Khrenov Nikolay Andreevich,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
All-Russian State University
of Cinematography named after S.A. Gerasimov.
e-mail: nihrenov@mail.ru

A sociological turn in science.
About the art of the XIX century:
I. Ten's concept as an anticipation of a cultural turn
(beginning)

Abstract. The methodological "boom" in the field of art studies, characteristic of the second half of the twentieth century, is a consequence of the emergence of a large number of new sciences and the activation of sciences and scientific directions that have appeared since the beginning of Modern times. Initially, it was a philosophical "boom", as evidenced, for example, by the practice of encyclopedists in France of the XVIII century. Then, one after another, such sciences as aesthetics, sociology, psychology, semiotics appeared. Linguistics, philology and such a traditional philosophical direction as hermeneutics have become more active. Later, interest in phenomenology grew. And, finally, in the second half of the twentieth century, the science of culture is born and is undergoing rapid development, in which a synthesis of previously emerged sciences and scientific directions is unfolding, and, moreover, natural sciences and humanities enter into special relations on the basis of a new science. The discovery of culture as a subject of scientific research is one of the most striking events in the history of science of the XX and XXI centuries. It can be argued that there was a cultural turn in this story. However, in the history of science, this global turn had a prehistory in the form of an aesthetic and sociological turn. Within the boundaries of aesthetics and sociology, problems that would later become specifically culturological problems have already been discussed. The article is devoted to one of such turns — the sociological one. This turn received its fullest expression in the works of the French researcher of the XIX century – Hippolyte Taine, devoted to art. Therefore, this work is devoted to the analysis of the ideas and method of I. Teng. However , analyzing the writings of I. The author seeks to demonstrate an attention-grabbing fact - an attempt to explain the nature of art using not only ideas about what had developed in aesthetics and in the humanities in general by that time, but also using methods characteristic of the natural sciences. In other words, bearing in mind the methodology of I. Teng, the author tries to show the contribution of positivism to the knowledge of art. Such a statement of the question is relevant, since the invasion of positivism into the processes of cognition of art does not characterize only the science of the XIX century. Once again, the activity of positivism manifested itself in the middle of the twentieth century and has already become a tradition. This was evidenced by the activation of the sociology of art. Positivism also influenced the formation of the science of culture. Putting emphasis on recurring phenomena in history, proponents of positivism sacrificed the unique, without which art does not exist. Thus, they led to the idea of the "death of the author", known for structuralism, poststructuralism and postmodernism. Thus, the experience of positivism in its application to art becomes an essential problem of the theory of art as a subdiscipline of art criticism. The fact that the methodology coming into the field of art study is forced to sacrifice the unique and unrepeatable in the study of art, generates an ambivalent attitude of art historians to the use of methods borrowed from related disciplines. The desire to improve the methodology of studying art obliges them to borrow such methods, but the lowering of the status of "names", i.e. authors, scares them away. This article is conceived by the author as part of a fundamental study, which the author calls "the history of the history of art", i.e. the history of the formation of the methodology of art study.

Keywords. Positivism, cultural turn, sociological turn, history of art, history of art history, sociology of art, psychology of art, aesthetics, natural sciences, humanities, history of art without names, culture of sensual type, culture of ideational type, Taine, Spencer, Comte, Hegel, Sorokin, Durkheim, Guizot, Bokle, Dubo, Kroeber, Foucault, Spengler, civilization, author's death, cultural studies, art science, linear principle, cyclic principle

