ART CRITICISM AND CULTURAL STUDIES. ABOUT THE WORKS OF I.E. DANILOVA

Author(s):  
Leonid M. Batkin ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (SPE3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Alekseevna Sychenkova ◽  
Oksana Viktorovna Storchai

The suggestions about reprinting the program of P.V. Pavlov for discussion in the academic community of historians, cultural studies scholars and art historians are expressed. The proposed scholarly discussion around the propaedeutic heritage of art historians of the 19th – early 20th centuries should become one of the steps to prepare a new version of the history of Russian art criticism.


Author(s):  
Yuliia Sabadash ◽  

The article focuses onto the theoretical developments of Ukrainian specialists in cultural studies, which were provided during the last decade. It is noted that the active development of cultural knowledge requires both the fixation of already worked out problems and the definition of new problems in the logics of further research process. It is shown that during the 2010-2020 period the theoretical interest of scientists was directed to the argumentation of specific principles of cultural analysis, which helps to distinguish “Cultural Studies” among other “structural elements” of humanism, in particular, socio-political knowledge, philosophy, aesthetics, history and theory of religion, art criticism, etc. The “boundary sphere” is outlined, where the theoretical interests of cultural studies intercross with other Humanities. The importance of generalization and systematization of those theoretical spheres that are in consideration of modern Ukrainian scientists is pointed out and those “white spots” are more clearly delineated that year by year are in the focus of researchers’ attention. Besides, basing onto the publications that appear during 2019, especially those that reflect the conceptual basis of future PhD or doctoral dissertations, it can be argued that scientists mostly “push off” from those groundworks that were to some extent stated previously in 2018-2019


Author(s):  
Patrick Ryan

Outside of pediatric medical science, positivistic developmental psychology, or econometrics and demography, childhood researchers highly value and often practice reading childhood as discourse, as a body of representational practice. Unfortunately, “discourse” is a concept whose bibliographic handling is susceptible to two errors: (a) the mistake of using overwrought theoretical distinctions that do not reflect the thick empirical nature of studying childhood as discourse, and (b) the futility of lumping most of the critical study of childhood into one meta-category. In response to this difficulty, this bibliography will pay little attention to whether writers offered an allegiance to discourse analysis as such. Instead, it identifies works that have significantly contributed to our ability to read childhood as discourse. After outlining the foundational works, guides, and invaluable tools of reference for discourse research, this bibliography is organized around the conclusion that our ability to read childhood as discourse stems from three fruitful pathways: the history of language, ideas, and knowledge; literary and art criticism; and cultural studies and contemporary ideology critique.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Bender

Abstract Tomasello argues in the target article that, in generalizing the concrete obligations originating from interdependent collaboration to one's entire cultural group, humans become “ultra-cooperators.” But are all human populations cooperative in similar ways? Based on cross-cultural studies and my own fieldwork in Polynesia, I argue that cooperation varies along several dimensions, and that the underlying sense of obligation is culturally modulated.


1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosario Martínez-Arias ◽  
Fernando Silva ◽  
Ma Teresa Díaz-Hidalgo ◽  
Generós Ortet ◽  
Micaela Moro

Summary: This paper presents the results obtained in Spain with The Interpersonal Adjective Scales of J.S. Wiggins (1995) concerning the variables' structure. There are two Spanish versions of IAS, developed by two independent research groups who were not aware of each other's work. One of these versions was published as an assessment test in 1996. Results from the other group have remained unpublished to date. The set of results presented here compares three sources of data: the original American manual (from Wiggins and collaborators), the Spanish manual (already published), and the new IAS (our own research). Results can be considered satisfactory since, broadly speaking, the inner structure of the original instrument is well replicated in the Spanish version.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document