Dmitry A. Sevostyanov

The article analyzes the functions of fine art. A brief overview of such functions described in the works of various authors is presented. It is postulated that a historical approach is necessary in the study of the functions of art. It is impossible to make a list of art functions relevant for all times. The functions of art together constitute a complex hierarchical system. As in any such system, the action of system-wide patterns is manifested here. One of such regularities is that the development of systemic inversions is possible in this hierarchy. System inversion is a form of relations in a system in which some lower, subordinate element acquires a dominant value in it, while remaining in its former, lower hierarchical position. This is exactly what happens and has happened with the functions of art as historical development progresses. The resolution of system inversions leads to the fact that the previously subordinate function of art is able to really lead the hierarchy. It is also noted that the hierarchy of fine art functions is an open system that must be considered in a general cultural context. As historical development progressed, fine art gave its actual functions to other spheres of human activity, while still retaining these functions for itself. For example, the communicative and informational functions of fine art were transferred to writing, but they were preserved in their original version, however, only as auxiliary. The mimetic function (copying reality) has passed from fine art to photography, but it has also been preserved by fine art. Currently, the leading functions of fine art remain aesthetic and individualizing functions.

The article deals with children’s drawings considering them as a source of inspiration for artists. The study employs an interdisciplinary approach, focusing on characteristics of children’s drawings and their potential to contribute to professional artistic creativity from the viewpoints of art history and psychology. The position that children’s drawings might influence many artists is based on two sources. First, several studies provided by art historians address this impact. Second, documented oral and written testimonies of the artists themselves prove this influence. It is commonly accepted among art critics that children’s drawings may often serve as a reference in various artistic fields. However, this perspective tends to rely on an overly generalized and simplified, thus inaccurate, understanding of the nature of children’s drawings.

Artists frequently express opinions about their own work and often claim children’s drawings as a source of inspiration, emphasising the importance of maintaining a childlike perception of the world. Nevertheless, such statements should be taken with some skepticism. Artists’ remarks on this subject tend to be subjective and emotional, reflecting the nature of artistic creation and self-description, rather than providing reliable material for scientific analysis.

The author concludes that specific features of children’s drawings indicate that they cannot directly serve as source material for adult artists’ creativity. Children’s drawings are based on egocentric thinking inherent to children but alien to adults. Moreover, children’s drawings exhibit qualities absent in professional artworks. Therefore, the influence of children’s drawings on adult artists should be considered as distant and indirect.