Keywords
art
intercultural dialogue
aesthetic paradigm
value orientations
semantic gestalts
discursive structures
artistic articulation
symbolic codes
How to Cite
Abstract
In the framework of this study, it is noted that the axiological paradigm of the artistic sphere in the context of intercultural discourse reveals a polyphonic structure of meanings, which transform under the influence of sociocultural mutations. The genesis of artistic codes in the process of transculturation demonstrates a synthesis of archaic semantic strata with neo-avant-garde expressive modalities, thereby actualizing the problematic nature of the axiological construction of reality through artistic articulation. Within the scope of axiological analysis of aesthetic phenomena, an interaction between sacred-ritual and profane-eclectic components is traced, modifying the interpretative mechanisms of symbolic systems. The determination of cultural constructs in the process of dialogical interaction conditions the formation of new semiotic gestalt, which represents the metamorphosis of value orientations in the space of globalized communication. The evolution of artistic practices in an inter-civilizational context testifies to the emergent nature of form-creating experiments that correlate with the tendencies of post-metaphysical thought. The vectorial development of axiological reflection within the artistic domain actualizes the problem of correlating traditionalist canons with postmodernist deconstruction, thereby enabling the pluralistic variation of aesthetic paradigms. The dialectical nature of artistic discourse precludes the reduction of the semantic spectrum of art to a singular universalist matrix, as the heterogeneity of cultural codes provokes a permanent reassessment of axiological foundations. The polyvalence of interpretative strategies necessitates a phenomenological analysis of artistic artifacts through the prism of hermeneutic approaches, allowing for the revelation of latent layers of artistic meaning-making. Accordingly, art emerges as a heterogeneous platform for intercultural communication, where axiological constants acquire dynamic fluctuation, interacting with discursive and performative structures. The syncretic potential of artistic creativity reveals a capacity for the convergence of symbolic horizons, thereby facilitating the formation of an intersubjective space of mutual penetration of axiological matrices.
References
1. Ching-Ching, L., & Vaz Bauler, C. (2023). Reimagining dialogue on identity, language and power. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800414730
2. Sadovenko, S. M. (2024). Bahatovymirnist mizhkulturnykh dialohiv: ukrainsko-polski kulturni vzayemodiyi u teatralnomu mystetstvi [The multidimensionality of intercultural dialogues: Ukrainian-Polish cultural interactions in theatrical art]. Filosofiya, kulturolohiya, sotsiolohiya – Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Sociology, (28), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.34079/2226-2830-2024-14-28-143-151 (in Ukrainian)
3. Gonçalves, S., & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.) (2016). Art and intercultural dialogue. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-423-7
4. Jung, C. (2018). Archetypen und das kollektive Unbewußte [Archetypes and the collective unconscious]. Patmos-Verlag. (in German)
5. Heidegger, M. (2012). Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes [The origin of the work of art]. Klostermann Vittorio GmbH. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783465141631 (in German)
6. Husserl, E. (2023). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie [Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy]. Verlag für Phänomenologie. (in German)
7. Gadamer, H. (2010). Wahrheit und Methode [Truth and method]. Mohr Siebeck. (in German)
8. Foucault, M. (2008). L'archéologie du savoir [The archaeology of knowledge]. Gallimard. https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782070119875 (in French)
9. Derrida, J. (1967). De la grammatologie [Of grammatology]. Minuit. (in French)
10. Nancy, J. (2011). La communauté désoeuvrée [The inoperative community]. Christian Bourgois Éditeur. https://books.google.com.ua/books/about/La_communaut%C3%A9_d%C3%A9soeuvr%C3%A9e.html?id=4vu0TE5PqfMC&redir_esc=y (in French)
11. Barthes, R. (2019). La mort de l’auteur. Le bruissement de la langue [The death of the author. The rustle of language]. Seuil. https://leschroniquesdemarcel.blogspot.com/2019/08/roulez-moins-vite-vous-pourriez-roland.html (in French)
12. Ricœur, P. (1986). Le conflit des interprétations [The conflict of interpretations]. Seuil. (in French)
13. Harvey, L., & Bradley, J. (2023). Epilogue: Intercultural dialogue, the arts, and (im)possibilities. Language Teaching Research, 27(2), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044546
14. Lähdesmäki, T., & Koistinen, A. (2021). Explorations of linkages between intercultural dialogue, art, and empathy. In Dialogue for intercultural understanding: Placing cultural literacy at the heart of learning (pp. 45–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71778-0
15. Likarchuk, N., Velychko, Z., Andrieieva, O., Lenda, R., & Vusyk, H. (2023). Manipulation as an element of the political process in social networks. Cuestiones Políticas, 41(76), 769–779. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4176.45
16. Rapanta, C., & Trovão, S. (2021). Intercultural education for the twenty-first century: A comparative review of research. In Dialogue for intercultural understanding: Placing cultural literacy at the heart of learning (pp. 9–26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71778-0
17. Kolinko, M. V. (2019). Mizhkulturna komunikatsiya: topolohichnyi vymir [Intercultural communication: Topological dimension]. TOV “TVORY”. https://surli.cc/atfxxc (in Ukrainian)
18. Mokan, N. I., & Chornomordenko, I. V. (2021). Dialoh kultur yak dialoh tsinnostey [Dialogue of cultures as a dialogue of values]. Multiversum. Philosophical Almanac, 1.1(173), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.35423/2078-8142.2021.1.1.10 (in Ukrainian)
19. Bilokopytova, N., & El Huessab, K. (2021). Filosofiya mizhkulturnoho dialohu yak predmet refleksiyi [Philosophy of intercultural dialogue as a subject of reflection]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriya filosofsko-politychni studiyi – Bulletin of Lviv University. Series in Philosophical and Political Studies, (36), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.30970/PPS.2021.36.3 (in Ukrainian)
20. Dervin, F., & Tan, H. (2022). Supercriticality and intercultural dialogue. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7572-1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Alla Hotsalyuk, Tetiana Tsoi, Anzhelika Semenenko