Размер шрифта: Фон:

УДК 7.01
ББК 87.8
DOI: 10.30628/1994-9529-2019-15.1-11-29

Russian State University for the Humanities,
GITR Film & Television school
Moscow, Russia;
ORCID: 0000-0002-4419-1369
e-mail: sergey@schtein.ru



Annotation. The separation of knowledge into the disciplinary and discursive becomes possible when the activity of the production of knowledge itself is examined as unfolding in essentially different cognitive situations which determine the specific features of this knowledge. There are two main aspects into which knowledge may be divided into the disciplinary and the discursive. The first aspect is the essential primary function, which is implemented by knowledge. For disciplinary knowledge it presents the substitutionary, partially substitutionary or, as a last resort, conditionally substitutionary function concerning the cognizable. For the discursive it presents any type in that discursive unity in the conditions of which knowledge was produced. The second aspect is the measure of social responsibility which the individual or the collective subject is ready to bear for the knowledge that is defined by him as substitutionary in regard to the cognizable. The community of researchers who form disciplinary unity bear such responsibility for disciplinary knowledge. There is nobody who bears responsibility for discursive knowledge in the examined sense, since it initially does not suppose that substitutionary function may be entrusted to them.
At the same time, the division of humanitarian knowledge into the disciplinary and the discursive presents itself as difficult, since disciplinary knowledge, due to the impossibility of forming full-fledged paradigm-related knowledge—the only possible knowledge at the actual moment of time in the conditions of humanitarian science,—is the sole one conditionally separated from discursive knowledge. The condition of forming such a separation is connected with the formation of the situation of transition from the naturalistic to the activity-related approach to cognition, when the cognizable is determined not as something concrete, but as cognitive activity in relation to this certain concrete element. As a result, such kind of separation makes it possible not only essentially to change the nature of the generated knowledge concerning the subject of research from the conceptual to the full-fledged theoretical variety, but also to transform the principle of the functioning of disciplinary objectivity in the conditions of which this knowledge is produced, whether it be art studies, culturology or philosophy.
On the basis of this methodological instrument range, the essential possibility of demarcation between disciplinary and discursive knowledge in regards to the screen and the spectacular forms of art is substantiated, and the ontological scheme of the subject area for the disciplinary objectivity is constructed step by step on the most general scale of consideration, for which both of these forms and the discursive cognitive activity in their relation become cognizable.

Keywords: methodology of art studies, art theory, the science of art, science studies, screen arts, spectacular arts, disciplinary knowledge, discursive knowledge, activity approach, ontologization