RELIGIOUS-PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSCRIPTION OF SYMBOL AND CANON IN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGIOUS ARTS

Abstract

The article makes an attempt to reveal the peculiarities of influence of such components of religious art as symbol and canon, in the context of the impact on man as a whole. The researcher is interested in the process of their functioning in religious art, both from the side of religious-philosophical analysis and from the point of view of art studies.

The symbol, as an integral part of religion, serving both a liturgical and ritualistic function, is the embodiment of the existential meaning of the divine world, immutable and eternal. The symbols clearly demonstrate the presence in the earthly reality of the very beginning of the transcendent, formulating the original position of the connection of the world sinful and sacred. This is their main purpose. Hence, the saturation of religious-cultural symbols with a variety of historical, social, moral-ethical, aesthetic, modern, mystical-esoteric, and other meanings syncretically link in one indissoluble sense, which is involved in the transcendental mystery of being. Hence, the exceptional generalization of religious symbols, due to its abstract nature, maintains its cultural content within the enormous time and space dimensions of epochs, supranational and transgovernmental communities in world religions. Symbolism in religious art allows us to relate the experiences of millions of people to some kind of integrality, different in their ethnic origins and cultural traditions; to act as a form-forming and system-forming factor of separate cultures and whole civilizations.

The Canon as a certain law, which is a typical example for imitation, may be not only religious, but also artistic. The canons of artistic and religious origins are born as an integrity that is difficult to divide, but each of them has its own specifics. The canon is often considered only as a factor limiting the artist, but it also has the other side. Compliance with the canon allowed the artist - even a mediocre one - to reach a high level of artistic creativity. Thus, the average level of mass art production, for example, the ancient Russian icons due to the hard canon is very high. The true artist, working on nuances of artistic form, could show his personality and creative genius.

The symbolic and canonical components of religious art were unable to completely determine peculiarity or uniqueness of artistic thinking. Only in certain historical frameworks they were able to organize the stability of artistic integrity at a specific content-formal level. Moreover, the canon emphasized the talent and originality of the artist who created within its framework, as in order to create a significant work of art within the framework of the canon, it is necessary to have a great creative potential, the ability to overcome existing stereotypes. Thus, for example, Andrei Rublev’s works were carried out within the limits of the Orthodox, Christian canons, but at the same time it went beyond its formal boundaries, becoming a peculiar and unique phenomenon of the Eastern Slavic culture. The same were the works of other world artists who represented religious and sacred art of the Western Church - each of their geniuses went beyond the narrow limits of theological prescriptions, which is due to the unsurpassed perfection of their artistic creativity, and as a result, the world’s artistic heritage.