<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">discourse</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Дискурс</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Discourse</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2412-8562</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2658-7777</issn><publisher><publisher-name>СПбГЭТУ «ЛЭТИ»</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.32603/2412-8562-2017-0-6-24-35</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">discourse-146</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ФИЛОСОФИЯ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>PHILOSOPHY</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>НОВЫЕ ПОДХОДЫ К ДЕФИНИЦИИ В СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ФИЛОСОФИИ ИСКУССТВА И ТЕОРИИ КИНО</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>NEW APPROACHES TO DEFINITION IN CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY OF ART AND FILM-THEORY</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Поликарпова</surname><given-names>Д. А.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Polikarpova</surname><given-names>D. A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">darinet2711@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru">Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет<country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en">Saint Petersburg State University<country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2017</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>28</day><month>12</month><year>2017</year></pub-date><volume>0</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>24</fpage><lpage>35</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Поликарпова Д.А., 2017</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2017</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Поликарпова Д.А.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Polikarpova D.A.</copyright-holder><license license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://discourse.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/146">https://discourse.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/146</self-uri><abstract><p>Рассматривается применение дефиниционного подхода в англо-американской философии искусства и новой американской теории кино (посттеории) на протяжении последних десятилетий. Проблема прояснения понятий неизменно была одним из основных направлений аналитической философии, но с течением времени философии искусства, пережившей периоды эссенциализма и антиэссенциализма, потребовались новые способы ее решения. В статье делается попытка сопоставить новые методы определения «искусства» с поисками дефиниции в современной теории кино, которая нашла опору в англо-американской аналитической философии после выступлений против Большой Теории, господствовавшей в исследованиях кино во второй половине ХХ века. Анализируется роль дефиниционного подхода к взаимоотношениям теории и ее объекта, при которых определение скорее указывает на - постоянные изменения, чем фиксирует понятие в статике.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The article is devoted to the definitional approach in Anglo-American philosophy of art and the new American film-theory (post-theory) during last decades. The problem of concepts clarifying has always been one of the leading ones in analytical philosophy. However, after the essentialist and anti-essentialist periods the recent philosophy of art starts to develop new solutions. The author makes an attempt to compare new methods of defining "art" with the definitional framework in modern film-theory, which is based on Anglo-American analytical philosophy rather than the Grand Theory - the leading paradigm for the second half of the XX century. The underlying question of the article deals with the role of the definitional approach in the relationship between theory and its object. According to this framework, new definitions are closer to noticing concept`s developments more than fixing the stable notion and giving the correct answer on questions like «What is cinema / film / movie? ».</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>Философия искусства</kwd><kwd>теория кино</kwd><kwd>посттеория</kwd><kwd>дефиниция</kwd><kwd>англо-американская аналитическая философия</kwd><kwd>кино</kwd><kwd>движущиеся образы</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>Philosophy of art</kwd><kwd>film-theory</kwd><kwd>post-theory</kwd><kwd>definition</kwd><kwd>Anglo-American analytical philosophy</kwd><kwd>cinema</kwd><kwd>moving images</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Carroll N. Beyond aesthetics. Cambridge University Press, 2001. 468 p.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Carroll N. Beyond aesthetics. Cambridge University Press, 2001. 468 p.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Carroll N. Philosophy of Art. Routledge, 1999. 288 p.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Carroll N. Philosophy of Art. Routledge, 1999. 288 p.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Коллингвуд Р. Дж. Принципы искусства. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1999. 328 с.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Коллингвуд Р. Дж. Принципы искусства. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1999. 328 с.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Davies S. Functional and Procedural Definitions of Art // J. of Aesthetic Education. 1990. Vol. 24, № 2. P. 99-106.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Davies S. Functional and Procedural Definitions of Art // J. of Aesthetic Education. 1990. Vol. 24, № 2. P. 99-106.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Dickie G. Art: Function or Procedure: Nature or Culture? // J. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 1997. Vol. 55, № 1. P. 19-28.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Dickie G. Art: Function or Procedure: Nature or Culture? // J. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 1997. Vol. 55, № 1. P. 19-28.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Dean J. T. The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art // J. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 2003. Vol. 61, № 1. Р. 29-35.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Dean J. T. The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art // J. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 2003. Vol. 61, № 1. Р. 29-35.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Dutton D. A Naturalist Definition of Art // J. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 2006. Vol. 64, № 3. Р. 367-377.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Dutton D. A Naturalist Definition of Art // J. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 2006. Vol. 64, № 3. Р. 367-377.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Gaut B. «Art» as a Cluster Concept // Theories of Art Today. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2000. P. 25-44.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Gaut B. «Art» as a Cluster Concept // Theories of Art Today. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2000. P. 25-44.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Bordwell D. Poetics of Cinema. Routledge, 2007. 512 р.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Bordwell D. Poetics of Cinema. Routledge, 2007. 512 р.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Carroll N. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2007. 256 р.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Carroll N. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2007. 256 р.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Ponech T. Definition of Cinema // The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film. Routledge, 2008. P. 52-63.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ponech T. Definition of Cinema // The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film. Routledge, 2008. P. 52-63.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kiwitt P. What Is Cinema in a Digital Age? Divergent Definitions from a Production Perspective // J. of Film and Video. 2012. Vol. 64, № 4. Р. 3-22.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kiwitt P. What Is Cinema in a Digital Age? Divergent Definitions from a Production Perspective // J. of Film and Video. 2012. Vol. 64, № 4. Р. 3-22.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Prince S. True Lies: Perceptual Realism, Digital Images, and Film Theory // Film Quarterly. 1996. Vol. 49, № 3. Р. 27-37.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Prince S. True Lies: Perceptual Realism, Digital Images, and Film Theory // Film Quarterly. 1996. Vol. 49, № 3. Р. 27-37.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Prince S. The Emergence of Filmic Artifacts: Cinema and Cinematography in the Digital Era // Film Quarterly. 2004. Vol. 57, № 3. Р. 24-33.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Prince S. The Emergence of Filmic Artifacts: Cinema and Cinematography in the Digital Era // Film Quarterly. 2004. Vol. 57, № 3. Р. 24-33.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
