Theatrical-artistic reality in Ukraine in the context of socio-cultural transformations

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

THEATRICAL-ARTISTIC REALITY IN UKRAINE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Vaniuha Liudmyla

The purpose of the article is to describe the state of theatrical-artistic reality in Ukraine in the context of socio-cultural transformations in the country after gaining independence; to determine the influence on the state of theatrical-artistic reality of such factors as power, public, criticism; to highlight the main problems that exist in Ukrainian theatrical art.

After the state independence proclamation, theatre researchers began to get rid of the ideological cliche in their writings.

The research of V. Kovtunenko and the collective work of ². Bezgin, O. Semashko, V. Kovtunenko are very valuable for understanding the theatre as a socio-cultural institution, the ways of the Ukrainian drama theatre's socio-cultural study, its regional functioning, the peculiarities of the relations between “theatre - public”, “theatre - critic”, “theatre - power”. Another collective work of I. Bezgin, O. Semashko, K. Judova-Romanova studies the Ukrainian dramatic theatres' audience.

According to the scientists, “modern theatrical-artistic reality in Ukraine, being in a transitional state, is characterized by: a) formation of a new theatrical activity infrastructure and changes of its subject; b) drafting a new system of theatrical-artistic relations among all its participants; c) increasing openness, perception of innovations; d) the new definition of the theatre's social functions; e) acquisition of national expressiveness and identity; f) the growth of the social factors' role in the theatre's functioning, increased reaction to the usually unpretentious requests of the public; g) growing factors that are unfavourable to survival; h) formation of a new social status of the theatre, updated system of the theatre's connections both in the system of artistic culture, and in society as a whole” [1].

Modern Ukrainian society develops “through the transformation that is considered in postmodernism as a combination of an incoherent at first glance conservatism and liberalism, socialism and capitalism, modernization and traditionalism, progress and regression” [9, p. 31]. Actually, “taking into consideration the totality of all social life aspects and the regularity of these changes, our society can be called “transformational”. Transformation implies the simultaneous coexistence of modernization, postmodernization and traditionalist retreat processes. These circumstances allow us to characterize the transformational society as a mutant one. Chornobyl initiated this type of society in the literal and figurative sense” [9, p. 31]. The pursuing modernization model of Ukraine “threatens with the loss of traditional culture and national identity, hopelessness of establishing a new, modern one” [3, p. 29]. The socio-economic crisis negatively affected the development of a cultural sector, in particular, theatrical art.

We consider the theatre as a socio-cultural institution, “within which the scenic art is created, the audience is a kind of factor, with the participation of which art becomes a fact of public consciousness and experience, and criticism is an instrument of public opinion” [8]. At the same time, the theatre is considered as a specific system, “which, on the basis of social and artistic needs' satisfaction, performs social and artistic functions; has a value-normative specificity in its three subsystems (theatrical creativity, ensuring the theatrefunctioning in society, the performances' artistic development); acts as a functioning social institution and theatre group, in which both creative and general social processes take place; has a developed system of social relations both within the theatre and in ties with society” [1]. Actually, “the crisis of the Ukrainian modern drama theatre, as a socio-cultural institution, is caused (in addition to economic disadvantages) by a violation of its main elements' functional interaction and, in particular, by the change in its social functions and socio-artistic relations with the audience and criticism” [1].

According to V. Gorbatenko, Ukraine, in search of its own path of development, “entered into the transit-crisis stage of its modernization, which gradually grew into a self-sufficient large-scale process with a pronounced ethno-national tint” [3, 211]. S. Kataev says that “postmodernization is associated with the formation of “information”, “technotronic” society. However, existing concepts suggest the organic movement of Western civilization to the new frontiers of the society development; while in our country, postmodernization, as well as modernization, takes place in a barbaric and violent way, through people suffering andhuman rights' neglecting” [10, 16]. Actually, “the energy of society's development is due to a socio-cultural transformation to a great extend” [10, 12].

There is no holistic concept of the national culture development in Ukraine. I. Dzyuba believes that “the future concept of culture is not a plan, not just a program of practical activity, not a set of legislative acts, but a comprehension system of history, the current state and prospects of our culture” [7, p. 634]. With regard to cultural policy, first of all, it is necessary to get rid of administrative-command management of culture, giving preference to innovative approaches, to move “to targeted programming, prioritizing, creating a legislative and regulatory framework, based on which institutions of culture could self-fulfil their functions. We must provide a combination of central coordination with the development of regional structures” [7, 634-635].

