T. M. Stepanskaya
202
contemporary society. The lack of a single system of values and meanings is
a typical feature of such crisis. Art, brought into world on the basis of
traditions, is a source of spiritual values; high art strengthens personal
creative qualities and broadens the cultural potential of the bearers of
everyday consciousness.
Everyday consciousness is understood as the combination of ideas,
knowledge, orientations and stereotypes based on direct everyday human
experience; it dominates the social community to which people belong.
Everyday consciousness differs from the kind of awareness based on
scientific knowledge, obtained by means of objective research, which
provides insight into essential links which characterise nature and society.
The kind of mistakes that can prevent scientific cognition of the world and
promote the preservation of ingrained prejudices are common to everyday
consciousness. On the other hand, the recollection of oft-repeated links
observed between things and people (folk wisdom) typical of everyday
consciousness provides opportunities to draw correct conclusions which are
verified by the practical realities of everyday life.
1
The notion of everyday consciousness is closely connected with the
notion of “everyday life” which is a popular trope in the humanities at
present. It is interpreted widely and variously. The modern situations and
contexts in which terms such as “everyday life,” “everyday
consciousness/cognition” and “common sense” are used have their own
explicit historical-cultural specificity. The philosophical problems of
everyday life stem from the fact that the evaluation of its three constituent
components - everyday reality, everyday consciousness (knowledge) and the
philosophy of common sense - do not coincide. From a cognitive-
sociological point of view, everyday life represents a social use of the results
of cultural creative work. Individual creative achievements (innovative
technologies, pieces of art, philosophical and religious ideas, etc.) owe their
origin to their specific authors and, acting as signifiers of a gap in cultural
succession, receive their inter-subjective form in the processes of social use,
laying the foundations for new traditional mechanisms.
In the methodological plan of this study, everyday life represents the
result of an analytical procedure in which a synchronous cut of cultural
migration is carried out. Everyday life can be seen as a static image of the
world, where creative, innovative processes are artificially paused; only the
stable, unquestionable bases of human life and activities are distinguished
(traditions, rituals, stereotypes, categorisation systems). Everyday life makes
the phenomena by which it is characterised sacral, imbuing them with the
status of everyday myths. Examples of everyday life are also determined by
1
Kondratiev 2006, p. 138.
www.cclbsebes.ro/muzeul-municipal-ioan-raica.html / www.cimec.ro
Conceptual Art Exhibitions as a Dialogue between Art and Its Contemporaries
203
the sphere of human society to which they belong. Everyday life as a reality
is based on the relative permanence of social conditions. As a kind of
consciousness, it consists of effective governance by collectively-held socio-
psychological structures (archetypes). As a form of cognition, everyday life
is expressed through the processes of cognitive socialisation, adaptation to
new conditions and adoption of archetypes. However, in all its hypostasis,
every day life does not, as a rule, correspond to any autonomous sphere;
there is no substance to the everyday. Its hypostases are insufficient and do
not exist outside the other manifestations of human existence and reality.
To characterise everyday life, it is important to distinguish two types
of social situations - everyday and beyond everyday - equally typical of
human consciousness and existence. Everyday life is a notional problem
connected with a number of fundamental pair oppositions. Aberration and
truth, existence and potential, secular and sacral are analogous pairs the
terminological difference between which is determined by the difference of
subject areas. These opposing poles of cognitive process, moral
consciousness and religiosity form two dimensions in culture which can be
denoted as everyday and myth. The entirety of human life can be seen in
their interaction and tense standoff; its content is determined by
approaching and moving away from these poles, in varying orientation
towards one or another direction. Everyday life, in order to find
significance, requires reference to sources and prototypes; it requires the
creation of myth and mythic substantiation. Philosophy and the humanities
always take everyday life in its various forms as their object of investigation,
constantly teetering between bringing it down to the level of routine
consciousness and practice or exalting it to the myth-like horizon peculiar
to modernity.
2
The problem of the correlation between everyday consciousness and
art is connected with the problem of the connection between art and
worldview. Different aspects of this problem are presented in works of
aestheticians (M. Kagan, S. Rapport, E. Volodin and I. Nikitina
3
), while B.
Vysheslavtsev writes about how professional art belongs to the non-
everyday level of artistic consciousness.
4
In his opinion, the rise from
subconscious impulses to the supreme values of the human spirit can be
explained by the human ability for imagination:
“The subconscious mind is that underground source from which fantasy
sprouts and, at the same time, the dark pool upon which sparkling images
2
http://enc-dic.com/enc_epist/Povsednevnost-517.html, accessed 25 June 2014.
3
Nikitina 2003; Nikitina 2004.
4
Vysheslavtsev 1994.
www.cclbsebes.ro/muzeul-municipal-ioan-raica.html / www.cimec.ro