual anthropological discourse.

Methods. The general scientific and interdisciplinary methods of research are used: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, comparison, generalization, formalization аnd cultural-theoretical approach.

Results. Aesthetic practices are considered in the context of modes of vision, whose history of study goes beyond the boundaries of art discourse, and which, in terms of total media and "transparent borders," operate on the principles of repetition and synchrony. In a situation of media visualization of the culture that causes excessive visual activity, the conditions of vision, selectivity of visual perception and specificity of ignoring are changing, and their connection with the phenomena of "visual violence" and "learned blindness" is updated. The characteristic features of the modes of seeing boundary phenomena with uncertain status are rooted in the syncretism of primality, which has a manifestation in the modern aesthetics of the environment. There is a need for comprehension of a new methodology for the model of culture creation, which operates a system of vision modes, which contains different worldviews and anthropotechnics. The dynamics of sensual, different modalities of aesthetic experience in terms of intensity of visual messages, boundary phenomena at the junctions of different realities and ways of homogenization of culture require studies.

Originality. Turning of aesthetics to practice focuses on the origins of cognitive experience, the practices of primality as primary forms of formation in sacralized everyday life, when the utilitarian and the aesthetic were one. As a result, in a modern multimedia environment, a new system of adaptation is formed in the conditions of transparency and lack of prescription "not to see". The mode of ignoring complexity as "learned blindness" leads to the use of one of the previous modes of vision. Another way is a step-by-step movement from simpler visual schemes to more complex ones, the transition from the visual situation to the formation of the image, from the feeling of the atmosphere to the development of a new imagery. Such transformed sensuality actualizes the experience of presence in the conditions of total mismatch of experience and perception, serves as a basis for mastering new modes of vision, accepting their ambivalence in the new creative laboratory of image creation.

Conclusions. There is not so much a replacement of the optical and opto-tactile paradigm with the concept of corporeality as the center of perception, but rather their ductile complementarity in a network-like mimicry environment. Understanding the culture through the idea of the environment brings together researchers of visual in cultural and anthropological discourse.


cultural practices; modern aesthetics; visual culture; visual studies; archaizing of visuals; modes of vision


Bataeva, K. V. (2009). Phenomenon of media visuality: the experience of sociocultural analysis. Harkov (in Russ.).

Orlova, T. I. (2002). Aesthetics of synthesis: categories, universals, paradigms: (In the context of art creativity), 144-156. Kyiv: Abris (in Ukr.).

Alforova, Z. I. (2008). Boundaries of the visible. The formation of visual art. Harkiv (in Ukr.).

Ranser, Zh. (2004). Aesthetic unconscious. SPb.; Moskva: Machina (in Russ.).

Krauss, R. (2003). Vanguard Authenticity and Other Modernist Myths. Moscow: Hudozhestvennyi zhurnal (in Russ.).

Visual (as) violence (2007), A. R. Usmanova (Ed.). Vilnyus: EGU (in Russ.).

Pavlova, O., Tormahova, A. (2018). Visual practices and communication. Kyiv: VPI «Kyiv University» (in Ukr.).

Jay, M. (1988). Scopic Regimes of Modernity. Vision and Visuality, H. Foster (Ed.), 3-23. Seattle: Bay Press.

Berleant, A. (2012). Aesthetics beyond the Arts: New and Recent Essays. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Mamford, L. (2001). The myth of the machine. Technology and human development. Moscow: Logos (in Russ.).

Belousova, Yu. (2015). The genesis of the image of its functioning in the media. SPb.: Aleteyya (in Russ.).

Full Text: PDF (Українська)


  • There are currently no refbacks.
2014 11 31
2015 11 31
2016 1 2
2017 1 2
2018 1 2
2019 1 2


Journal Content