social design, culture, stage space, theater, image, event, document


The emphasis is placed on the relevance of defining pictorial documentation systems in the theatrical space. The aim of the article is to define the theatrical space as an image of the world system and its presentation in the directing of the 20th century. The research methodology is presented with comparative and polysystemic approaches, which makes it possible to determine the integrity of the image relationships of time and space fixation (documentation) in comparison of authorial models of the theatrical spectacle of the leading directors of the 20th century, as well as the description of the theatrical event presentation in the context of various stage system models. The novelty of the study. From the very beginning, the theater was an image of the world system, one way or another connected with the image of the human dwelling creation, as a place in being. Such a broad context, such a broad understanding of the theatrical space shows that the stage is not just a fence, a limited piece in which the visual action takes place, but is an archetype, an image – the image, first of all, of a person’s path, the image of a sphere, Oikoumena, which symbolizes the person’s place in being, in this landscape, and has its clearly defined sacralized epicenter. Conclusion. Theatricality as a type of being, and theater as a kind of the universe model that structures and collapses time, makes it axial, vertically marked, accentuated on left and right, good and bad, as well as defines the most important things in it: the place of the event, as a kind of ritual. The theater never gets rid of ritualism, which testifies to the festivity, spectacularity and sacredness of the action and event. Scenism as a phenomenon of cultural creativity and a definition of the time axis as the stage-spectacle epicenter of culture is one of the main and most important principles of understanding the spectacle as a festive, festivation, that is a spectacular presentation of reality in all possible cultural artifacts (this is how, in particular, political visions, actions, shows, TV screen space and in advertising discourse in general gain spectacularity and stagecraft), and in the context of the entire broad scanning of possibilities of the culture integrity presenting gives an expanded map of the opportunities of the figurative information embodiment. In due course, this sets the boundaries, and the last ones are documented in one way or another. And the document as a countdown of time and and space, as a certain chronotope, of course, presents this dynamic of spectacular and stage presentations of culture.


Ареф’єва Є.Ю. Поетика як хорея та аретея: синкретизм музики І. Стравінського. Українська культура: минуле, сучасне, шляхи розвитку : збірник наукових праць. Вип. 27. Рівне: РДГУ, 2018, С. 106–111.

Безгін І. Д., Семашко О.М., Ковтуненко В.І. Театр і глядач в сучасній соціокультурній реальності. Київ. держ. ін. Ч. 1: Соціально-художні виміри українського театру: ретроспектива, стан, тенденції, 2002, 336 с.

Безгін О. І. Система управління театральною справою: Історія організаційних форм (20-30-ті рр. ХХ ст.): Навч. посіб. для студ. вищ. театр. закл. освіти України. Київ: Компас, 2003, 168 с.

Безклубенко С. (2004). Відеологія: Основи теорії екранних мистецтв. Київ: Альтапрес, 2004, 238 с.

Джеймісон Ф. Постмодернізм або логіка культури пізнього капіталізму / пер. з англ. Петра Дениска. Київ: Курс, 2008, 504 с.

Легенький Ю.Г. (1995). Культурологія зображення (досвід композиційного синтезу). Київ: ГАЛПУ. 412 с.

Лідер Д. Театр для себе. Київ: Факт, 2004, 104 с.

Чепелик В. Український архітектурний модерн. Київ: КНУБА, 2000, 378 с.