Museological views of N. Fedorov and modern museology Zykov Andrey Viktorovich

To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search based on morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of an expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.

The date: 13.02.2004
GRNIP: 304770000035651
Tax authority:
Reason for the change: State registration individual as an individual entrepreneur
The documents:
- Application (with attachments)
- A copy of the main document of an individual registered as an individual entrepreneur
- Document confirming the payment of the state fee
The date: 13.02.2004
GRNIP: 404770000663373
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change:
The date: 14.05.2016
GRNIP: 416774600958530
Tax authority:
Reason for the change:
The date: 25.05.2016
GRNIP: 416774601054912
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Amendments to the information contained in the Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs in connection with the renaming (re-subordination) of address objects
The date: 15.10.2016
GRNIP: 416774603052180
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Submission of information on the issuance or replacement of an identity document of a citizen of the Russian Federation on the territory of the Russian Federation
The date: 01.11.2016
GRNIP: 416774603472154
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change:
The date: 25.11.2016
GRNIP: 416774603961084
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change:
The date: 21.07.2017
GRNIP: 417774601678678
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Submission of information on registration as an insurer in the territorial body pension fund Russian Federation
The date: 12.03.2019
GRNIP: 419774600790190
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Submission of information on the registration of an individual at the place of residence
The date: 16.08.2019
GRNIP: 419774602409782
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Termination of the activities of an individual as an individual entrepreneur in connection with the death of this person
The date: 16.08.2019
GRNIP: 419774602409793
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Submission of information on accounting with the tax authority

Chapter 1. Museum views N.F. Fedorova.

1.1. Teachings of N.F. Fedorov in the context of his contemporary era.

1.2. Features of the texts of N.F. Fedorov.

1.3. Model of emergence and evolution of the museum need in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov.

1.4. Model of an ideal museum.

Chapter 2. The relationship between the phenomena of modern museology and museological views

N.F. Fedorova.

2.1. Prehistory of the “open museum” phenomenon in Russia in the 20th century.

2.2. The main trends of modern museology.

2.3. Modern museology and museological views of N.F. Fedorov (the problem of relations between models and reality).

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic “Museological views of N.F. Fedorov and modern museology"

The urgency of the problem. Currently, there is a museum boom all over the world. Numerous museums are being intensively developed and created. At the same time, the creators of museums are increasingly moving away from the traditional, pavilion type of museum and prefer open-type museums. The global trend of modern museum development is manifested in the desire of museums to be open to society and overcome locality in space. Expositions of modern museums are created on areas exceeding the size of the premises, and the nature of their activities is aimed at bringing the museum closer to people. Many modern museums merge with the life of the local population. In the museum community, ideas of an “integrated museum” and a “new museology” are spreading, in which the museum is seen as an institution that goes beyond identification, conservation and education and moves towards the implementation of broader programs that allow the museum to participate more actively in society and better integrated into environment. In the new phenomena of museum activity, the rapid growth and change in the nature of museum needs and the socio-cultural role of the museum in society are manifested. The absence of a theory of the emergence and development of museum needs is the most important problem of modern museology. The theoretical and methodological provisions related to this subject are fragmentary and do not meet the needs of modern museum practice.

A theoretical explanation of the reasons for the emergence of a museum need in society, its transformation and related new phenomena in the practical and theoretical museum activities is necessary.

The development of new types and forms of museum activity occurs largely spontaneously and without awareness of the deep unity and connection between their various manifestations. The situation when practice overtakes theory can be considered normal only up to a certain limit. Modern museology needs an understanding of the general patterns of the emergence and transformation of museum needs and the new socio-cultural role of the museum in society. This is due both to the formation of museology as an independent theoretical discipline, and urgent practical tasks. Such knowledge will make it possible to create and develop modern museums based on a theoretical basis.

When creating the concepts of modern museums, it is not enough to take into account only the historical and cultural significance of the museum objects. It is necessary to understand the social and cultural-historical patterns of the emergence and evolution of the museum need, the activities of the museum as a socio-cultural institution, which makes it possible to more successfully predict the features of the development of local museum and monument protection projects. The fact that the teachings of N.F. Fedorov contain an original system of views on the museum, which made it possible to foresee and theoretically explain the new phenomena of modern museology, makes the study of his museological heritage relevant today.

The degree of development of the problem. When starting to analyze the literature on the topic of a dissertation research, one should take into account the duality of the object of study. On the one hand, it includes a part of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov, containing views on the museum. On the other hand, the subject of research is the phenomena of modern museology.

The museological layer in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov was reflected in the publications of E.F. Gollerbach, S.G. Semenova, N.A. Gerulaitis, N.I. Reshetnikov, E.M. Kravtsova.

For the first time, the Russian art critic and museum worker E.F. Gollerbach pointed out the possibility of using the teachings of N.F. Fedorov to create museology in his article “Apology of the Museum”, published in 1922. He gives a detailed description of this aspect of Fedorov's philosophy. E.F. Gollerbach notes an important feature of the museological aspect of the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov. So, according to E.F. Gollerbakh, N.F. Fedorov “considered the museum not only as an educational institution, but also as a moral and educational institution that determines the goals of human activity and therefore is widely relevant” . E.F. Gollerbakh notes the presence in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov’s ideas about the “ideal museum”, linking it with the change in the public role of the museum: “Museums in the form in which they were in the time of Fedorov, of course, did not satisfy him, and he mentally created an “ideal” museum, which should be a museum- school, placed at different levels of scientific breadth and completeness, in accordance with the place, content and purpose of the museum itself, ranging from the initial, lower schools that communicate primary knowledge and teach the first simplest ways and techniques to achieve them, to the highest, dedicated to complete, analyzing knowledge ( special) and generalizing (synthetic) ". One of the main tasks of the museum school is to overcome the corporatism of traditional education, therefore “the museum should open all types, all degrees, all data of science to everyone, not excluding the so-called ordinary people who need knowledge, of course, no less than “wise men” . E.F. Gollerbach notes the focus of the “ideal museum” on the development of various fields scientific knowledge, as a result of which the museum "acquires an encyclopedic, universal character, incomparably more than a university, with which it is similar in its tasks to embrace all knowledge, but differs from it in its purpose of making knowledge the property of all" . Another feature of N.F. Fedorov’s views on the museum, according to E.F. Gollerbach, is that “each given locality in its memoirs, in collections of historical monuments and in its modern activity, correctly defined, was in the eyes of N. F. Fedorov as the highest moral and educational institution - a museum, a shelter of a genius - a repository of a native, sacred past, but the past is not dead, not soulless, but like dust "having imati" .

E.F. Gollerbach correctly identified the possibility of using the teachings of N.F. Fedorov to create a museological concept, he also identified some signs of an “ideal” museum (increasing the educational role of the museum and its spatial development), however, E.F. Gollerbakh did not consider the connection and the unity of Fedorov's teaching with the museological ideas contained in it.

S.G. Semenova sees in the Fedorovsky Museum the main projective reality of the utopia of an ideal society. S.G. Semenova notes that “the idea of the museum is revealed by the Russian thinker first on the existing samples, in order to then accommodate the rich projective content” . According to S.G. Semenova, “N.F. Fedorov understands the museum in the broadest way; it is all that keeps the materialized memory of the past. From a certain point of view, "the whole world looks like a gigantic, ever-increasing museum."

Among modern museologists, the view of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov as an object of study, which has great potential in terms of developing the theory and practice of museology, has received a certain distribution. So, N.A. Gerulaitis writes that “N.F. Fedorov also created a whole doctrine about the role and place of the museum in the life of mankind - a real "philosophy of the museum". According to this author, museologists and museum practitioners in the search for concepts and models for the development of museum institutions can use the rich experience of domestic traditions in this area of culture. N.I. Reshetnikov points out that the museological views of N.F. Fedorov help to consider a museum object as a “accumulator of social and cultural memory” [ 177].

E.M. Kravtsova notes the presence in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov of an important genetic connection between the Museum and the Temple, which “in their original sense have much in common and are congenial concepts. Their purpose is connected with the culture of ancestors, the preservation of the memory of the past generations. .

