Khrenov Nikolai Andreevich,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
the Gerasimov Russian State
University of Cinematography
e-mail: nihrenov@mail.ru

ON THE WAY TO " POSTHUMAN»:
ANTHROPOLOGICAL, MYTHOLOGICAL AND ARTISTIC POTENTIAL OF THE PUPPET
(beginning)

Abstract. The article attempts to identify the archetypal image of the robot, which in the XXI century is no longer perceived as a desired image only, but as a reality. The main task of the article is to find a precedent in the history. The purpose of this precedent is to destroy the habitual identity of a person, which is asserted in history, starting with cultural Genesis, and to experiment with new forms of identity. In the era of scientific and technological progress, as well as the formation and establishment of democratic societies, such experiments are not only desirable, but also inevitable. Technology allows us to do this, although it is obvious that along with the desire to experiment with identity, there is also a fear of its possible consequences. In fact, long before the robot appeared, this process unfolded in the history of the functioning and reception of the puppet, as evidenced by the appearance of such images as the Golem or Frankenstein. Setting out the history of the puppet against the background of a changing identity, the author proves that the appearance of the robot indicates a new situation that has arisen in the relations between culture and civilization. In these relations, culture does not always play and probably will play a determining role, which creates a problem.

Keyword. Puppet, archetype, myth, identity, culture, civilization, virtual reality, anthropological crisis, Posthuman, Hephaestus, Vocanson, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gozzi, Hoffman, Lametri, Meyerhold, Craig, sacred, modern, romanticism, symbolism, Golem, Frankenstein, ostranenie, man-machine, organ projection

[1] Khrenov N. mass communication Media in the perspective of virtual reality // international journal of cultural studies. 2017. No. 2;Khrenov N. Virtual reality in its artistic and non-artistic manifestations: its prehistory and history // Science of television and screen arts. Issue 14. Moscow, 2018. Pp. 27-52.
[2] Bazin A. What is cinema? Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972. P. 53.
[3] Kuznetsov M. Virtual reality – technogenic artifact or network phenomenon / / Virtualistics: existential and epistemological aspects. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2004. P. 67.
[4] Tretyakov V. Theory of television. TV as neo-paganism and as carnival. Moscow: Ladomir Research and publishing center, 2015.664 p.
[5] Shevchenko L. the Birth of tragedy // Znamya. 1999. No. 9. P. 218.
[6] Ibid. P. 219.
[7] Shenderovich V. Dolls-2. Moscow: Vagrius, 1998. P. 301.
[8] Chapek K. R. U. R. Means Of Macropulos., War with salamanders., Fantastic story. Moscow: Mir, 1966.
[9] Magnin J. History of puppets in Europe from ancient times to the present day. Moscow: Kanon-plus, 2017. P. 24.
[10] Eisenstein S. Selected works in 6 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968. P. 312.
[11] Ibid. P. 312.
[12] Goldovsky B., Dukhanina L. Children Of Hephaestus. Moscow, 2015. P. 31.
[13] Homer. The Iliad (translated from the ancient Greek by N. Gnedich). Moscow: De Agostini, 2006. P. 344.
[14] Magnen Sh. Edict. Op. P. 99.
[15] Craig G. Memoirs, articles, letters. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1988. P. 228.
[16] Ibid. P. 227.
[17] Bogatyrev P. on the relationship of two close semiotic systems (Puppet theater and theater of living actors) // Works on sign systems. Y1. Scientific notes of the University of Tartu. Tartu, 1973, Issue 308. P. 308.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Kutyrev V. carried away by progress. Eschatology of life in the technogenic world. SPb.:Aletheia, 2016.
[20] Krakauer Z. Psychological history of German cinema. From Caligari to Hitler. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977. P. 39.
[21] La Mettrie J. O. Man – machine // La Mettrie, J. O. the Works. M.: Thought. 1976. P. 236.
[22] Weber A. favorites: the Crisis of European culture. University book. SPb., 1998. P. 421.
[23] Safranski R. Hoffman. Moscow: MolodayaGvardiya, 2005. P. 58.
[24] Yampolsky M. unfinished play for mechanical man (philosophical automata: Vocanson line // Decorative art of the USSR. 1984. No. 4. From 29.
[25] Meyerhold V. Articles. Letters. Speeches. Conversations. Vol. 1. 1891-1917. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968. P. 49.
[26] Saltykov-Shchedrin M. Fairy Tales. Motley letters. The little things of life // Saltykov-Shchedrin, M. the Complete works. Vol. XVI. Moscow: KhudozhestvennayaLiteratura, 1937. P. 128.
[27] Ibid. P. 144.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Saltykov-Shchedrin M. the History of a city. GentlemenGolovlevs. Fairy tales. Moscow: MoskovskyRabochy, 1972. P. 110.
[30] Ibid. P. 111.
[31] Ibid. P. 177.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Shenderovich V. Kukliada // Znamya. 1998. No. 3. P. 169.
[36] Ibid. P. 184.
[37] Ibid. P. 171.
[38] Ibid. P. 172.
[39] Ibid. P. 180.
[40] Gippius V. People and dolls in Saltykov's satire // Gippius V. From Pushkin to Blok. L., 1966. P. 324.
[41] Hansen-Leve O. A. Russian formalism: methodological reconstruction of development based on the principle of exclusion. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture, 2001. P. 12.
[42] Alpers B. Theater of the social mask // Alpers B. Theatrical essays. In 2vol. Vol. 1. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977. P. 77.