Proceeding from culturological positions “we define the state cultural policy as a state policy in the field of culture, carried out by the state, the leading subject of cultural policy, at the expense of public resources, aimed at intensifying the subcultures interaction through the formation of the national picture of the world, the nucleus of the society culture, and at the realization of cultural needs of various cultural life subjectsconsidering strategic national-cultural interests” [13, p. 97]. It is the state cultural policy, which is the main regulator of the theatre sphere, “proved to be inadequate for the new theatres' situation, giving them a great creative and institutional freedom without the necessary material support, which gave rise to a number of “diseases” and survival tests with a certain loss of a significant part of creative theatres positions” [1, 233].

After the proclamation of Ukraine's state independence, there was no clear understanding of the management specifics in the sphere of culture, and, in particular, the theatrical business, in the new market conditions. Unlike Soviet power, modern government in Ukraine did not understand the importance of theatrical art in the process of state-building. Moreover, it “threw the theatre out of favour on the margin of socio-political development, giving the informational space for making a zombie out of a “small Ukrainian”, transforming him/her into a biorobot, an obedient car for voting during election campaigns” [6].

The state authorities in the adopted “Concept of the state policy in the field of culture (2005-2007)” officially recognized that “the current state of Ukrainian culture and spirituality'sdevelopment is characterized by erosion and gradual marginalization of cultural and spiritual values in public life, the destruction of a coherent network of establishments, enterprises, organizations and institutions of culture and a holistic information and cultural space, inefficient use of existing cultural and creative resources”[14]. It's a pity, but nothing has changed for eleven years.

The management of theatrical affairs at the present stage of socio-cultural transformation, according to some scholars, can be formulated as “the unity of processes of socio-artistic forecasting, planning, regulation and upbringing. With this approach, the formation of planned indicators should be based on projected developments [...] After all, we are dealing mostly with state theatres, which are more than 130 in Ukraine and which are half-financed by the state [1, 227]. As for the regional governing body for cultural life, its main function is “to coordinate the interests of the artistic values creators andthe public, to achieve the correspondence of theatrical creativity and performances to the artistic needs of the audience” [1, p. 232].

The event in the cultural and artistic life was the adoption of “Fundamentals of Ukrainian Legislation on Culture” by the Ukrainian parliament in February 1992, which identified the legal, economic, social, organizational foundations for thecultural development in Ukraine. According to the Law interference in the creative process, censorship in the field of creative activity is not allowed. The state guaranteed the necessary allocations for the culturaldevelopment in the amount of not less than eight percent of the national income of Ukraine. However, financing of the cultural sphere in such volumes remained only a declaration of good intentions.

In May 2006, the long-awaited Law of Ukraine “On Theatres and Theatrical Affair”came into effect, which regulated social relations in the field of theatrical affair, which had arisen in connection with the theatrical productions' creation, public performance and display; established the legal status of theatres, the form of their state support, the order of their creation and activity; was directed at the formation and satisfaction of citizens creative needs and interests, their aesthetic education, preservation, development and enrichment of the spiritual potential of the Ukrainian people. The law made it impossible for censorship bodies to exist, as it had been in Soviet times. That is why creativity in the field of theatrical art was declared free.

After more than 10 years' work on the bill the Ukrainian parliament adopted the Law of Ukraine “On Culture” at the end of 2010, signed by the President of Ukraine on 6 January, 2 011. The above-mentioned law was adopted on the Basis of Legislation on Culture, which norms are no longer in line with the new socio-cultural reality. Among the main principles of state policy in the field of culture are “recognition of culture as one of the main factors of the Ukrainian people identity; promotion of the Ukrainian united cultural space creation, preservation of cultural integrity” [16].

According to experts, the main reasons for the low effectiveness of many laws in the field of culture are that “some legislative regulations are declarative, indiscriminate, not backed up by rules of direct action, and there is a lack of effective mechanisms of liability for legislation violations” [5].

At the same time, the attempt to codify legislation in the sphere of culture was not successful, which would allow to systematize the legal acts, eliminate the gaps, differences and contradictions between them, as well as the norms contained therein, and thus provide the legislation with perfection and consistency.

Consequently, “the sociocultural transformations, which take place in Ukraine, can be defined as processes of constant qualitative changes in various socio-cultural systems of society, which are determined both by objective and subjective factors, and can last from several years (rapid, revolutionary changes) up to several hundred years (slow evolutionary changes). These processes occur in stages, have their own logic and resources. The main vector of socio-cultural transformations, which take place in Ukraine, is a postSoviet (post-communist, post-totalitarian, post-colonial) one” [2].

