Роль орнаменту в стилістичній організації станкового твору образотворчого мистецтва України ХХ – початку ХХІ століття

Abstract

У статті охарактеризовано варіативність трактування орнаментальних форм у вітчизняних станкових роботах. Показано, що в період модерну візерунок виступав засобом зближення декоративного та образотворчого мистецтва. У творчості авангардистів принципи національного орнаментування служили засобом формальної мови в сюжетному творі. В період нонконформізму візерунок був способом освоєння української традиційності. Простежено, що в сучасному професійному живописі автентичний орнамент сприймається як ознака етнохудожнього мислення, засіб естетизації станкового твору.

В статье характеризуется вариативность трактования орнаментальных форм в отечественных станковых роботах. Показано, что в период модерна узор выступал средством сближения декоративного и изобразительного искусства. В творчестве авангардистов принципы народной орнаментации служили средством формального языка в сюжетном произведении. В период нонконформизма узор был образом освоения украинской традиционности. Прослежено, что в современной профессиональной живописи аутентичный орнамент воспринимается как признак этнохудожественного мышления, средство эстетизации станкового произведения.

The goal of the research is to retrace the evolution of the role of different ornament usage levels in the stylistic organization of the figurative arts work at the times of Ukrainian modernism, avant-garde, socialist realism and post-modernism. For that purpose the variability of the ornamental forms interpretation starting from decorativism, folklorism up to their functioning as a self-sustaining form in the particular native easel painters practice is characterized. In the modern time works the ornament was used to emphasize the painting harmony, to get the aesthetic enjoyment from its contemplation. Such a picture was given an emphasized and predominant decorative basis, syncretism. During the avant-garde period the artists refer to the language of popular ornament in order to experiment and create unrealistic, “pure”, abstract paintings. Using only separate ornamental modules, thanks to the common forming creative method (by means of ornament architectonics, culture of the color, artistic figurativeness of the pattern) the artists reached formal, relatively laconic works (К. Melevych, М. Kasperovych, М. Bojchuk and others). The creative search of Bojchuk-followers in the decorative art such as О. Sajenko, S. Kolos, G. Narbut, F. Krychevskyi corresponded to the avant-garde stylistics (especially to the constructivism). By constructing their proper ornamental structures they embraced the distinctive national idea. It is demonstrated that such modern and avant-garde practices with courageous usage of the metrics and rhythm in figurative, graphic works, Gobelin tapestry, panel pictures prepared the ground for the national sixties’ monumentalism, and, later, for the polymorphism, collaging, postmodern art formalism. During the socialist realism period the ornament played the role of the national cultural marker within the framework of the prevailing ideology and operated mainly in terms of so-termed stencils that are simplified in terms of coloring and form factor. In the sixties’ easel works the ornaments got a special sounding. It was a result of the painters’ insight into the national identity issue by their interest towards “peasant”, “Carpathian” topics in line with folklorism and monumentalism. At that time in the artistic environment such personalities as І.-V. Zadorozhnyi, V. Zaretskyi can be placed a special emphasis on. The ornamentalism of these artists impresses with their aesthetics, magnificence of motives interpretation, reality romanticization, ornaments’ symbolism, and first of all with their distinctive individualism. It is traced that in the last decades of the ХХ th cent., and especially in the early ХХІ cent. in the professional figurative arts the usage of the popular or author’s ornament aesthetics has the role of an experimental element in the individual painter’s technique, representing the most completely the penchant of the contemporary art for collaging, multilayerness, philosophical characters’ interpretation. The sum of works representing the appeal to ornamental forms in the context of the Ukrainian folklore plotline is predominant. It is revealed that operating either exclusively the ornamental fragments (modules) as self-sustaining motives or where the ornament covers the background, the clothes, overlaps the landscape etc. is a relatively new variant. It’s the authentic ornament that the most often is subject to the interpretation through defragmentation, laying-up, collaging, decontextualization (О. Kaznokh, D. Struk) due to the fact that it’s almost impossible to add anything to this already perfect structure. The painters’ modeling of the rhythm in the painting from the ornaments deprived of the ethnography features (І. Romanko, О. Andruchtchenko, L. Korzh-Radko) is more rare. It’s studied out that during the analyzed period, notwithstanding the permanent reference to ornamentation as to the folklore figurative component, but with different levels of the “dialogue” with ethnic art: starting from the experiment to make up a formal plastic language, insight into the national identity issue, up to the creation of aestheticized non-baroque product, a complex design work with inserted conceptual ideas.