Institute for the Humanities, Siberian Federal University (Kafedra kul'turologii i iskusstvovedeniya)
from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2024
Artistic culture occupies a special place in the traditional system of culture, providing a person with the opportunity to transform and achieve a state of harmonious and comprehensively developed personality through specially organized communication with works of art, which realizes the educational aspect of the functions of culture. Disclosure of the educational potential of works of artistic culture seems important in the context of considering the educational goals and ideals of the entire human culture as such. Using the example of the film «Russian Ark» (2002) by A. N. Sokurov, which is a work with historical and cultural significance - an attempt by the director to find the national identity of the country through a symbolic journey through its various historical eras, the article attempts to reveal the educational potential of the work by revealing three symbolic levels of the film: material, indexical and iconic. This work offers possible answers to the following questions arising from the research problem: does the link to national identity really play a fundamental role in the perception of the educational and humanistic concept of the author; how exactly the educational function of art is realized when watching the film «Russian Ark» (2002), through what signs sent to the viewer, the educational nature of this process occurs; in what way, during the dialogue with a work of cinematic art, the transformation of the viewer into a new spiritual quality will occur. The methodology of the study is represented by the conceptual provisions of the modern theory of fine art, the method of semiotic analysis of a work of art, the provisions of the modern theory of visual communication, the conceptual provisions of the theory of the educational effect of a work of art on the viewer, as well as the provisions of the modern sociology of cinema.
Educational potential, philosophical and art history analysis, sociology of cinema, Russian cinema
1. Bogatyryova, E. N. (2014). Techniques of cultural text analysis: A teaching and methodological manual. Saratov: Saratov State University.
2. Borev, Yu. B. (2005). Aesthetics: Attitude to reality; creativity; works; nature and types of art; artistic process; dealing with art. Moscow: Astrel.
3. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thought and speech. Moscow; Leningrad, 144 p.
4. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Psychology of art. (V. V. Ivanov, Ed.). Moscow: Iskusstvo, 573.
5. Davydov, V. V. (1996). Theory of developmental learning. Moscow: INTOR, 544.
6. Zhabsky, M. I. (2020). Sociology of cinema. Moscow: Kanon-plus, 511.
7. Giorgano, K. (2012). “Russian Ark” by A. Sokurov: An allegory of the wanderings of the Russian soul. World Literature in the Context of Culture, 1(7), 282–291. QIVBTT.
8. Zhukovsky, V. I. (2011). Theory of visual art. Saint Petersburg: Aleteyya, 496.
9. Interview with A. N. Sokurov (1999). Saint Petersburg: University, conference “Art – Aesthetics – Man”. In A. Sokurov at the Faculty of Philosophy. Saint Petersburg, 2001.
10. Kagan, M. S. (1980). A systems approach to the comprehensive study of art. Methodological Problems of Modern Art Studies, 3.
11. Kazakova, Yu. E. (2022). Artistic image of the museum in films by A. N. Sokurov. Youth Bulletin of the St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture, 2(18), 96–99. NZGTVX.
12. Karasev, L. (1997). In the beginning was a miracle. Iskusstvo Kino, 10.
13. Kirsanova, N. N. (1982). Sign aspects of art and artistic perception (Candidate of Philosophical Sciences dissertation). Sverdlovsk, 189.
14. Kumaniaeva, A. E. (2017). IV International pedagogical forum “Text of culture and culture of text”. Russian Language at School, 11, 21–22. ZXLBYP.
15. Lotman, Yu. M. (2000). The semiosphere. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB, 704.
16. Lotman, Yu. M. (1973). Semiotics of cinema and problems of film aesthetics. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat.
17. Sokurov, A. N. (2005). True art implies a narrow circle. Iskusstvo Kino, 4.
18. Structural-semiotic methods in criticism (Yu. Lotman, A. Zholkovsky, et al.): Language (code) as the central category of the method. Myfilology.ru. https://myfilology.ru//178/strukturno-semioticheskie-metodiki-v-kritike-yu-lotman-a-zholkovskij-i-dr-yazyk-kod-kak-czentralnaya-kategoriya-metoda/ (accessed June 12, 2025).
19. Tarasova, M. V. (2012). Culture and education: Principles of interaction. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University, 358.
20. Tarasova, M. V. (2015). Theory and practice of dialogue between the viewer and the work of art. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University, 236.
21. Tikhonova, M. E. (2011). Features of worldview and artistic picture of the world in A. Sokurov’s cinematography. Vector of Science of Togliatti State University, 3(17), 266–270. PFIZGF.
22. Mazepa, V. I., Azarkhin, A. V., Mikhalev, V. P., et al. (1989). Artistic culture and aesthetic development of personality. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 27
23. Deleuze, G. (1983). Cinema 1: The movement-image; Cinema 2: The time-image. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 560.
24. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1958). Structural anthropology. Paris, 393.
25. Jung, C. G. (1919). Archetypes and the collective unconscious. Rascher, 304.
