Jurate Macnoriute Art Development in Art Style s History Art changes together with change of cultures. One styles disappear, other appear. The question of art development is essential in styles history, and many art critics, philosophers most seriously worked on that subject. Let us state briefly main positions and revue main art development theorists. In the second part of this article I represent my own research and conclusions. *** The explanatory theory are partible into two branches: evolutionary trend acknowledging art development as process that is performed to one direction and the second branch -- cyclic. Often these theories distinguish themselves as fantastic. Ch.Töve even doubted in possibility to create general scientific scheme of art development. Though on the other hand he came to conclusion that art history as science have no significance without genetic method of research of art fact. Representations of evolution tradition are given by: J.Winckelmann who elucidated that this development, as every action, has five parts, that is the beginning, continuation, state, decline and end; G.W.F.Hegel who raised en idea that art grows progressively (later A.Riegl negated this statement); E.Lövy who thought that evolution of art is based on transition from the pictures of memory to living "perspective" perception of object; A.Riegl who developed conditioned by Kunstwollen theory about self-contained art development and evolution of space perception what predetermines art evolution; E.Panofsky who understood change of styles as some immanent process of art development that is determined by dominating relation between volumetric shape and space; H.Nohl who appreciated evolution of world outlook on this aspect; A.Pope with his four ways of representation: linear, sculptural, pictorial and visual; L.Coellen who started from sphere of general origin of abstract transcendental categories and divided universal process into three levels consistently, corresponded to three understanding of world (objective, transcendental, immanent); A. van Scheltema who saw essence of evolution in change of ornament into architecture and architecture into fine arts. Cyclic theories were created by such theorists like H.Wölfflin who for other periods applied model of the conversion of primitive art of the 15th century into classical art of the 16th
century and into baroque of the 17th centur; E.Kon-Viner who suggested history of art development basing on rhythmic change of architectonic styles and not architectonic, he imagined development of fine art as motion of wave; M.Dvorak who related evolution of art styles with struggle between idealism and realism; A.E.Brinckmann and W.Pinder who announced dependence of art change upon change creative generations; M.Ginzburg who, like G.W.F.Hegel, thought that regularities of style development have three phases of age (constructive "youth", harmonic "maturity", decorative "senility"). There are the theories like P.Frankl s, in one model joining stylistic oppositions with cyclic scheme. P.Frankl raised evolutionary model and its phases from primary forms and from limited number of combinations. Looking for reasons of art change contemporary philosopher V.P.Branski analysed general origin of art development and as though continues the thinking of M.Landman about developing directions themselves that often are antipodal to other living at the same time directions. Based himself on laws of physics he relates art development with disipatyvic system and interaction with environment. If in environment chaos accumulates, in disipatyvic system (art) order grows. This accordance is not regular, because disipatyvic system has a property to act by itself. Therefore little influences can raise great effect, and great influences little ones. V.P.Branski elucidates also mechanism of selection objects from some set, mechanism of formation of aesthetic ideal and on basis of this ideal mechanism of formation of art style and taste. (V.P.Branski, Art and Philosophy, Kaliningrad, 1999, p. 498-542, in Russian). My Own Model of Art Development For establishment most characteristic features of styles' evolution I took material of illustrations published in book of P.Fride R.Carrassat and I.Marcade Styles and Directions in Painting (Comprendre et reconnaitre les mouvements dans la peinture, 1993), because those illustrations, including period since Renaissance till our days, are most typical examples of Western European styles. I analyzed works of art of 83 authors and evaluated them with help of 22 measuring scales. The schemes similar to cardiograms were formed. They diagrammatically describe individual styles (Fig. 1).
Fig.1. Other schemes in Fig. 2 show the changes of styles' features.
