English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

&amp;nbsp; This article reviews the polemic of the author with a number of well-known psychologists who consider L. S. Vygotsky a humanities scholar, and that the book &amp;ldquo;Psychology of Art&amp;rdquo; introduces psychologists to the humanities. The author clarifies his position, trying to show that in his methodological projects L. S. Vygotsky adheres to the natural scientific approach; however, in some works he actually does think as a humanist. The author also casts doubt on Vygotsky's concept of art, demonstrating that the offered mechanisms of aesthetic response and interpretation of literary works are problematic or unsatisfactory. In this regard, analysis is conducted on the position of V. Sobkin, which differs significantly from the views of L. S. Vygotsky. The author offers the original interpretation of art, which implies the three aspect: sociocultural that analyzes artistic communication; related to the philosophy of subjectivity (life from the perspective of an artist, viewer, or reader); and analysis of artistic reality, which includes consideration of the literary language and events. The author elucidates the corresponding concepts and problems that appear in such art task. For better understanding of the proposed ideas, the author reviews the examples from the &amp;ldquo;Psychology of Art&amp;rdquo; by L. S. Vygotsky, and cites a case from the own works. The discrepancy with L. S. Vygotsky he views as an motive to continue his research and the need for their critical reflection. &amp;nbsp;	

Sequence of discussion on the “Psychology of Art” by L. S. Vygotsky (analysis and Interpretation of literary works)