[1] Khrenov N. Six theses on the aesthetics of Russian symbolism // Spirit of symbolism. Russian and Western European art in the context of the epoch of the late XIX - early XX century. M.: Progress-Tradition. 2012.
[2] Sorokin P. Social and cultural dynamics. Research of changes in large systems of art, truth, ethics, law and Public Relations. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000.
[3] Zhirmunsky V. German Romanticism and modern Mysticism. St. Petersburg, 1996. p. 20.
[4] Guyot M. Art from a sociological point of view. St. Petersburg, 1901. p. 30.
[5] Bourget P. Essays of modern psychology. St. Petersburg, 1888. p. 147.
[6] Sorokin P. System of Sociology. In 2 v. M.: Science. 1993.
[7] Sorokin P. Social and cultural dynamics. Research of changes in large systems of art, truth, ethics, law and public relations / Trans. from English, comment. and an article by V.V. Sapov. St. Petersburg: RHGI, 2000. p. 45.
[8] Ibid. p. 408.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Kristeva Yu. Selected works: The Destruction of Poetics. M., 2004. p. 420.
[11] Schroeder P. Transcendental style in cinema: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. 1996. № 32.
[12] Kristeva Yu. Decree. op. p. 491.
[13] Schelling F. V. Philosophy of Mythology. Introduction to the philosophy of mythology. In 2-tt. St. Petersburg: Edition of St. Petersburg University. 2013.
[14] Kuznetsov M. Virtual reality - a technogenic artifact or a network phenomenon? // Virtualistics: existential and epistemological aspects. M.: Progress-Tradition. 2004. p. 62.
[15] Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose. M.: Canon. 1995. p. 26.
[16] Brandes G. Collected works in the 20th century. Vol. 13. Literary characteristics. St. Petersburg. p. 96.
[17] Ibid. p. 223.
[18] Ibid. p. 224
[19] Ibid.
[20] Lalo Sh. Introduction to Aesthetics. M. 1915. p. 197.
[21] Teng I. Journey through Italy. In 2 v. Vol. 2. M.: Art-Spring. 2008. p. 192.
[22] Vico D. The foundations of a new science about the common nature of nations. M-Kiev: "Refl-book", "ISA". 1994. p. 439.
[23] Ten I. Philosophy of Art and about the ideal in art. Voronezh. 1869.
[24] Trelch E. Historicism and its problems. M.: Lawyer. 1994. p. 334.
[25] Plekhanov G. Aesthetics and sociology of art. In 2 v. Vol. 1. M.: Art. 1978. p. 178.
[26] Trelch E. Decree. op. p. 334.
[27] Ibid. p. 556.
[28] Ibid. p. 319.
[29] Bourget P. Essays of modern psychology. St. Petersburg, 1888. p. 139.
[30] Lalo Sh. Introduction to aesthetics. M. 1915. p. 188.
[31] Lazarev V. On the methodology of modern art studies // Soviet Art Studies, 77. 1978. No. 2. C. 315.
[32] Zedlmayr H. Art and truth. On the theory and method of art history. M. 1999. C. 81.
[33] Bazin J. The history of the history of art. From Vasari to the present day. M.: Publishing group Progress-Culture. 1995. p. 101.
[34] Ibid., p. 136.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid., p. 137.
[37] Brandes G. Decree. Op. Vol. 13. C. 91.
[38] Teng I. About the method of criticism and the history of literature. St. Petersburg, 1896. C. 13.
[39] Brandes G. The main trends in the literature of the XIX century. In 3 v. Vol. 2. French literature. Kiev: Edition of B. Fuchs. 1903. p. 265.
[40] Bokle G. T. History of civilization in England. In 2 v. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg. 1906. p. 10.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid. p. 93.
[44] Spencer G. Sociology as a subject of study. St. Petersburg. 1896. C. 26.
[45] Ibid. P. 30.
[46] Ibid. P. 31.
[47] Spencer G. The origin and activity of music // Spencer G. Scientific, Political and philosophical experiments. St. Petersburg. 1866. C. 139.
[48] Kroeber A. Favorites: The nature of culture. M.: ROSSPEN. 2004. p. 14.
[49] Teng I. Philosophy of Art. M.: Ogiz-Izogiz. 1933. p. 7.
[50] Ibid. p. 9.
[51] Teng I. About the method of criticism and the history of literature. St. Petersburg, 1896. p. 27.
[52] Guyot M. Art from a sociological point of view. St. Petersburg. 1901. C. 67.
[53] Ibid., p. 68.
[54] Ibid., p. 71.
[55] Kroeber A. Favorites. The nature of culture. C. 19.
[56] Teng I. Philosophy of Art. Decree. Soc. p. 92.
[57] Ibid. p. 293.
[58] Ibid., p. 296.
[59] Winkelman I. The history of ancient art. Small works. St. Petersburg: Aleteya. 2000. p. 34.
[60] Dubo J-B. Critical Reflections on poetry and painting. Moscow: Iskusstvo. 1976. p. 402.
[61] Ibid., p. 402.
[62] Teng I. Philosophy of Art. Decree. Soc. P. 292.
[63] Dubo Zh-B. Decree. Soc. p. 401.