The role and place of the theatre in the conditions of Ukrainian state creation was seen by the artistic elite in different ways. If some believed that the theatre should be far from politics, others thought more radically. For example, the secretary of the Union of Theatre Workers of Ukraine Ya. Vereshchak believed that Ukraine “needed a theatre that would argue with rallies, became their competitor, led people” [8]. At the same time, the artistic director of Taras Shevshenko Ternopil theatre assured: “We do not hold a rally, because we see the reaction of people to different speakers, we do not look for plays with “new Ukrainians” and something like that” [17].

Dramatists could not offer theatres the works that would correspond to the new socio-cultural situation. Thus, in June 1990, the mentioned secretary of the UTW of Ukraine Ya. Vereshchak noted that despite the creation at the UTW drama studio and its allocation, we cannot boast with new names and relevant pieces, that is why “rallies on the squares are more interesting and sharper than our performances” [17]. The following situation has not changed during the next years.

V. Hrytsuk, the employee of the UTW of Ukraine, based on the analysis of the reports of the UTW interregional branches concerning the premieres during the 2004-2005 theatrical season, found out that Western European dramaturgy is the leading conductor in the theatre repertoires in almost all Ukrainian regions. This testifies that “the Ukrainian theatre is totally denationalized [...] by the cultural and artistic centres of many countries that support the introduction of their classical or contemporary drama on the Ukrainian scene” [6]. So, “the lack of state policy in relation to modern drama is the main reason for the entertaining, totally apolitical and denationalized Ukrainian theatre. Only modern texts about life's realities make the theatre acute. The theatre lost its main social function” [6]. The main feature of the Ukrainian theatres is entertaining, since even in leading academic theatres, comedies and melodrama occupy about 70% of the acting repertoire. An extremely small part in the repertoire of theatres is a contemporary Ukrainian drama.

Theatrical criticism, which is intended to be a mediator between the theatre and the spectator, to form his/her artistic and aesthetic tastes, to give an integral representation of the theatre, to define tactics and strategy of its development, does not fulfil its direct functions. O. Shlemko says, “Unfortunately, there is no true, professional theatrical criticism in independent Ukraine that would have the courage and professional dignity to point to the true causes of artistic infertility in the field of theatrical art” [18].

The mentality of the Ukrainian theatre, as well as the mentality of the Ukrainians, was subjected to various deformations under the influence of a number of negative factors. It is believed that “the mentality of the Ukrainian theatre is defined in three main factors: dramaturgy (national), stage art (acting, directing, scenography) (Ukrainian-language theatres, which worked and work within and beyond Ukraine) and, of course, an audience [...]” [12]. In the conditions of the independent Ukrainian state, the theatre and audiences became more homogeneous. However, according to O. Shlemko, most theatres during the Ukrainian state-building “are not for the national idea and do not care about the development of the Ukrainian nation” [18].

At the beginning of the XXI century, the Ukrainian theatre, on the one hand, did not become “the centre of public opinion, aesthetic or moral dominant, and on the other hand, it does not feel the priority attention of society and state institutions” [14]. The model of the state repertoire theatre remained unchanged, the principles of its activity “besides a purely formal transition to a sociable system and a radical reduction in funding [...] didn't undergo the necessary changes in accordance with the requirements of time” [14]. For the theatredirectors became more profitable to rent the premises than to produce new performances. The issue of theatreaccessibility remains problematic. The theatres price policy is not aimed at ensuring the attendance of performances by low-income spectators, which cut off from the theatre a huge amount of Melpomene admirers.

Conclusions. So, after analysing the above mentioned, it can be noted that the +relations “theatre - state” and “theatre - power” become important in the conditions of Ukraine's independence. Unlike Soviet times, nowadays, powercannot influence effectively on theatre's repertoire in accordance with the current legislation, and shows indifference to it.

The “theatre - audience” relationship, which is the determining factor in the theatre functioning, is characterized by the presence of a nationally conscious and theatrically educated public, which has a good taste and demonstrates the respect to the theatre. At the same time, in order to expand the audience, the theatre is forced to adapt its repertoire to the unpretentious needs of the audience.

The “theatre - critic” relationship is characterized by the presence of competent local theatrical criticism, which at the same time has complementarity, not enough critical evaluation of the theatrical process, the inability to indicate the outline of a new theatremodel.

In general, the theatre needs to find the response to transformational processes, the challenges of globalization; requires the new functions acquisition that will enable it to act effectively as a socio-cultural institution and to determine its place in society.

theatre art state policy

References

1. Bezgin, I. D., Semashko, O. M., Kovtunenko, V. I. (2002). Theater and spectator in modern socio-cultural reality. I. K. Karpenko-Karyi Kyiv State Institute of Theatre Arts. Kyiv: ÑÐ SPC “Nauka” [in Ukrainian].

