ОСМИСЛЕННЯ «СУВОРОГО СТИЛЮ» В ПРОЦЕСІ ФОРМУВАННЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОГО НЕОФІЦІЙНОГО МИСТЕЦТВА
COMPREHENDING "STRICT STYLE" IN THE PROCESS OF FORMING UKRAINIAN UNOFFICIAL ART

Summary/Abstract: The purpose of the study is to reconsider the “strict style” beyond the narrative of the “Soviet art” and to identify those characteristics that allowed individual artists from Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Armenia to return to the national artistic tradition and find their own creative language that did not coincide with the values of the totalitarian system. The research methods are based on the fundamental principles of art historical analysis with the involvement of interdisciplinary connections (philosophy, history) to identify the innovative features of the “strict style” as the first important step for the emergence of the art of the “dissenters”. The comparative method is used to identify the differences in regional manifestations of the “strict style” based on the national artistic traditions of Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Armenia. The systematic-analytical method is used to highlight the influence of the Khrushchev Thaw on the formation of new worldview values among the creative youth of the post-war period of the 1946s-1955s. The scientific novelty of the study is to identify the plot, plastic, and compositional characteristics of the “strict style” that became the reason for some national artists to search for national artistic traditions and interpret them using their own experience and artistic and figurative language. Conclusions. When comprehending the significance of the “strict style”, one should note its importance for the beginnings of the revival of Ukraine's artistic traditions, which soon led to the emergence of “unofficial” art. While its founders, Russian artists, sought to convey the feat of labour of the Soviet man, our individual artists were able to demonstrate the difficult fates and tragedies of their own people (I.-V. Zadorozhnyi), moreover, using the techniques and imagery of avant-garde artists in their artistic language. The national artistic experience of the 1920s and early 1930s prompted them to revive and rethink their own heritage. The subjects, techniques of transmission, and compositional features were similar among the representatives of the “strict style”, but the peculiar artistic thinking based on the worldview of their people made some national artists, as well as their colleagues from Estonia, Latvia, and Armenia, interpret the reality of their countrymen differently.

• Details
• Contents