Humanities Journal

In this article, the exuberance of the multidimensional nature of the modern phenomenon of «public person» is conceptualized. The author argues that a person included in public life is a unique and open system. However, it is important to take into consideration that today’s diversity of the human identity has to be actualized by the demonstrative function of the public environment and, by means of modern technologies and techniques it openly appeals to the formation of boundless desires and needs by creating the communicative environment of success and personal significance. Under these circumstances, the hidden identity of a modern person does not cause social interest, remaining obscure, and therefore it is not interesting to the mass «spectator». Moreover, in the context of the expansion of public space boundaries, a public person has an opportunity to easily demonstrate himself or herself as a meaningful «commodity», the one, that dispassionately and actively changes both physically and spiritually and adapts to the demanded models of personal presentation. Existing scientific works on the phenomenon of publicity only emphasize the synthetic and ambivalent nature of the phenomenon of «public person», revealing the duality of this phenomenon through the combination of artificiality and naturalness. Among Ukrainian researchers one should note such scientists as S. Bordunov, M. Gryshchenko, O. Zulkevska, O. Zlobina, L. Malessa, A. Petrenko-Lisak, V. Sereda, I. Tishchenko, L. Radionov, etc. An «everyone to see» lifestyle is a way of self-creation, authenticity obtaining, the approbation of different «Me» options through the excessive openness and demonstration. This is a peculiar way of liberation, mass rebellion. But can mass culture form the identity and uniqueness? It is emphasized that the modern understanding of beauty in the public space is somewhat different from the classical canons of aesthetics and sometimes takes the most radical, artificial forms, which promotes to the aestheticization of the ugly cult of artificial beauty. At the same time, the concepts of beauty and fanciness should be distinguished. Since the notion of fanciness is based only on the formal characteristics of the object, determined by the trends of taste and fashion, the concept of beauty is based on the historical, social, national, cultural, religious, anthropic and other parameters of the subject of perception. In the conditions of informational flood, a beautiful body becomes a mediator, which bounds the human «Me» with the social and public environment, shapes an image of a person. The modern actualization of a body is an actualization of its demarcation, in which numerous labels and signs dismember it as a given, and reconstructing it as a structural. material for the sign exchange. In this way, the body with the mark differs from the one without. The socially marked part of the body, on the one hand, comes to the fore as a pathetic exhibit, and on the other hand, it is a testimony of a hidden symbolic content, which must be necessarily recognized by the publicly. It is precisely the reputation, not the image, that has to come to the fore and form the knowledge about the person and its publicity, but not the demonstrative image-publicity, which forms a figurative mosaic of self-conceived identity with putting it to everyone’s judge. It should be remembered that an intersubjective world arises only in the case of the projection of own «Me», when the subject sees himself or herself in the Other, or in the case of identification, when finds someone Other in himself or herself. Here, the public «sign» as a separate symbolism is random: it manifests the logic of representation of the non-subjective Other as the initiator of subjectivity as a selfness. At the same time, publicity as space «between» does not completely «dissolve» in some ontological basis, but is the basis for the formation of a public compromise and consensus: «only co-participation in the existence of other beings opens the meaning and foundations of self-existence».

Апресян Р. Г. Идея морали и базовые нормативно-этические программы. М. : ИФ РАН, 1995. 353 с.

Бауман З. Текучая современность / пер. с англ. под ред. Ю. В. Асочакова. СПб. : Питер, 2008. 240 с.

Бодрийяр Ж. Символический обмен и смерть. М. : Добросвет, 2000. 387 с.

Бычков В. В. Эститика : учеб. М. : Гардарики, 2004. 556 с.

Газнюк Л. М. Соматичне буття персонального світу особистості. Х. : ХДАФК, 2003. 356 с.

История Красоты / пер. с итал. А. Сабашниковой под ред. У. Эко. М. : Слово, 2006. 440 с.

Косяк В. А. Экскурс в телесное жизневосприятие // Практична філософія. 2005. №2 (№16). С. 188–202.

Крюковский Н. И. Логика красоты. Минск, 1965. С. 464.

Лосев А. Ф. История античной эстетики. Софисты. Сократ. Платон. М. : «Искусство», 1969. Т 2. 60 с.

Мартынов В. Ф. Философия красоты. Минск : ТетраСистемс, 1999. 336 с.

Плеснер Х. Ступени органического и человек: Введение в философскую антропологию / пер. с нем. А. Г. Гаджикурбанова. М. : РОССПЭН, 2004. 368 с.

Сартр Ж.-П. Экзистенциализм – это гуманизм. Сумерки богов / сост. и общ. ред. А. А. Яковлева. М. : Политиздат, 1989. С. 319–345.

Татаркевич В. История шести понятий / пер. с польск. Б. Домбровского. М. : Дом интеллектуальной книги, 2003. 374 с.

Тед Чaн. История твоей жизни. Тебе нрaвится, что ты видишь? / пер. А. Комаринец. Издательство : АСТ, Люкс , 2005. С. 337–389.

Флоренский П. А. Столп и утверждение истины. Приложение к журналу «Вопросы философии» : в 2 т. Т. 1 / АН СССР, Ин-т философии, Философское общество СССР ; вступ. ст. С. С. Хоружий. М. : Правда, 1990. 490 с.

Фромм Э. Иметь или быть? / пер. с англ. Э. М. Телятниковой. М. : АСТ, 2014. 314 с.

Blacking J. Towards an Anthropology of the Body. The Anthropology of the Body. London : Academic Press, 1977. Pp. 1–28.

Featherstone M. The Body in Consumer Culture. The Body: Social Process and Cultural Theory. London : Sage, 1991. Pp. 170–196