* Данный текст распознан в автоматическом режиме, поэтому может содержать ошибки

ART OF ANCIENT GREECE: DICTIONARY above-mentioned terms (successfully or unsuccessfully is the other question) are destined to reflect. Meanwhile this resemblances show clearly that stylistic communities exceed by far the bounds of separate historic epochs and consequently not all of those communities are determinated by direct artistic succession, but their great many are result of some more or less independently arisen psychological (and hence aesthetic) propinquity. Let us recollect, for example, that it is generally and justly accepted to define with the notion of classical style so remote from each other art-historical phenomena as Greek art of V — I V с B . C . and the art of Italian High Renaissance, against what even many aforesaid representatives of historicism have no objections. But this one solely is sufficient for overthrowing the principle of historical unicity and unrepeatability of any style. Consequently there are some form-building models having capacity to repeat themselves in the course of history. On the other hand, superimposing themselves on the givenness of a concrete epoch's reality, they sometimes cross themselves with other such models and also under the influence of said givenness undergo variations and modifications which are often far-reaching. Influences, which these models or (let us call them so) aesthetic archetypes are subjected to, are diverse being conditioned by natural, technical and economic possibilities of a society or, on the contrary, by their scantiness as well as by prevailing ideological principles and reverend artistic traditions of previous times. But notwithstanding that all the tenacity of given archetypes is overwhelming, so art historians will be always enticed to call one or another phenomenon of modern art by name, say of archaic style and, vice versa, to characterize some phenomena of ancient art by names of expressionism or impressionism. But what is the aesthetic archetype by its essence and origin? What is its initial carrier? I suppose - and this supposition forms the basis of my art-historical interpretation methodology - that force determining the character of each style is a psycho-motor muscular attitude (Einstellung) prevailing among the members of given socium or its part, which (if to use the term of psychology) may be defined as the predominant body scheme, i.e. sensation of own body as a whole, and of its limbs in their preferable configuration. This attitude is inseparable from the human psyche. In my opinion, different variations of one style unite themselves by one underlying body scheme, common for all them who are individual carriers of this style. For example, rigidly frontal pose of Archaic kouros with simultaneous (and consequently redundant) tension of all muscles producing ambiguity of movement-immobility contains implicitly all the main characteristics of Archaic style as they can be seen in other arts of Archaic Greece. Those are the uniplanarness of space solutions, the emphasis on outlines as if they are 331 drawn with strained hand, the forced tectonics of temples' architecture. All that reduces itself to the ambiguity of image structure (manifested, for example, in Vllth с as thematic predilection for images of syncretic animals) and at the same time parallels an inclination to the style of inalternative thinking and behaviour (cf. analogous manifestation in art of ancient Near East). On the contrary, in the art of Classical period the figure with its chiasmos and contraposto lives outside of limits of Archaic uniplanarness: the turn of head and the natural ease of attitude point out the alternativity of possible next movement, the faculty for its rational choice. This body attitude implicates in its plastic form not only the behaviourial model of polis citizen, but also a certain cognitive attitude (position) corresponding to it, a bodilyempatic vision of thought's object, including also its artistic variety. In the eyesight of such a vision the form of object reproduces itself with especial regard for object's own properties and position. This form is outlined not with rigid and at the same time ambiguous (because living its own life separated from object) contour, but with soft and delicate line serving exclusively the distinct and unambiguous representation of object's stereometric form, the last expressing by itself a plenitude of object's inner life. Connection between the basic body-muscular selfsensation and artistic vision is much less evident in a pictorial style than in archaic and classical ones. But remembering that well-known Leonardian Ogni dipintore dipinge se ( « E a c h painter paints h i m s e l f » ) we may draw some conclusions from figures and attitudes as well as physical and emotional states prevailing in the figurative art works representing this style. In that sense the example of nonGreek but modern European art is especially revealing. First of all it concerns impressionism, where the principle of pictorial form is demonstrated most completely. Figures which predominate in impressionistic landscapes and genre scenes (the most famous exception is E . Degas) are those of resting carelessly in the open-air, basking in the sun, quietly sauntering men and women. Easily reclining attitudes with crossed legs, sitting in soft arm-chairs and sofas or lying in chaises-longs are usual in impressionistic portraits. But such relaxation of personages had appeared in art already some time before, i.e. in realist portrait painting of mid X I X c. This relaxation had prepared and determinated impres­ sionism being intimately connected with self-sensation of an artist, that, for example, who is painting some impres­ sionistic landscape, or in other words - with some common inner tone, which causes in particular an especial accom­ modation of eye-muscles, their relaxation being prerequisite for the impressionistic landscape vision. A l l that, I suppose, indicates that artistic vision is particular expression of certain body-muscular attitude. So plastically-tectonic approach (typical for early H. WOllflin)