Institute for Сultural Research of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, Кyiv.
Keywords: culture, theatrical culture, directing, drama, performance, theatre history, aesthetics of the theatre.
Abstract. This article examines the issues of interaction and mutual influence of theatre cultures of the “West” and “East”, which at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries proved to be the most vivid. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, new aesthetic concepts and art views are emerging, leading to the emergence of decadence and later to modernism.
At the time, the process of establishing directing completed, the performance revealed new requirements of being a holistic and artistically completed product. The problem of synthesis of arts in the theatre of that time became one of the few investigated and quite relevant today. Since the theatre combines various kinds of arts, including dramaturgy, music, dance, decor, painting, costume, make-up, and actor’s skill, altogether, it forms the complex synthetic nature of the theatre requiring research. The theatre is a peculiar mirror of society, of historical epochs reflecting the human life on the stage having its creative crises, as well as the society itself.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Western artists understood that the time for people, continents, religions, and art in different parts of the world to combine their efforts to save the world was coming. Therefore, interest in the “East” as of something else able to help to identify oneself and receive energy for personal innovations appeared. Over the last century, much has been done in this direction especially in understanding and conducting a dialogue of cultures along the horizontal East-Wes
Violeta Demeshchenko, Ph.D. in History, Associate Professor, Institute for Сultural Research of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, Кyiv.
Bart R.B. (1989). Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Pojetika. G. K. Kosikova (Ed.). Moscow: Progress. (in Russian)
Bruk, Piter. (2003). Pustoe prostranstvo. Sekretov net. Moscow. (in Russian)
Belyj, Andrej. (1994). Simvolizm kak miroponimanie. Moscow: Respublika. (in Russian)
Grigor’eva, T.P. (1979). Japonskaja hudozhestvennaja tradicija. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian)
Gachev, G. D. (1999). Nacional’nye obrazy mira. Moscow: Institut DI-DIK. (in Russian)
Kuznecov, V. I. (1992). Edinstvo mira kak problemma sovremennoj nauki. Vestnik Moskovs’kogo universiteta, ser. 7, (6),10–19. (in Russian)
Maljavin, V. V. (1995). Kitaj v XVІ–XVІІ vekah. Jepoha. Byt. Iskusstvo. Moscow. (in Russian)
Mirimanov, V. B. (2001). Fenomen stilja i iskusstva XX veka. Nauchno- prakticheskaja konferencija «Osobennosti hudozhestvennogo soznanija XX veka. Arhitipicheskoe i teatr» (obraz-ritual-mif-teatr). Vsemirnaja teatral’naja Olimpiada. Moscow. (in Russian)
Osinskij, Z. (2001, April 26 – May 14). Znachenie tvorchestva Grotovskogo dlja gumanitarnogo znanija. Dnevnik vol’nogo slushatelja. Letnjaja sessija v ramkah ІІІ Vsemirnoj Olimpiady. Moscow. Notebook first. (in Russian)
Serova, S. A. (1999). Teatral’naja kul’tura Serebrjanogo veka v Rossii i hudozhestvennye tradicii Vostoka (Kitaja, Japonii, Indii). Moscow. (in Russian)
Serova, S. A. (2005). Kitajs’kij teatr – jesteticheskij obraz mira. Moscow. (in Russian)
Tkachenko, G. A. (2001). Hun’dun’ (Haos) – Ljujshi chun’cju (Vesny i oseni gospodina Ljuja). G. A. Tkachenko (Ed.). Moscow. (in Russian)
Hejzing, J. (1992). V teni zavtrashnego dnja. «Homo Ludens». Moscow. (in Russian)
Published: June 20, 2019.
Section: WORLD CULTURE AND ІNTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.