2. Voropaeva, T. S. Formation of the Ukrainian citizens collective identity in the context of modern sociocultural transformations (1991-2011years). (Electronic resource). Retrieved from: http://intkonf.org/kand-psihol-nauk- voropaeva-ts-stanovlennya-kolektivnoyi-identichnosti-gromadyan-ukrayini-v-konteksti-suchasnih-sotsiokulnih- transformatsiy-1991-2011-rr/ [in Ukrainian].

3. Horbatenko, V. P. (1999). AB OVO: the second birth of the idea of modernization, or syntagma of postmodernization. Liudyna i polityka, no. 1, pp. 29-33 [in Ukrainian].

4. Horbatenko, V. P. (1999). Society modernization strategy: Ukraine and the world at the turn of the millennium (monograph). Kyiv: Akademiia. [in Ukrainian].

5. Hrytsenko, O. A., Solodovnyk, V. V., Honcharenko, N. K., Miahka Ye. A. Study of the problems of the Ukrainian culture legislative framework harmonization with the legislation for the sphere of the European Union culture: analytical review and recommendations] (Electronic resource). Retrieved from: http://culturalstudies.in.ua/2008_zv_1_6.php [in Ukrainian].

6. Hrytsuk, V. (2008). A cart is still in entertainment or a Homogeneous monotonous Ukrainian theatre. Ukrainskyi zhurnal: informatsiinyi kulturno-politychnyi misiachnyk dlia ukraintsiv u Chekhii, Polshchi, Slovachchyni. Praha: RUTA, no. 6, pp. 17-18 [in Ukrainian].

7. Dziuba, I. (2006). To the concept of Ukrainian culture development Z krynytsi lit, vol. 2. Shevchenko and the world; Aesthetics and cultural studies; Getting to know the tenth muse; “Because that is not just a language, sounds...”; Thorny ways of understanding. Kyiv: Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia, pp. 628-635. [in Ukrainian].

8. Dmitrievskij, V. N. (1991). Theatre, viewer, criticism: problems of social functioning. Doctor of Arts Thesis. Leningrad [in Russian].

9. Kataiev, S. L. (1991). Modern Ukrainian society transformation: postmodern context. Liudyna i polityka, no. 3, pp. 29-32 [in Ukrainian].

10. Kataiev, S. L. (1998). Socio-cultural transformation of modern Ukrainian society. (Doctor of Sociology Thesis). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

11. Kovtunenko, V. I. (2000). Ukrainian theater in the context of the era. Proceedings of the The current state of Ukrainian art and the ways of its further development. Akademiia mystetstv Ukrainy. Kyiv: Kompas, pp. 71-72 [in Ukrainian]

12. Krasylnykova, O. V. (1999). Ukrainian theater history of the 20th century (monograph). Kyiv: Lybid [in Ukrainian].

13. Kuzio, O. Z. (2011). State cultural policy: cultural aspects of the concept. Visnyk Derzhavnoi akademii kerivnykh kadriv kultury i mystetstv. Kyiv: Milenium, no. 4, pp. 94-98 [in Ukrainian].

14. Lypkivska, H. (2001). Ten years on revision. A glance at the national scene at the turn of the century. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia mystetstvoznavstvo, Vol. 1. Lviv, Lviv. nats. un-t im. I. Franka, pp. 79-100. [in Ukrainian].

15. Law of Ukraine, no. 2460-IV. (2005). About the State Policy Concept in the Field of Culture for 2005-2007 years]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, no. 16, p. 264, (Electronic resource). Retvited from: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2460-iv [in Ukrainian].

16. Law of Ukraine, no. 2778-VI. (2011). About culture. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, no. 24, p. 168, (Electronic resource). Retvited from: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2778-17 [in Ukrainian].

17. Sadovska, H., Sobutska, V. (2007). Mykhailo Forhel: “I think we've found the bridge to the viewer”. Dva pera - odna liubov. Ternopil: Zbruch, pp. 33-35. [in Ukrainian].

18. Shlemko, O. D. (2010). Folk theatremodel in Ivan Franko's scientific research. Mystetstvoznavchi zapysky: zbirnyk naukovyh prats, vyp. 18. Kyiv: Milenium, pp. 138-146. [in Ukrainian].

19. Danchuk, O. (2014). Ways of development of artistic and aesthetic landmarks in the Ukrainian theater. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii kerivnykh kadriv kultury i mystetstv. Kyiv: Milenium, 1, 170-176 [in Ukrainian].

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru