| Annotation |
The article examines the pedagogical potential of the modern art direction junk art. Junk art not only
represents new mechanisms in contemporary art, but also due to its rich sets of forms, in most cases, without
claiming to be a category of high art, it is able to be a material for art practices, used in the pedagogical
process, having the potential for creative development. At the same time, junk art has not received a broad
theoretical understanding in terms of developing its methods in the educational and creative process. The
purpose of this work is to generalize the pedagogical experience of using junk art in the educational and creative process based on the theoretical justification of its capabilities. The author’s experience of using junk art
in the educational and creative process of students of the profile “design of the environment” both within the
framework of educational programs and outside of them is based on the analysis of the historical and cultural
context of the origin of junk art, its artistic understanding. The application of institutional theory justifies the
consideration in art of various new forms created in the relevant institutions. Junk art is one of the promising
techniques, the potential of which is as follows: the use of new formative techniques, conceptualization in art
in student works, actualization of modern problems in the subject of youth creativity, motivation of students,
including in the conditions of distance learning creativity, the use of alternative methods in the study of the
laws of construction of visual composition. Both traditional empirical methods of observation, conversation,
experiment, and theoretical (analysis, synthesis), as well as system and project approaches are used in
the study. The analysis of the historical understanding of the direction of junk art in art studies, the practical
experience of the student scientific and creative association “Creative” (Faculty of Culture and Arts of TSU),
as well as the materials of creative classes in the pandemic period became the main materials of the study.
The results and examples presented in the article can be applied conceptually to develop other master class
programs for different age groups aimed at developing imagination, creative and compositional thinking in
teaching fine arts and design |
| References |
1. Kozharinova, A. R. Garbage as a product of culture: from recycling to aestheticization. Horizons of
Humanitarian knowledge, no. 3, 2017. Web. 10.01.2023. http://journals.mosgu.ru/ggz/arti cle/view/520. (In
Rus.)
2. Andreeva, E. Yu. Postmodernism: The Art of the second half of the XX – beginning of the XXI century.
SPb: Azbuka-klassika, 2007. (In Rus.)
3. Liotar, Zh.-F. The state of postmodernity. SPb: Aleteya, 2013. (In Rus.)
4. Mankovskaya, N. B. Postmodernism in Art. The phenomenon of postmodernism: Artistic and aesthetic
perspective. M; SPb: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ: Universitetskaya kniga, 2009: 109–209. (In Rus.)
5. Foster, H., Krauss, R. Art since 1900: modernism, anti-modernism, postmodernism. M: Ad Marginem
Press, 2015. (In Rus.)
6. Benyamin, V. A work of art in the era of its technical reproducibility. Medium, 1996. (In Rus.)
7. Bertolini, Zh. Garbage is others. Otechestvennye zapiski, no. 3, 2007. Web. 10.01.2023. http://www.
stranaoz.ru/2007/3/musor——etodrugie. (In Rus.)
8. Boye, A. A. The problem of expressing anti-aesthetics of Dadaism and its classification. Articult, no. 23,
pp. 17–25, 2016. (In Rus.)
9. Sedelnik, V. D. Dadaism and Dadaists. M: IMLI RAN, 2010. (In Rus.)
10. Rihter, Kh. Dada-experience and anti-experience: Vlad Dadaist’s experience XX centuries. M: Gileya,
2014. (In Rus.)
11. Scheglova M. V. Dadaism is a socio-psychological symptom of the era of change. Proceedings of the
Volgograd State Pedagogical University, no. 2, pp. 59–65, 2005. (In Rus.)
12. Tomkins, K. Marcel Duchamp. Afternoon conversations. M: Izdatelstvo Gryundrisse, 2014. (In Rus.)
13. Kristine, Stiles. Junk art. Oxford Art Online. Web. 10.01.2023. https://www.academia.edu/88225714/
Junk_art. (In Engl.)
14. Bychkov, V. Contemporary art in the context of aesthetic experience. Art Studies, no. 3–4, pp. 228–
248, 2015. (In Rus.)
15. Zaharova, L. N. Is it possible to define art? Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, no. 35, pp. 101–
104, 2012. (In Rus.)
16. Antonyan, K. G. Bulletin of Psychophysiology, no. 3, pp. 96–102, 2014. (In Rus.)
17. Goncharenko, N. Garbage and its image in the works of pop art and “new Realism” artists. Art and
Education, no. 5, pp. 7–17, 2015. (In Rus.)
18. Osipova, N. O. Garbage landscape of modern culture. Bulletin of Vyatka State University, no. 3,
pp. 117–121, 2011. (In Rus.)
19. Tetsuo, Kogava. Thrash art in the era of digital decay. 2011. Web. 10.01.2023. http://old. mediaartlab.
ru/site/russian_version/texts/trashart_in_the_age_of_Digital_Ash.htm. (In Rus.)
20. Malysheva, A. V. Recycling art as contemporary art and environmental movement. Youth Scientific
Forum: Humanities: elektr. sb. st. po materialam XXX stud. mezhdunar. zaoch. nauch.-prakt. konf. M: MCNO,
no. 1, pp. 15–19, 2016. https://nauchforum.ru/archive/MNF_humanities/1(29).pdf (In Rus.)
21. Lebedinskaya, V. S. Junk art as a modern trend in art. Dialogue of cultures. Materials of the
XIV interuniversity scientific-practical conference with international participation. SPb, May 20–22, 2021. Part
II, 2021: 118–121. (In Engl.)
22. Donadio, M. S. Transfigured wasteland: The sculpture of Richard Stankiewicz. M: 1997. (In Engl.)
23. Diki, D. Defining Art / American philosophy of art: the main concepts of the second half of the XX
century – anti-essentialism, perceptualism, institutionalism. Antologiya. Yekaterinburg: Delovaya kniga,
Bishkek: Odissej, 1997: 243–252. (In Rus.)
24. Danto, A. The World of art. M: Ad Marginem Press, 2017. (In Rus.)
25. Berdyaev, N. A. The meaning of creativity. M: Harkov: Folio; M: AST, 2002. (In Rus.)
26. Arnhejm, R. Art and Visual Perception. M: Progress, 1974. (In Rus.)
27. Bychkov, V. V. Aesthetics. Short course. M: Proekt, 2003. (In Rus.)
28. Komandyshko, E. F. Pedagogical potential of art in the creative development of students: an
integrative approach. M: IHO RAO, 2011. (In Rus.)
29. Gorbacheva, D. A. Development of creative potential of students of universities of culture and arts ‒
future specialists of social and cultural activity: axiological approach. Dr. sci. diss. abstr. M., 2009. (In Rus.)
30. Sergeeva, N. Yu. Pedagogical potential of modern art forms. Arts and education, no. 6, pp. 135–141,
2009. (In Rus.)
31. Klimenko, A. Yu Pedagogical potential of contemporary art. Culture and Art in Modern Society: A
Collection of Articles. Volgograd: Volgogradskiy gosuniversitet, 2021: 126–131. (In Rus.)
32. Bright, E. K. Found art: Recycling our roots Web.10.01.2023. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
331931012_The_Art_of_Recycling_Fresco-Icons_At_the_Roots_of_the_Cult_of_Images. (In Engl.) |
