THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUITY IN THE FIELD OF ART SYNTHESIS FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE URBAN CENTER ENVIRONMENT

Abstract

The article is devoted to consideration of the requirements for organic unity, harmony and integrity of the synthesis of arts in the architectural environment, which made such unique buildings – temples and theaters of antiquity, Gothic cathedrals, medieval urban complexes, ensembles of the Renaissance and the era of modernism – the basis of cultural memory, ignoring which is tantamount to human cultural degradation. The theory of the synthesis of architecture and fine arts substantiates the connections between different types of art by their nature, through which architecture ensures the achievement of a holistic unity of various spatial and visual systems. Any historical style of the past can rightly be regarded as the result of an organic synthesis of arts and architecture, but one should keep in mind that stylistic integrity was not the goal of synthesis but came from the integral worldview context of a particular era, embodying the unity of society’s material and spiritual culture. Socially aggravated turning points in the art of the era of "machine" industrial capital in the half of the 19th century gave birth to the idea of eliminating socio-ideological contradictions by the united efforts of all types of arts that have undergone an active separation, disunity and "Stankovism". New currents of the 20th-century, a period of functional (constructivist) architecture, define it as a synthesis of artistic and industrial principles, which are characterized by the truthfulness of forms that excludes any synthetic connection with fine arts. However, L. Corbusier sees the unity of the syntax of architecture, painting and sculpture based on the principle of determining the points of the highest intensity in the architectural ensemble. A complex structure of connections “reality – artist – viewer” is inherent in the integrated work of art synthesis as a form of reflection of the real world. The creative concepts of an architect and an artist must have common ideological and visual tasks, an understanding of aesthetic reality, artistic scale, compositional regularities, etc. The historical experience of creating architectural and urban spatial compositions demonstrates that the interaction of arts touches on the essential issues of the formation of each type of plastic arts, issues of the unity of the artistic culture of the era, style. However, simultaneously with the recognition of the undoubted artistic value of the masterpieces created and tested over the centuries in the field of synthesis of arts in the architectural environment of historical cities, highly professional criticism from the elitist – philosophers, thinkers, outstanding architects and representatives of other types of arts, such as Ortega-y-Gasset, Jean Baudrillard, E. Fromm, K. Teplitz, A. Sokal, J. Brickman, D. Chapperfield et al., received the postmodernist boom at the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries. They realized that it was inconceivable without the pseudo-philosophy of mass culture with its permissiveness to please the nouveau riche, which flooded architecture with pseudohistoricism of pseudo-styles. Today's state of aggressively ignoring the leading principles of Function, Tectonics and Form requires an uncompromising separation of the aristocracy of architectural-aesthetic canons from mass cultural pop art in the field of synthesis of architecture and other types of arts.