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 (ending)

Abstract. The article attempts to identify the archetypal image of the robot, which in the twenty-FIRST century is no longer perceived in the desired way only, but in reality. The main task of the article is to find a precedent in history. The point of this precedent is to destroy the habitual identity of a person that has been established 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 simultaneously 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 puppet's functioning and reception, as evidenced by the appearance of images such as Golem or Frankenstein. Presenting 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 relationship between culture and civilization. In these relations, culture does not always play and probably will play a decisive role, which creates a problem.

Keywords: 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, estrangement, man-machine, organ projection.
 

[72] Saltykov-Shchedrin M. Decree. Op. P. 111.
[73] Ibid. P. 177.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Shenderovich V. Kukliada // Znamya. 1998. No. 3. P. 169.
[78] Ibid. P. 184.
[79] Ibid. P. 171.
[80] Ibid. P. 172.
[81] Ibid. P. 180.
[82] Gippius V. People and dolls in the satire of Saltykov // Gippius V. From Pushkin to Blok. L., 1966. P. 324.
Russians Russian formalism: methodological reconstruction of development based on the principle of exclusion. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture, 2001. P. 12.
[84] Alpers B. Theater of the social mask // Alpers B. Theatrical essays: in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977. P. 77.
[85] Lotman Yu. Dolls in the system of culture // Lotman Yu. Selected articles: in 3 vols. 1. Articles on semiotics and typology of culture. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. P. 378.
[86] Gippius V. Decree. Op. P. 303.
[87] Ibid.
[88] Hoffman E. T. A. Kreisleriana. Novellas. M.: Music, 1990. P. 188.
[89] Ibid. P. 188.
[90] Bart R. Camera lucida. M., 1997. P. 28.
[91] Craig E. G. Edict. Op. P. 223.
[92] The Love of three oranges. The Journal Of Doctor Dapertutto. Petrograd. 1915. № 4-7. P. 191.
[93] Weber A. Selected: the crisis of European culture. SPb.: University book, 1999. P. 486.
[94] Jacobson P. A statue in Pushkin's poetic mythology // Yakobson R. Works on poetics, Moscow: Progress, 1987. P. 148.
[95] Jacobson P. Decree. Op. P. 173.
[96] Safranski R. Hoffman, M.: MolodayaGvardiya. 2005. P. 258.
[97] Florensky P. Organoprojection / / Russian cosmism: an anthology of philosophical thought. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. P. 161.
[98] Ibid.
[99] Yampolsky M. Neokonchennaya play for a mechanical person (philosophical automata: Vokanson's line) // Decorative art of the USSR, 1984, no. 4, P. 25.
[100] Losev A. History of ancient aesthetics. Results of millennial development. Book 2. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994. P. 497.