Fig. 2. I looked for some coherent concurrences that can testify about some regularities hidden in art development and found them. These conclusions were done: 1. The more striking artist s personality and he represents more recognised style the more features of his style give edge
estimations. It shows manifestation of some feature or its direct opposite, but not middle (zero) points, but neither being of some feature nor its absence. Thus no one feature of style of Leonardo da Vinci is "zero", only one of Rafael, three of Michelangelo, N.Poussin, P.da Cortona, four of Rubens, six of A.Mantegna, Pontormo, T.Couture, F.Owerbeck, G.Braque, V.Vasareli, R.Combo, K.Finley, seven of A.Dürer, E. le Sueur, L.Fontana, A.Boetti, H.Steinbach, eight of J.Dubufet, M.Rotella, P.Mondrian, nine of J.Pollock, V.Kandinski, ten of M.Raysse, G.Bazelitz. In this way features of art styles of transition periods and eclectic styles more often occupy middle positions, than styles achieving wide recognition. 2. If in the first part of development of one art style some features take the position near one edge (bent lines, naturalism, absence of deformation, spiritualization, harmony), in the second part of one such distribution loses stability and often distribution begins to predominate in another edge of scale (broken lines, absence of naturalism, deformation, absence of spiritualization, disharmony). 3. Distribution in scales by other features of style distinguishes itself as all-round non-regular. It shows that in history every feature changes itself originally and independently of character of change of other features. This is the reason why it is difficult to catch regularity of styles' change. 4. Some oppositions exist like bent lines vs. broken lines, naturalism vs. absence of naturalism, absence of deformation vs. deformation, spiritualization vs. absence of spiritualization, harmony vs. disharmony. First sides of them distinctly dominate in the first part of analysed period, second ones in the second part of period. It is not necessary to analyse every pair separately that we can make sure that the last opposition is most covered. Earlier I proved that in category of harmony as into one junction all threads of analysis come together. Repetition of the whole in parts serves for construction of isotopies of logical-semantic level of analysis. Thus it is possible to suggest cyclic model that logically ensues from this research. Let us strengthen this idea with another conclusion that was given in research of directional stars and general rhythmical tunes. If earlier an opinion existed that harmony can not be measured, it is estimated subjectively and depends on habit of spectator, conclusion of that article is that symmetry of directional star and repetition of its general rhythmical tune in other stylistic classemes can be objective criterion of harmony. Thus directional star of Egypt is asymmetrical what shows existing of disharmony. In directional star of Greece clearly we can notice turn for symmetry and for harmony together. In Rome we see disharmony again. From the high Renaissance harmony alter disharmony again. If directional star of Leonardo da Vinci yet asymmetrical, Tiziano's one already symmetrical. Harmony was gaining strength and reaching its apogee in creative work
of Rembrandt. Further signs of disharmony were appearing again -- J.-L.David, C.D.Friedrich, E.Munch. If directional star of J.-L.David asymmetrical, one of academician J.-A.-D.Ingres (David's disciple) more similar to symmetrical star. Thus harmony is characteristic for Greece, in Rome estrangement from principle of harmony is felt, in the Middle Ages disharmony is distinct, in Renaissance return to harmony's principle what became still more distinct in art of baroque. Further entirely principle of disharmony predominates when harmony reveals itself only in art works of some academicians. Thus art's change from art based on principles of harmony to art based on disharmony is characteristic not only for period from the beginning of the 16th century up to now, but for earlier periods too. In the meanwhile I did not carry out deeper research, however, I can frame hypothesis that similar changes of art also took place in other cultures. Thus after reviewing examples of Japanese painting and graphic arts from the 7th century (painting of Tamamusi altar) to the first part of the 19th century (engravings of Hirosige) we would notice phenomenon similar to described above. 5. After I the count how many style's features get into one or another side of scale (Fig. 2) we can establish quantitative relations: Long lines : short lines = 2:1 Bent lines : broken lines = 1,5:1 Hard lines : soft lines = 1,1:1 Bright colours : dark colours = 1,4:1 Intensive colours : extensive colours = 1:1 Great hue contrasts : small hue contrasts = 1:1,9 Dominating colour : dominating drawing = 1:1,8 Symmetry : asymmetry = 1:1,4 Deep space : depth is not = 2,5:1 Closed composition : open composition = 2,4:1 Great value contrasts : small value contrasts = 1,5:1 Dynamics : static = 1:1,4 Unity : absence of unity = 1,8:1 Architektonike : absence of architektonike = 2,2:1 Balance : absence of balance = 2:1 Moderate filling of plane surface : not moderate one = 1:1 Naturalism : absence of naturalism = 1,6:1 Deformation : absence of deformation = 1:1,9 Euphoria : disphoria = 1:1,1 Direction of lines up wards : direction of lines down wards = 2,6:1 Unreality : reality = 1:5,1 Spiritualization : absence of spiritualization = 1:1,7 Turn for classicism : turn for baroque = 2,6:1 Harmony : disharmony = 2,8:1 On this quantitative summary of spreading of style features in art history we can form characterisation of the imaginary style most acceptable in history: lines long, bent, hard or soft; bright colours, intensive or not intensive colours; small hue
contrasts; dominating drawing; asymmetry; deep space; close composition; great value contrasts; static; unity; architektonike; balance; moderate filling of plane surface; naturalism; absence of deformation; euphoria or disphoria; direction of lines up wards; reality; absence of spiritualization; turn for classicism; harmony. In this same way we can form also the list of features of an imaginary style less acceptable in history: lines short, broken hard or soft; dark colours, intensive or not intensive colours; great hue contrasts; dominating colour; symmetry; absence of deep space; open composition; small value contrasts; dynamics; absence of unity; absence of architektonike; absence of balance; moderate filling of plane surface or not moderate one; absence of naturalism; deformation; euphoria or disphoria; direction of lines down wards; unreality; spiritualization; turn for baroque; disharmony. As we see in the main properties of the first imaginary style, with exception "absence of spiritualization", are properties of classicism. Majority of the second style features are the features of modernism. The things that is said in this paragraph can show what properties of art have perspectives for longer life and what have not such perspectives. Formers of new art styles can take it into consideration. In this way I researched styles' change in history and suggested a cyclic model basing history of art development on rhythmic change of disharmonic and harmonic art styles. Also I suggested the list of style features that can help for creators of a new art style. General References V.P.Branski, Art and Philosophy, Kaliningrad, 1999, p. 498-542, in Russian. P.Fride R.Carrassat, I.Marcade. Comprendre et reconnaitre les mouvements dans la peinture, 1993.