Abstract
The article reveals the problem of uniformity of understanding basic concepts of forensic art examination. The concept of "activity" in the art, psychological and legal context is explored. It is noted that the uniformity of understanding of this term is determined by the research of L. S. Vygotsky, A. R. Luriya, S. L. Rubinstein, A. A. Leontiev and others. Following these, the concept of creativity, which is relevant in the expert activity, is proposed. In order to determine the features of artistic creativity, the author analyzes the performances of the representative of contemporary Russian (boundary) art - Pavel Pavlensky. On the philosophical, psychological, art criticism, and legal grounds the author outlines some features that distinguish various types of activities relevant in forensic art examination. It is proved that there is an objective level of understanding of creativity, which is revealed through the comparison of various activities. Proceeding from the general scheme of behavior of subjects (mechanism of action): motive, motivation, action, result of activity, evaluation, it is proved that, in spite of the subjective level of understanding of creativity, it is possible to establish the features of creativity, games, offenses, and crimes. It is asserted that this is relevant in establishing the fact in proof; choosing the type of forensic art examination; appropriate definition of the subject of forensic examination.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.