However, despite the fixed interest in this issue, a purposeful study of N.F. Fedorov's museological ideas in modern cultural studies and museology has not been carried out.

When analyzing the literature on modern museology, attention is drawn to the spread among specialists of the notion that "a modern museum is becoming something fundamentally different than before" . A.I. Aksenova writes that “over the past 25 years, the reorientation of museums from the temples of muses, hermitages, repositories of rarities to the centers of the spiritual life of their city, region has been more and more noticeable, more tangible”. In this regard, the currently existing definitions of the museum are of interest. According to one of them, a museum is defined as follows: “A museum is a historically conditioned multifunctional institution of social information designed to preserve cultural, historical and natural science values, accumulate and disseminate information through museum objects. Documenting the processes and phenomena of nature and society, the museum completes, stores and examines collections of museum objects, and also uses them for propaganda purposes. According to the ICOM definition, “a museum is a permanent non-profit institution dedicated to the service and development of society, accessible to the general public, engaged in the acquisition, storage, research, promotion and display of material evidence about man and his environment for the purposes of study, education, and for satisfaction of spiritual needs. The Swedish Association of Museums defines it as follows: “A museum is part of the collective memory of a society. The museum collects, registers, preserves and creates conditions for the further use of art objects and other evidence of people's life and culture. It is open to the public and contributes to the development of society. The purpose of museums is to educate citizens.

Despite the fact that the above definitions quite accurately and fully reflect the functional aspect of the museum, they do not define the historical and cultural patterns associated with the emergence and transformation of the museum as a public institution.

There are a large number of publications that present, rather, factual material, but not a theoretical explanation of new phenomena in museology. They make up a significant part of the source base of the dissertation research. There are, however, publications in which approaches are made to the theoretical explanation of new phenomena in museology, and attention is drawn to the changing institutional role of the museum in society.

So, A.U. Canare believes that “we must be prepared for the question of what a museum is, and for the demand to expand the very concept of a “museum”.

Y. Erreman notes the historical conditionality of the changes taking place in museology, but he limits the reasons for this to the social processes of the 60s of the XX century: “Today's museums began to appear only as a result of processes that took place earlier (in particular, in the sixties) changing the goals of museums and ways to achieve them, their use of such disciplines as communication, computer science, educational psychology, semiotics, etc., as well as improving the methods of conservation, success in museum business and scientific and technological progress".

According to L.I. Skripkina, “there is a realization that the museum belongs to one of the leading places in revealing the culturological meaning of the development of human society. Only a museum can meet with the authenticity of being and the real experience of past eras, transmit traditions. This allowed us to take a fresh look at the purpose of the museum and its expositions.

N.ANikipshn and A.V.Lebedev point to the prerequisites for social conflict generated by the museum’s desire for openness: “While society is becoming more and more open, the closedness of the museum or its part, even if there are good reasons not cause a critical attitude on the part of the democratically minded part of society. It is here that lies one of the motives of conflict inherent in the modern phase of development of the museum sphere. It should be noted that such an aspiration is initiated not only by the museum, but also by society, which seeks to fill this institution with new social content.

Among the circle of modern researchers, the reflections of Yu.U. Guralnik, according to whom there are currently grounds “to sum up some results of the development of museology, which by the end of our century is taking on new outlines, increasingly entering the public consciousness as a specific field of knowledge focused on the problems of historical and modern existence of traces of the past - monuments of history and culture." . According to Yu.U. Guralnik, “museology of the twentieth century was torn in attempts to acquire its social status either in a pragmatic orientation, where the museum, as a cultural institution, completely absorbed its subject of study, or in the construction of a philosophical concept, when a monument of history and culture is viewed against a broad cultural background, being materialized image of the universal memory. Then it is clear that the museum in such a concept becomes only one of the possible ways to preserve this Memory and broadcast it into the future. Here, for museology, the mechanisms of the existence of Memory in various social institutions, such as the family, religion, and the state, become equally interesting. .

The problem of the development of modern museology was posed by A.S. Balakirev, according to whom it is reasonable to talk about the fate of the museum, especially about the directions of its evolution in the context of deep and ambiguous changes in our social and cultural life, until a clear formulation of the social nature is given, social functions of the museum in modern civilized society and in the future of its development.

In turn, N.I. Reshetnikov writes about the spiritual need of a person to preserve his past, on the basis of which only the development of institutions that preserve material monuments is possible: be aware of himself and the world around him. And how long a person exists, so much he constantly keeps, protects, multiplies and transmits the memory of himself and the world around him.

Considering the institutional changes of the museum, S.I. Sotnikovova writes: “The change in the social status of the museum from an instrument of natural science to the formation of the ideological foundations of the personality was accompanied by a radical restructuring of the general concept of the museum, the main directions of its activity (primarily, acquisition, construction of the exposition, social guidelines in educational activities, etc.). Significant advances have also found expression in the terminological apparatus. This is manifested both in the change of existing and in the emergence of new concepts. Heritage, a museum object, a museum space, a museum fund have received a more extensive interpretation.

In the views of N.F. Fedorov on the museum, an essential role is played by the explanation of the reasons for the emergence of the museum as a historical phenomenon. Museologists note the insufficiency of current ideas for a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon. So, according to T. Yu. Yureneva, “researchers traditionally consider the reasons for the emergence of the museum as a historical phenomenon in connection with the collecting that preceded it. But at the same time, the fact is often overlooked that collecting in itself, only due to the internal potentialities inherent in it, does not automatically lead to the emergence of museums. T. Yu. Yureneva considers collecting a kind of proto-museum form. The researcher connects the birth of the museum with the transition from cyclic time (in which history as such does not exist) to the linear time of the Enlightenment. Significance of T.Yu. Yureneva and manifests itself in the fact that the development of the museum is considered in it as a historical and cultural phenomenon. Research by T.Yu. Yureneva gives a holistic knowledge of the history of the emergence and development of the museum as a socio-cultural institution from antiquity to the present, but it does not fully reveal the reasons for the emergence of a museum need in the culture of the modern (scientific society) .

According to D. Macdonald, when studying processes in the field of museology, it is necessary to “determine the scope of activities aimed at their (museums - A.Z.) development in the modern world, identify the conditions in which changes occur, and, finally, identify the range of caused by them social, cultural and economic consequences". D. McDonald's also characterizes the peculiarities of the museum processes in different parts of the world and countries.

In general, in modern museology, the view of the museum as an intensively developing institution has become quite widespread. Thus, the participants of the regional meeting on the problems of museums held in Santiago (Chile) came to the conclusion that the museum should take its proper role as a permanent institution in people's lives. Noting the “unsustainability” of the institutional position of the museum, the participants of this meeting “examined in detail the following questions in 1977: a) Will the museum become a factor in socio-economic development or a secondary institution, the existence of which is associated only with the growth of well-being and the improvement of the quality of life; b) whether it will promote mutual understanding and rapprochement of people belonging to different groups, or will be another area of application of funds in a broader development context; c) whether it will turn out to be just a special institution created to please the elite, or an instrument for educating the masses; d) whether it will become a center of cultural activity or an institution intended for tourists.

The changes taking place in museology as an area of interrelated theoretical and practical knowledge and activity are reflected in the definition of the subject of museology as a science. So, S.Yu. Pervykh notes that “modern museology is going through one of the most important periods of its development”, while becoming “a science that puts the focus on the study of the patterns of development of human society at various stages.” . According to N.A. Tomilov, "museology (museology) is a cultural science about museum objects and museum processes in all their concreteness and diversity."

Despite the fact that the phenomena associated with the phenomenon of changing the museum as a social institution and its new spatial and social realities are of interest to modern museologists and culturologists, they have not yet received a comprehensive (systemic) reflection in modern science.

The problem of this study is the contradiction, on the one hand, between the presence of a large amount of factual material in modern museology, associated with the new spatial and social realities of the museum, and the absence, on the other hand, of its conceptual understanding.

The object of the study is the process of formation and development of museology as a field of knowledge and practice.

The subject of the study is the relationship between the content of modern museology and the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov in the aspect related to the activities of the museum as a socio-cultural institution and a modern institution of culture.

The purpose of this work is to study the correlation between the nature of modern museology and N.F. Fedorov's museological views.

This goal determines the following tasks: ■ Reveal the trends in contemporary museology.

Consider the teachings of N.F. Fedorov in the socio-cultural context of the era. To fix the features of the metatext of the works of N.F. Fedorov as conditions and prerequisites for the study of his museological views.

To explore museological views of N.F. Fedorov as a system.

Produce comparative analysis systems of museological views

N.F. Fedorov and the identified trends in modern museology.

Defense provisions.

6. In the field of spiritual familiarization with the past, the modern museum, according to N.F. Fedorov, replaces the religious institutions and mythological systems of traditional society and turns into a global socio-cultural institution striving for social and spatial expansion. Research methodology. AT this study Methodologically significant for the author were the works of E.F. Gollerbakh, S.G. Semenova, N.A. Gerulaitis, E.M. Kravtsova, N.I. Reshetnikov. They reflected a certain view of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov as an object of study, which has great potential in terms of the development of the theory and practice of museology, outlined the problematic field of museological views of N.F. Fedorov.

Theoretical views developed in hermeneutics were used, in particular, the ideas of V.I. Batov, according to which, when analyzing a text, it is necessary to reveal the psychological fabric of the text, which is not initially recognized by both the author and the perceiving subject, based on the analysis of unconscious constructions of the text. The views of M.M. Bakhtin, according to whom a full understanding of "foreign minds" is possible only within the framework of a special "dialogical thinking". This allowed us to consider the texts of N.F. Fedorov as a metatext.

The work uses the ideas of Z. Stransky, who sees the subject of museology not in the existence of a museum, but “in the reason for its existence, that is, in what it is an expression of and what goals it serves in society” (cited in ). According to this author, museology is above the museum and "includes not only its past, but also its modern and future forms" (cited in ).

When analyzing the phenomena of modern museology, the institutional concept of the museum was used, which considers museology as a set of specialized activities, with the help of which the museum business realizes its social functions, and also introduces into the subject of museology the patterns of development and activity of the museum as a socio-cultural institution.

A large role in the methodology of our study is given to general scientific cognitive approaches (systemic, model, functional, etc.). This made it possible to construct a complete “picture” of N.F. Fedorov and the phenomena of modern museology that interest us.

The work uses such general scientific cognitive procedures and methods as analysis and synthesis, historical and logical.

The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that it is a study of the phenomenon of the emergence of a museum need and its influence on the formation of a museum as a significant socio-cultural institution of our time. This allows us to identify the "problem field" of cultural studies, philosophy, history in the further study of museological phenomena associated with the phenomenon of "open museum". The results of the work can be used as a basis for building theoretical models of innovative museum institutions.

The practical significance lies in the fact that it is the basis for the development of federal, regional and municipal programs for the development of the museum network and the use of monuments, museum concepts, local museum and monument protection projects, museum expositions and exhibitions, programs for cooperation between museums and the public, schools, the business community and mass media, for the development of special courses on museology in universities.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were presented in the form of reports and messages at the following conferences and seminars: All-Russian Scientific Conference " open crops"(Ulyanovsk, 2002); All-Russian Scientific Conference "Science and Education" (Belovo, 2002); interregional scientific and practical conference "Man: Physical and spiritual self-improvement" (Izhevsk, 2002); regional scientific conference “Young scientists to Kuzbass. A look into the 21st century” (Kemerovo, 2001); the second regional scientific conference "Young scientists to Kuzbass" (Kemerovo, 2002).

The structure of the work is determined by the goal and objectives of the study. The dissertation consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion, bibliography.

Similar theses majoring in Museum Studies, Conservation and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Objects, 24.00.03 VAK code

Historical, Theoretical and Organizational Aspects of the Functioning of Libraries Carrying out Museum Activities 2010, candidate of pedagogical sciences Demchenko, Yulia Anatolyevna
History of museum business in the world: Until the end of the 18th century. 2002, Dr. Kulturol. Sciences Gritskevich, Valentin Petrovich
History of museum business (until the end of the 18th century) 2003, Doctor of Cultural Sciences Gritskevich, Valentin Petrovich
The Development of Museum Affairs in Chukotka: Cultural and Historical Analysis 2008, candidate of cultural studies Romanova, Irina Ivanovna
Museum and Society Interaction as a Sociocultural Problem 2000, candidate of culture. Sciences Zinovieva, Yulia Vladimirovna

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Museum Studies, Conservation and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Objects", Zykov, Andrey Viktorovich

Conclusion

Summing up our study of the relationship between the nature of modern museology and N.F. Fedorov's museological views, we can single out the following main results. In work:

1. The definitions of the Ptolemaic and Copernican worldviews (types of societies) are given, isolated from the teachings of N.F. Fedorov.

2. The representation of N.F. Fedorov about the historicity immanently inherent in man. It is determined that the historicity of a person in the conditions of the Ptolemaic (traditional) society is manifested in religious and mythological forms, and in the Copernican (modern) society - in the forms of his scientific and artistic comprehension.

3. The regularities of the globalization of the museum in the modern (Copernican) society, which affect the social and spatial activity of the museum, are revealed.

4. It is argued that the museum's need for a number of social needs occupies an important place and can be considered as a specific need of a person in modern (Copernican) society; the museum can be considered as a specific institution modern society that satisfies this need.

5. It was revealed that the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov has a significant heuristic potential for explaining the trends in the social and spatial activity of a modern museum.

Based on the results obtained, the following main conclusions were made:

1. The most important trend of modern museology is the emergence and growth (expansion) of open (in social and spatial terms) new museum forms and inter-museum integration. Modern museology (as a field of practical and theoretical activity) is turning into a purposeful open system, the functioning and development of which is associated with the growing museum needs of society.

2. The museum need arises as a specific need of modern (Copernican) society as a person's desire to use the historical and cultural information contained in material objects to realize their spiritual and moral connection with the past. The museum is a socio-cultural institution that, in the conditions of modernity, provides spiritual and moral familiarization with the past through material objects (monuments).

3. The system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov is a theoretical model that largely explains the phenomena and essence of modern museology.

4. Through the concepts of Copernican and Ptolemaic worldviews in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov, the idea of two types of societies (modern and traditional) is revealed. The Ptolemaic worldview is characteristic of that type of society in which the scientific worldview does not prevail and the cognitive powers of science are not disclosed. The Copernican worldview is the worldview of that type of society in which the scientific view of the world has a significant influence and largely determines its activities.

5. According to N.F. Fedorov, in the conditions of a traditional society (Ptolemaic worldview), the spiritual and moral connection with the past is carried out in religious and mythological forms; in modern society (Copernican worldview) - in the forms of its scientific and artistic comprehension. The museum as an institution that synthesizes science and art and is able to create open and accessible forms of active interaction with society becomes an ideal institution for familiarizing with the past in the context of the Copernican worldview.

The main conclusion of our work is that the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov is an innovative achievement of museology, anticipating the development of trends in modern museum activity, giving them a theoretical explanation. This makes it relevant for modern research in the field of museology and cultural studies. The work allows to identify the "problem field" of cultural studies, philosophy, history in the further study of museological phenomena associated with the phenomenon of "open museum". The results of the work can be used as a basis for building theoretical models of innovative museum institutions.

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Cultural Studies Zykov, Andrey Viktorovich, 2004

1. Avtonomova N.S. Notes on Philosophical Language: Traditions, Problems, Perspectives // Questions of Philosophy. 1999. - No. 11. - S. 16-19.

2. ADIT documents and materials / Ed. A.B. Lagutina and V.V. Chernichenko. -M., 2001.-40 p.

3. Aksenova A.I. Museum as the most important component of the spiritual and socio-political life of society // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Si-tal, 2002.- P. 63-65.

4. Akulich E.M. Tobolsk Museum as an object of cultural heritage and socio-cultural center of the region // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 230-234.

5. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy: Textbook. - Second edition, revised and supplemented / P.V. Alekseev, A.V. Panin. M.: Prospekt, 1999. - 576 p.

6. Alisov D.A. Urbanization and culture // Urban culture of Siberia: history and modernity. Omsk, 1997. - S. 3-15.

7. Alvarez D. Children's Museum in Caracos // Museum. 1986. - No. 150. - S. 6-9.

8. Almeida-Moro F. Ecomuseum near the hydroelectric station // Museum. 1989. -No. 161.-S. 54-58.

9. Yu.Antsiferov N.P. Ways of studying the city as a social organism, - 2nd ed. -L., 1926.- 124 p.

10. P. Arzamastsev V.P. Museum studies reflections on memorial objects. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-03.htm 02/07/2002.

11. Artemov E.G. Museum and Society: Time for Interactive Dialogue // Proceedings of the International Conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 234-241.

12. Atkinson F. Museum under open sky in Beamish // Museum. 1987. - No. 155.-S.4-10.

13. Akhiezer A.S. Viability of the Russian society // ONS. 1996. - No. 6. - S.58-66.

14. Bagina L.G. On the need for interaction between specialists at a new stage in the development of Siberian museums // Problems of the development of open-air museums in modern conditions. Irkutsk, 1995. - S. 27-29.

15. Baden J. Muzeon. New opportunities // Museum. 1987. - No. 155. - S. 29-33.

16. P. Balakirev A.S. On the sociological understanding of the nature of the historical and cultural museum. Electron. resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-06.htm 07.02.2002.

17. Barry Lord, Gale D. Lord. Management in museum business / Per. from English. E.N. Gusinsky and Yu.I. Turchaninova; Ed. A.B. Golubovsky. - M.: Logos, 2002. 256 p.

18. Bastuz Ana Mae Tavaris. Aesthetic education in the museum // Museum. -1989.-No. 161.-S. 45-49.

19. Batov V.I. What language does history speak // Culture of memory: Sat. scientific articles / Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, ros. Institute of Cultural Studies. Nuchn. Ed.: E.A. TTTu-lepova. Compound. Svyatoslavsky. M.: "Drevlekhranishche", 2003. S. 27-42.

20. Bakhtin M.M. To the methodology of the humanities // Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art, 1979. - S.361-373.

21. Berdyaev N. The fate of Russia. Reprint reproduction of the 1918 edition. - M.: Philosophical Society of the USSR, 1990. - 240 p.

22. Bernfeld D. Participatory Museum // Museum. 1994. - No. 179. - S. 49-51.

23. Blauberg I.V. The problem of integrity and a systematic approach. M.: Editorial URSS, 1997.-448 p.

24. Bobrov V.V. Usage archaeological sites in the system of ecomu-zeev // Problems of protection and use of the historical and cultural heritage of Siberia: Collection of scientific works. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 1996. - S. 100-106.

25. Brown C. Instead of four issues a year, one // Museum. - 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. 17-19.

26. Bruno A. Museum of Modern Art in the Rivosh Castle // Museum. 1986.-No. 149.-S. 4-8.

27. Brousseau F. The experience of Canadian museums: increasing interaction with society // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 45-53.

28. Bulgakov S.N. Works in 2 volumes. V.2. Selected articles / Comp., text preparation, intro. Art. and note. I.B. Rodnyanskaya. M.: Nauka, 1993. - 752 (2) p.

29. Burga R. France: a word that unites people // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. 12-13.

30. Burls A. The role of communication and information // Museum. 1993. - No. 176. - S. 18-23.

31. Vanslova E.G. Formation historical consciousness and museum culture in elementary school (program "Museum and School"). Electron, resource. -http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-06.htm 09.02.2002.

32. Weber M. Favorites. The image of society: Per. with him. M.: Lawyer, 1994.- 704 p.

33. Great Britain: new proposals // Museum. 1988. - No. 156. - S. 47-48.

34. Vilkov O.N. On the history of the organization of open-air museums // Historical and architectural open-air museum: Principles and methods of organization. Novosibirsk: Science, 1980. - S. 6-44.

35. Viskalin A.V. The scientific concept of the exposition of the Museum of Archeology of the Ulyanovsk Territory // Open Cultures: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. Ulyanovsk: Ul-GU, 2002.-S. 147-151.

36. Vovk T.V. Association Open Museum: projects and prospects // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 222-226.

37. Vorontsova E.A. Moscow is the museum capital of a great power. Electronic, resource. - http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-04.htm - 10.02.2002.

38. Wood S. Museums of military history in modern conditions // Museum.- 1986.-№ 149. S. 20-27.

39. Gazalova K.M. Museum as a social institution in Russia of the XX century // Museum in the modern world: traditionalism and innovation: Proceedings / State Historical Museum. M., 1999.-Issue. 104.-S. 8-28.

40. Garcia y Sastre A. New in the educational activities of museums // Museum. 1989. - No. 162. - S. 16-19.

41. Gates B. Business at the speed of thought. - 2nd ed., Rev. - M.: EKSMO-Press, 2001.-480 p.

42. Gerulaitis N.A. The meaning and purpose of the museum in the philosophical concept of N.F. Fedorov. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-06.htm- 11.02.2002.

43. Glinskaya A.G. Man to man is the engine of progress? // Materials of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 100-103.

44. Gnedovsky M.B. Factory of "stars" (on the benefits and significance of museum competitions) // Museum and new technologies. On the way to the museum of the XXI century / Comp. and scientific ed. N.A. Nikishin. M.: Progress-Tradition, 1999. - S. 25-32.

45. Goj S. Museums and Science Centers in India // Museum. 1986. - No. 150. - S. 4046.

46. Goldobina L.A. Innovations in culture: museum PR through project activities // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. Ulyanovsk: Ul-GU, 2002. - S. 155-158.

47. Gollerbach E.F. Apology of the museum: the role of museum construction according to the teachings of N.F. Fedorov// Soviet Museum. 1992. - No. 1. - S.25-27.

48. Gorelov Yu.P. Will Mariinsk become a museum? // Historical problems of historical local history (To the 375th anniversary of the founding of Kuznetsk and the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Kemerovo region): Abstracts. Kemerovo, 1993. - S. 75-77.

49. Gottesbiner X. France: progress in the study of visitors / H. Gottesbiner, L. Mironer, J. Davallon // Museum. 1993. - No. 178. - S. 13-19.

50. Goad D. Canada: public support for museums / D. Goad, B. Muskat.// Museum. 1993. - No. 176. - S. 8-11.

51. Grevs I. City as a subject of local history // Local history. 1924. - N 3. - S. 242-50.

52. Gudrun V. The development of museums is part of the cultural policy of Sweden // Museum. - 1989.-No. 160.-S. 7-9.

53. Guralnik Yu.U. Museology at the crossroads: in search of the historical, cultural and social meaning of the discipline. Electron. resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-05.htm 07/24/2002.

54. Gurevich A.Ya The territory of the historian // New and recent history. 1994. - No. 5. - S. 84-90.

55. Davydov A.N. X Conference of the Association of European Open Air Museums // Soviet Ethnography. 1983. - No. 4. - S. 134-137.

56. Danilov V. Informal methods of popularization of scientific knowledge in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry // Museum. 1986. - No. 150. - S. 16-21.

57. Danilov V. Technique: chance or choice // Museum. 1986. - No. 150. - S. 22-24.

58. Darpgg O.E. Public relations in the museum: technique of success // Museum and new technologies. On the way to the museum of the XXI century / Comp. and scientific ed. N.A. Nikishin. -M.: Progress-Tradition, 1999. S. 14-24.

59. Dayton L. Don't Get Rid of Chaos // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169. - S. 84-87.

60. Decrosse A. Permanent exhibitions in the city of science and technology La Villette: Explora / A. Decrosse, A. Joana, J. Natalie // Museum. 1987. - No. 155. - S. 49-66.

61. Johnson N. Discovering the City // Museum. 1996. - No. 187. - S. 5-8.

62. Divinish K. Museum of Barbados // Museum. 1986. - No. 149. - S. 15-19.

63. Dukelsky V.Yu. Cultural project: from conception to implementation // Museum of the Future: information management / Comp. A.V. Lebedev. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2001.- S. 82-92.

64. Emelyanova A.Yu. On the history of designing the Palace of Technology in Moscow (30s of the XX century). Electron. resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-07.htm 29.07.2002.

65. Zykova JI.A. On the concept of the Museum of the History of the Coal Industry // Fuel and Energy Complex and Resources of Kuzbass. 2002. - No. 2/6. - S. 137-139.

66. Yong A. The first open-air museums: On folk tradition by museum means / A. Yong, M. Skougord // Museum. 1993. - No. 176. - S. 2730.

67. Yungner B. Sweden: "Culture is aerobics for the soul" // Museum. - 1993. - No. 176. - P. 30-31.

68. Kazakova V.A. Museum of the City: Conceptual Problems of Development of the Eco-Museum in Tolyatti. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-05.htm - 4.08.2002.

69. How Museum Architecture Will Develop in Latin America: An Interview with Jorge Gasaneo // Museum. 1990. - No. 164. - S. 29-30.

70. Kastosov I.V. Information support of cultural tourism // Museum of the Future: Information Management / Comp. A.V. Lebedev. - M.: Progress-Tradition, 2001. S. 45-56.

71. Kaulen M.E. The problem of personality in the historical exposition // Modern historiography and problems of the content of historical expositions of museums. Based on the materials of the "round table" held on May 18, 2001 in Orel. M., 2002.-S. 219-233.

72. Declaration of Quebec: the basic principles of the new museology // Museum. -1985.-№148.-S. 21.

73. Quero Cesar Javier Julio. Children and museums of Tabasco: From experiment to long-term program // Museum. 1989. - No. 162. - S. 12-15.

74. Kimeev V.M. Ecomuseology: National ecomuseums of Kuzbass: Textbook / V.M. Kimeev, A.T. Afanasiev; Kemerovo State University. - Kemerovo, 1996. 135 p.

75. King M. Land of dreams or country of the future // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169. - S. 28-29.

76. Kirsanov D. Web design: a book by Dmitry Kirsanov. St. Petersburg: Symbol Plus, 1999 - 376 p.

77. Clausewitz V. A look into the past. and into the future // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. 5-6.

78. Clerici A.G. WFDM: a brief historical overview // Museum. -1993. No. 176.-S. 5-7.

79. Klyukina A.I. Museum and Society // Proceedings of the International Conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 87-94.

80. Knubel K.B. Museum educator defender of the interests of the visitor //Museum. - 1994. - No. 2. - S. 5-7.

81. Kovalevsky SL. New in the design of the museum space // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 190-197.

82. Koshcheeva E.JI. Creation and use of museum information resources // Museum of the Future: Information Management / Comp. A.V. Lebedev. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2001. - S. 35-45.

83. Kravtsova E.M. Temple-Museum: A look into the past // Problems of material and spiritual culture of the peoples of Russia and foreign countries: Abstracts of the All-Russian Scientific Student Conference / Syktyvkar University. Syktyvkar, 1995. - S. 74-75.

84. Krasnaya Gorka: Local history edition. - First issue. Key to the city. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2001. - S. 82-84.

85. Kryuchkova E.N. Museum Pedagogy in the Museums of the Moscow Kremlin at the Beginning of the Century. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-06.htm -12.08.2002.

86. Kuznetsov D.N. Professional Consulting Center of the Museum Agency of the Republic of Karelia // Museum of the Future: Information Management / Comp. A.V. Lebedev. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2001. - S. 72-79.

87. Kuznetsova E.V. The experience of studying the monuments of "Rossica" in the historical and cultural museums of Sweden // Open Cultures: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. - Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002. S. 139-142.

88. Kuzmina E.E. Actual problems Russian museum business. Electron. resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-03.htm - 19.08.2002.

89. Kuklinova I.A. Regional cultural policy and art museums (on the example of France) // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. - Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002. S. 129-131.

90. Kulemzin A.M. The cult of obsolete ideas about the museum and the museum specialist // Culturological research in Siberia. 2002. - No. 2 (8). -FROM. 111-112.

91. Kulemzin A.M. Methodological and moral principles of the historian // Historical problems of historical local history (To the 375th anniversary of the founding of Kuznetsk and the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Kemerovo region): Abstracts. Kemerovo, 1993. - S. 132-136.

92. Kulemzin A.M. The Moscow-Siberian tract is a historical monument of the Kuznetsk Territory // Historical problems of historical local history (To the 375th anniversary of the founding of Kuznetsk and the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Kemerovo region): Abstracts. - Kemerovo, 1993. - P. 73-74.

93. Kulemzin A.M. Protection of monuments in Russia as a historical and cultural phenomenon: Monograph. Kemerovo: Izd-vo oblIUU, 2001. - 328 p.

94. Lapteva M.A. Educational potential of the Open Museum Association // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 226-229.

95. Lee Nan Yong. Museums of South Korea // Museum. 1986.- No. 149. - S. 30-35.

96. Likhachev D. Notes and observations: From notebooks of different years. L.: Owls. writer, 1989. - 608 p.

97. Lopukhova O.B. "Open Museum" in an "open" society. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-03.htm - 27.08.2002.

98. Losev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. M.: Politizdat, 1991. -525 p.

99. Lossky N.O. History of Russian Philosophy: Per. from English. M.: Soviet writer, 1991.- 480 p.

100. Lundstrem A. "Svenska Museer": solving financial problems // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169. - S. 24-25.

101. Lewis D. Museums, the profession of a museum worker, university // Museum. 1988. - No. 156. - S. 43-46.

102. Lyapin A.A. The value of the image in the museumification of the Circum-Baikal Railway // The problem of the development of open-air museums in modern conditions. Irkutsk, 1995. - S. 40-44.

103. McDonald D. Museum of the Future in the Global Village // Museum. 1987. -№155. -FROM. 87-94.

104. McDonald D. The building of the Canadian National Museum of Man / D. McDonald, D. Douglas // Museum. 1986. - No. 149. - S. 9-15.

105. McIntyre D. Museums of Australia in the 1970-1980s // Museum. 1987. -No. 155.-S. 41-48.

106. Macmail M. Museums and public consciousness in the countries of the Pacific // Museum. 1990. - No. 165. - S. 31-34.

107. McManus P. Great Britain: in the spotlight of the market / P. McManus, R. Miles//Museum.- 1993.-№ 178.-p. 26-31.

108. Manzhi M.D. Friends of Museums in Brazil: the beginning of the journey // Museum. 1993. -No. 176.-S. 13-17.

109. Martynov A.I. Archeology: Textbook / A.I. Martynov. 4th ed., rev. and additional - M.: Higher. school, 2002. - 439 p.

110. Martynov A.I. Museums of a historical profile in modern society // Modern historiography and problems of the maintenance of historical expositions of museums. Based on the materials of the "round table" held on May 18, 2001 in Orel. M., 2002. - S. 196-206.

111. Martynov A.I. Museum and Society // Provincial Museum: new forms of work (materials of the scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Kemerovo Regional Museum of Fine Arts). Kemerovo, 2000, p. 5-16.

112. Martynov A.I. The fate of the historical and archaeological landscapes of Southern Siberia // Problems of protection and use of the historical and cultural heritage of Siberia: Sat. Art. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 1996. - S. 65-73.

113. Mastenitsa E.N. Museum activity in the context of regional cultural policy // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002.-p. 127-129.

114. Menezis K. New in the work of the Indian Museum // Museum. 1989. - No. 161. -S. 37-41.

115. Mene P. Museums in the Netherlands. Abundance that creates difficulties // Museum. 1989. - No. 162. - S. 56-59.

116. Merg J. Conservation of natural historical images // Museum. -1986.-No. 150.-S. 31-37.

117. Merkusheva E.N. Scientific and public relations of the Perm regional museum of local lore (1950-2001) // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 198-201.

118. Mineeva I.M. Museum archeology and features of the development of archaeological research in the local history museum // Museum in the modern world: traditionalism and innovation: Proceedings / State Historical Museum. M., 1999. - . Issue. 104.-S.61-69.

119. Mironova E.N. Tour guide and visitor: relationship problems. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-06.htm 09/12/2002.

120. Michel-Belle D. To the sound of hammers. Brittany // Museum. 1990. - No. 166. -S. 17-22.

121. Montebello F. The other side of the success and popularity of museums // Museum. 1991. - No. 168-169. - P.87-90.

122. Morozova E.G. Some questions of the theory and history of public museums // Culturological research in Siberia. - 2002. No. 2(8). - S. 112-121.

123. Museum science. Museums of historical profile: Proc. allowance for universities on special. "History" / Ed. K.G. Levykina, V. Herbst. M.: Higher. school, 1988.-431 p.

124. Museums of Russia. Electron, resource. http://www.museum.ru - 27.12.2001.

125. Museums of Siberia. Electron. resource. http://www.sibmuseum.com/SIB/index.asp 12/29/2001.

126. Museum of the future: information management / Comp. A.VLebedev. -M.: Progress-Tradition, 2001. 320 p.

127. Meng Ying Jae. Outdoor Museum // Museum. 1986. - No. 149. - S. 40-42.

128. On different topics. The new president of ICOM Alpha Oumar Canare gives an interview to the magazine "Museum" // Museum. 1990. - No. 165. - S. 61-62.

129. Natalie J. City of Science and Technology La Villette / J. Natalie, J. Landry // Museum. 1986. - No. 150. - S. 64-72.

130. Negan M.L. Salar Jang Museum or how to bring the museum closer to people // Museum. 1987.-No. 155.-S. 11-16.

131. Nikishin N.A. Problems of development of museums in the transitional period. Electron. resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-03.htm - 14.03.2002.

132. Nikishin N.A. Information management as a technology for organizing museum activities / N.A. Nikishin, A.V. Lebedev // Museum of the Future: Information Management / Comp. A.V. Lebedev. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2001. - P.8-22.

133. Nietzsche F. Works in 2 vols. T. 1 Literary monuments: Per. with him. / Comp., edition, ed., entry. Art. and note. K.A. Svasyan. M.: Thought, 1990. - 829 (2) p.

134. Nordenson E. In the beginning there was a skansen // Museum. 1993. - No. 176. - S. 25-26.

135. Olofsson E. Museums are repositories of eternity // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002. Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. - S. 59-63.

136. From the Editor // Museum. 1993. - No. 178. - S. 3.

137. Heritage protection abroad: experience of the past and contemporary issues:. Collection of articles / Managing editor R.A. Mnatsakanyan. M.: Ed. RNII cultural and natural heritage, 1994. - 145 p.

138. Pyle, D. Introduction: Birds against the Moon // Museum. 1990. - No. 166. - S. 5-7.

139. First S.Yu. Problems of substantiation and construction of the scientific system of museology // Culturological research in Siberia. 2001. - No. 2 (6). -FROM. 126-129.

140. Pero J. Museums and globalization, the challenge of the XXI century // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 39-45.

141. Pischulin Yu.P. Soviet Museum magazine for everyone // Museum. - 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. 20-21.

142. Polyakov T. P. In search of a "living museum". Scenario concept of the system of expositions "Museum of the city of Kranz" // Museum and new technologies. On the way to the museum of the XXI century / Comp. and scientific ed. N.A. Nikishin. M.: Progress-Tradition, 1999.-S. 33-43.

143. Development of the historical centers of Siberian cities, taking into account the preservation of historical and cultural heritage: Problems and new approaches: Materials of the international scientific and practical. seminar October 28-30, 1997 Novosibirsk, 1999. - 143 p.

144. Ressling y."Neue Museumkunde" Journal of Museums // Museum. - 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. 7-9.

145. Reshetnikov N.I. A museum object is an accumulator of social and cultural memory. Electron. resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-04.htm - 17.06.2002.

146. Riviere J.A. Evolutionary definition of eco-museum // Museum. 1985. - No. 148. - S. 3.

147. Rihakova M. Journal of Slovak Museums // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169. -FROM. 15-16.

148. Robert A. Children do not go to museums? Visit the Invertorium and see otherwise // Museum. 1989. - No. 162. - S. 8-11.

149. Rozin V.M. Culturology: Textbook for universities. M.: Publishing group "FORUM-INFRA. - M., 1999. - 344 p.

150. Russian culture in legislative and normative acts. Museum work and protection of monuments. M., 1998. - 230 p.

151. Russian network of cultural heritage. Main steps. Question status. Electron, resource. http://www.rchn.org.ru/defins.htm - 07.02.2002.

152. Ryzhenok V.G. Public museums of the Soviet era in the culture of the Russian provinces // Monuments of history and culture of Siberia. Omsk, 1995. - S. 146-150.

153. Savkhalova N.B. Changing the Museum in Modern Society // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002. - S. 158-161.

154. Sandu C. Romanian magazine "Revista Muzelor"7/Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. four.

155. Sant'Anna G. J. Salvador (Bahia): maritime museum at sea //Museum. -1990.-No. 166.-S. 33-36.

156. Santore B. Italy: originality and diversity // Museum. 1993. - No. 176. - S. 47-49.

157. Svendsen S. Mellemwerftet Shipyard Museum in Kristiansund // Museum. -1989.-No. 159.-S. 3-12.

158. Sevan O.G. Preservation, development and use of historical and cultural heritage in the rural environment. M., 1990. - 40 p.

159. Selivanov N.L. Subjective view of the museum from virtual reality. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-05.htm -2.11.2002.

160. Semenova S.G. Nikolai Fedorov: creativity of life. M.: Soviet writer, 1990. - 384 p.

161. Cultural Heritage Network: All-Russian register of museums. Goals, means, methods and forms of implementation. Electron. resource. http://www.rchn.org.ru/ustav.htm 12.10.2002.

162. Singleton R. Training of museum personnel and its improvement // Museum. 1988. - No. 156. - S. 5-9.

163. Sisto E. Mexico: the history of one bulletin // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. fourteen.

164. Scarth N. Volunteering in Canada is a deeply rooted tradition // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. - S. 54-58.

165. Scriven S.G. Studying the visitor: an introduction // Museum. 1993. - No. 178. -S. 4-5.

166. Scriven S.G. USA: The Making of the Science of the Visitor // Museum. 1993. -No. 178.-S. 5-12.

167. Skripkina L.I. Informativeness of expositions of local history museums in the field of modern theories of scientific knowledge // Museum in the modern world: traditionalism and innovation: Proceedings / State Historical Museum. M., 1999. - Issue. 104.-S. 100-123.

168. Skripkina L.I. Conceptual approach to designing a museum exposition of local history museums: sources and perspectives. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-05.htm -07.05.2002.

169. Skripkina L.I. Museum in the system of the postmodern paradigm of scientific knowledge // Museum in the modern world: traditionalism and innovation: Proceedings / GIM.-M., 1999. Issue. 104.-S. 29-45.

170. Solovyov B.C. Works in 2 volumes. T 1 / Comp., total. ed. and intro. Art. A.F. Losev and A.V. Gulyga; Note. S.L. Kravets and others. M.: Thought, 1990. -892(1) p.

171. Soroi E. The situation of museums in the Pacific region: the need for fundamental changes // Museum. 1990. - No. 165. - S. 29-30.

172. Sotnikova S.I. Museum of Natural History: from factology of science to the formation of the foundations of ecological culture (historical digression). Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-04.htm 05/22/2002.

173. List of museum periodicals // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169. - S. 28-29.

174. Sundieva A.A. Modern trends, debatable problems in domestic museology // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 66-72.

175. Xu Donghai. China: 2.8 million words in five years // Museum. 1991. - No. 168/169.-S. ten.

176. Ternovskaya I.I. On the issue of creating museums of reserves for victims of political repressions in the Irkutsk region // Problems of open-air museums in modern conditions. Irkutsk, 1995. - S. 40.

177. Tolstoy V.I. Definition of the new mission of the museum "Yasnaya Polyana" // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 132-138.

178. Tomilov N.A. Museology (museology): definition as a scientific discipline // Culturological research in Siberia. 2001. - No. 2 (6). - P.130-134.

179. Treister M. Ecological self-education and eco-museums // Man and Nature. 1988. - No. 3. - S. 79-86.

180. Truevtseva O.N. The role of the municipal museum in the local society // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 145-153.

181. William R. Canada: there is no return to the past / R. Williams, R. Rubenstein // Museum. 1993. - No. 178. - S. 20-25.

182. Uskov I.Yu. Domestic genealogy: Textbook / Kemerovo State University. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2002. - 212 p.

183. Charter of ANO "Russian Network of Cultural Heritage". Electron, resource. http://www.rchn.org.ru/ustav.htm - 09/07/2002.

184. Webb R. Bath, Maine, USA: the maritime museum sets sail // Museum. 1990. - No. 166. - S. 8-11.

185. the federal law"On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation. Electron, resource. - http://wbase.duma.gov.ru/ntc/vdoc.asp?kl=l 1089 -12.07.2003.

186. Fedorov N.F. From the Philosophy of the Common Cause. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk book publishing house, 1993. - 216 p.

187. Collected works: In 4 volumes: v. I / Fedorov N.F.; Comp. A.G. Gacheva M.: Progress, 1995.-518 p.

188. Collected works: In 4 volumes: v. II / Fedorov N.F.; Comp. A.G. Gacheva M.: Progress, 1995. - 544 p.

189. Collected works: In 4 volumes: v. III / Fedorov N.F.; Comp. A.G. Gacheva - M.: Tradition, 1997. 742 p.

190. Collected works. In 4 volumes: v. IV / Fedorov N.F.; Comp. A.G. Gacheva and others - M .: Tradition, 1999.- 687p.

191. Fedorov N.F. Works / Common. editor: A.V. Gulyga; Intro. article, note. and comp. S.G. Semenova.- M.: Thought, 1982. -711 p.

192. Florensky P.A. Temple action as a synthesis of arts // Soviet Museum. -1989.-No. 4. S. 65-67.

193. Freiland E. Sea Bergen //Museum. 1990. - No. 166. - S. 12-14.

194. Heidegger M. Works and reflections of different years: Per. from German / Comp., translations, entry. article, note. A.V.Mikhailova. M.: Gnosis, 1993. - 464 p.

195. Heints N. Norwegian National Council of Museums // Museum. 1989. - No. 160.-S. 10-12.

196. Khlystova Ya.G. The concept of a children's museum at the Kuzminki Creative Center. Electron, resource. http://www.rsuh.ru/openmuseum/rggu-06.htm -04.06.2002.

197. Hall N. "Muse" journal of museum workers in Canada // Museum. - 1991. -No. 168/169.-S. 22-23.

198. Kholodkova E.Yu. Creation of the site Museums of Karelia // Museum of the Future: Information Management / Comp. A.V. Lebedev. M .: Progress-Tradition, 2001.-S. 66-71.

199. Hu Yun. Museum on the territory of the ancient sanctuary // Museum. 1986. - No. 150.-S. 55-59.

201. Chernyak E.I., Zagoskin D.V. Megaproject "Siberian museums in world culture world culture in Siberian museums"// Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002. Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. - P. 121-133.

202. Shadrin A. Transformation of economic and socio-political institutions in the context of the transition to the information society. Electron, resource. http://rvles.ieie.nsc.ru/parinov/arteml.htm - 08.10.2002.

203. Shapovalov A.V. Web server "Development of Siberia" and the possibility of building a Siberian museum network // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002 - Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002.-p. 109-112.

204. Miners V.P. Small town of Siberia as a form of historical and cultural heritage preservation // The problem of development of open-air museums. - Irkutsk, 1995. S. 29-31.

205. Shakhterov V.P., Ternovskaya I.I. On some approaches to the formation of concepts for the development of museums in the Irkutsk region / V.P. Shakhterov, I.I. Ternovskaya // The problem of the development of open-air museums. Irkutsk, 1995. - S. 10-12.

206. Sher A.Ya. Humanitarian education in modern conditions // Historical problems of historical local history (To the 375th anniversary of the founding of Kuznetsk and the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Kemerovo region): Abstracts. - Kemerovo, 1993. S. 132-136.

207. Scherer M. "Alimentorium" new museum nutrition // Museum. - 1987. - No. 155.-S. 17-23.

208. Shlyakhtina L.M. Image and education in the historical expositions of museums // Modern historiography and problems of the maintenance of historical expositions of museums. Based on the materials of the "round table" held on May 18, 2001 in Orel. M., 2002. - S. 234-240.

209. Shlyakhtina L.M. Perspective Directions of Museum Interaction with Real and Potential Audience // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002. - S. 143-144.

210. Shouten F. Educational work in museums is a subject of constant concern // Museum. - 1988. - No. 156. - S. 27-30.

211. Shukhman L.P. Formation of the museum culture of children and adolescents in the sphere of leisure // Regional Studies of Siberia. History and modernity: Proceedings of the regional scientific and practical. Conf., October 6-8, 1999. Kemerovo, 1999. - S. 101-103.

212. Ederington R. For the deskulization of museums // Museum. 1989. - No. 162. - S. 57.

213. Erreman J. A new field of activity for a creative personality // Museum. 1990. - No. 164. - S. 4-11.

214. Erreman J. Popularization of scientific and technical knowledge // Museum. -1986.-No. 150.-S. 3-5.

215. Yureneva T.Yu. West and East: Intercivilizational Dialogue and the Phenomenon of the Museum // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, May 23-25, 2002 / Ed. ed., comp. V.A. Gurkin. Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002.-p. 131-134.

216. Yureneva T.Yu. Museum Studies: A Textbook for Higher Education. M.: Academic project, 2003. - 560 p.

217. Yureneva T.Yu. Museum in world culture. M.: "Russian word - PC", 2003. 536 p.

218. Johanson X. Application of informatics and means of communication in Swedish museums // Museum. 1989. - No. 160. - S. 30-32.

219. Yakovenko I. Civilization and barbarism in the history of Russia // ONS. 1995. - No. 6. - S.78-85.

220. Yamagushi M. Educational work and information in the Tokyo National Museum // Museum. 1987. - No. 155. - S. 24-28.

221. Yaroshevskaya V.M. Krasnoyarsk Regional local history museum at the turn of two centuries. Experience in creating new expositions // Proceedings of the international conference "Museum and Society". Krasnoyarsk, September 11-13, 2002. Krasnoyarsk: Sital, 2002. S. 20-38.

222. Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history: Per. with him. M.: Politizdat, 1991.-527 p.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through recognition of the original texts of dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Full text of the dissertation abstract on the topic "Museological views of N.F. Fedorov and modern museology"

As a manuscript

ZYKOV Andrey Viktorovich

MUSEUM VIEWS OF N.F. FEDOROV AND

MODERN MUSEUM STUDIES

24.00.03 - Museum studies, conservation and restoration of historical and cultural objects

Kemerovo 2004

The work was done at the Department of History, Museum Studies and Local Lore in Kemerovo state academy culture and arts

Scientific adviser: Doctor of Cultural Studies,

Professor Kulemzin A.M.

Official opponents: Doctor of Philosophy,

Professor Krasikov V.I.

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Martynova G.S.

Lead organization: Tomsk State University

The defense of the dissertation will take place on June 17, 2004 at 12 o'clock at a meeting of the dissertation council D.210.006.01 for the defense of dissertations for the degree of Doctor of Cultural Studies at the Kemerovo State Academy of Culture and Arts at the address: 650029, Kemerovo, st. Voroshilov, 17, room. 218.

The dissertation can be found in the scientific library of the Kemerovo State Academy of Culture and Arts.

Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council,

Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor

Minenko G.N.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Relevance of the research topic. Currently, there is a museum boom all over the world. Numerous museums are being intensively developed and created. At the same time, the creators of museums are increasingly moving away from the traditional, pavilion type of museum and prefer open-type museums. The global trend of modern museum development is manifested in the desire of museums to be open to society and overcome locality in space. Expositions of modern museums are created on areas exceeding the size of the premises, and the nature of their activities is aimed at bringing the museum closer to people. Many modern museums are merging with the life of the local population. In the museum community, ideas of an “integrated museum” and a “new museology” are spreading, in which the museum is seen as an institution that goes beyond identification, conservation and education and moves to the implementation of broader programs that allow the museum to participate more actively in the life of society and integrate more fully into the environment. In the new phenomena of museum activity, the rapid growth and change in the nature of museum needs and the socio-cultural role of the museum in society are manifested. The absence of a theory of the emergence and development of museum needs is the most important problem of modern museology. The theoretical and methodological provisions related to this subject are fragmentary and do not meet the needs of modern museum practice.

The development of new types and forms of museum activity occurs, in many respects, spontaneously and without awareness of the deep unity and connection between their various manifestations. The situation when practice overtakes theory can be considered normal only up to a certain limit. Modern museology needs an understanding of the general patterns of the emergence and transformation of museum needs and the new socio-cultural role of the museum in society. This is due both to the formation of museology as an independent theoretical discipline, and urgent practical tasks. Such knowledge will make it possible to create and develop modern museums based on a theoretical basis.

When creating the concepts of modern museums, it is not enough to take into account only the historical and cultural significance of the museum objects. It is necessary to understand the social and cultural-historical patterns of the emergence and evolution of the museum need, the activities of the museum as a socio-cultural institution, which makes it possible to more successfully predict the features of the development of local museum and monument protection projects. The fact that in the teachings of NF Feppst sopepaim. The original system of views on the museum, which allowed e and theoretical

explanation of the new phenomena of modern museology, makes the study of his museological heritage relevant today.

The degree of development of the problem. Speaking about the degree of knowledge of the problem, one should take into account the duality of the object of study. On the one hand, it includes a part of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov, containing museological views. On the other hand, the subject of research is the phenomena of modern museology.

The museological layer in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov received a certain reflection in the publications of E.F. Gollerbakh, SG. Semenova, N. Gerulaitis, E. M. Kravtsova, N. I. Reshetnikova.

For the first time, the Russian art critic and museum worker E.F. Gollerbach pointed out the possibility of using the teachings of N.F. Fedorov to create museology in his article “Apology of the Museum”, published in 1922. E.F. Gollerbach notes the presence in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov of ideas about the “ideal museum”, linking it with the change in the public role of the museum. E.F. Gollerbach also notes such important features of the “ideal” museum of N.F. Fedorov as its focus on the development of various areas of scientific knowledge, as a result of which the museum acquires an encyclopedic and universal character. E.F. Hollerbach correctly identified the possibility of using the teachings of N.F. Fedorov to create a museological concept, he also identified some signs of an “ideal” museum (an increase in the educational role of the museum and its spatial development).

According to S.G. Semenova, N.F. Fedorov’s “idea of a “museum” reflects the deep philosophical attitudes of its author.” S.G. Semenova considers the formation of N.F. Fedorov's museological ideas in connection with his teachings. Yes, SG. Semenova sees the Fedorov Museum as one of the means of overcoming the "bad" natural law associated with the displacement of generations. The very fact of the existence of the museum testifies to the desire of mankind to keep the past, "to capture the past."

In modern museology, the view of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov as an object of study, which has great potential in terms of developing the theory and practice of museology, has received a certain distribution. So, according to NA Gerulaitis, N. F. Fedorov created a whole doctrine about the role and place of the museum in the life of mankind - a real "philosophy of the museum." NA Gerulaitis believes that museologists and museum practitioners can use the rich experience of domestic traditions in this area of culture in their search for concepts and models for the development of museum institutions. N.I. Reshetnikov points out that museological views: N.F. Fedorova help to consider a museum object as a “accumulator of socio-cultural memory”.

E.M. Kravtsova notes the presence in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov of an important genetic connection between the Museum and the Temple, which are associated with the culture of ancestors, with the preservation of the memory of bygone generations.

When analyzing the literature on modern museology, attention is drawn to the spread among specialists of the notion that "a modern museum is becoming something fundamentally different than before."

There are publications that make approaches to the theoretical explanation of new phenomena in museology and draw attention to the changing institutional role of the museum in society.

They are represented by the works of A.V. Lebedev, A.S. Balakirev, Yu.U. Guralnik, Ya. Yerreman, A.U. Konare, D. MacDonald NANikishin Ts.I. Reshetnikova, L.I. Skripkina, SI. Sotnikova, T.Yu. Yureneva and others.

The aim of the work is to study the correlation between the nature of modern museology and N.F. Fedorov's museological views. This goal leads to the following tasks.

To identify trends in modern museology.

Consider the teachings of N.F. Fedorov in the socio-cultural context of the era.

To fix the features of the metatext of the works of N.F. Fedorov as a condition

influence and prerequisites for the study of his museological views.

Explore museological views: N.F. Fedorova as a system.

N.F. Fedorov and the identified trends in modern museology. Defense provisions.

3. The system of museological views of NF. Fedorov is a theoretical model that largely explains the phenomena and essence of modern museology.

4. Through the concepts of worldviews, Copernican and Ptolemaic in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov, the idea of two types of societies (modern and traditional) is revealed. The Ptolemaic worldview is characteristic of that type of society in which the scientific worldview does not prevail and the cognitive powers of science are not disclosed. The Copernican worldview is the worldview of that type of society in which the scientific view of the world has a significant influence and largely determines its activities.

Research novelty.

2. The representation of N.F. Fedorov about the historicity immanently inherent in a person- It is determined that the historicity of a person in the conditions of a Ptolemaic (traditional) society manifests itself in religious and mythological forms; and in the Copernican (modern) society - in the forms of its scientific and artistic comprehension.

5. It was revealed that the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov has a significant heuristic potential for explaining the trends in the social and spatial activity of a modern museum. Research methodology. In this study, the works of E.F. Gollerbakh, S.G. Semenova, N.A.Gerulaitis, E.M. Kravtsova, N.I. They reflected a certain view of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov as an object of study, which has great potential in terms of the development of the theory and practice of museology, outlined the problematic field of museological views of N.F. Fedorov.

The theoretical views developed in

hermeneutics, in particular the ideas of V.I. Batov, according to which, when analyzing a text, it is necessary to reveal the psychological fabric of the text, which is not initially recognized by both the author and the perceiving subject, based on the analysis of the text constructions that are not recognized. The views of M.M. Bakhtin, according to whom a full understanding of "foreign minds" is possible only within the framework of a special "dialogical thinking". This allowed us to consider the texts of N.F. Fedorov as a metatext.

The work uses the ideas of Z. Stransky, who sees the subject of museology not in the existence of the museum, but "in the reason for its existence, that is, what it is an expression of and what goals it serves in society." According to this author, museology is above the museum and "includes not only its past, but also its modern and future forms."

The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that it is a study of the phenomenon of the emergence of a museum need and its influence on the formation of a museum as a significant socio-cultural institution of our time. This allows us to identify the "problem field" of cultural studies, philosophy, history in the further study of museological phenomena associated with the "open museum" phenomenon. The results of the work can be used as a basis for building theoretical models of innovative museum institutions.

some spiritual self-improvement” (Izhevsk, 2002); regional scientific conference “Young scientists to Kuzbass. A look into the 21st century” (Kemerovo, 2001); the second regional scientific conference "Young scientists to Kuzbass" (Kemerovo, 2002).

The introduction substantiates the relevance of the topic and its scientific novelty, determines the degree of development of the problem, formulates the goals and objectives of the study, sets out the provisions submitted for defense, characterizes the methodological basis of the work, and reveals its scientific and practical significance.

In the first chapter "Museological views of N.F. Fedorov"

features of the texts of the works of N.F. Fedorov, the teachings of N.F. Fedorov are analyzed in the socio-cultural context of the era, the museological views of N.F. Fedorov as a system.

In the first paragraph "N.F. Fedorov's teaching in the context of his contemporary era" N.F. Fedorov in the socio-cultural context of the era. The features of the cultural and civilizational development of Russia are pointed out. Unlike the West, Russia did not experience the era of the Reformation and the Renaissance. The increased acceptance of Western culture since the reforms of Peter I was determined, first of all, by the need to modernize Russia, which experienced the consequences of geopolitical rivalry from the advanced European countries. The cultural values of the new European civilization in Russia were superimposed on the soil of a traditional society, without a developed industry, with a predominance of the patriarchal way of life and religious worldview. This is what gave rise to a peculiar cultural situation of "civilizational split" noted by N. Berdyaev, A. Akhiezer, I. Yakovenko. The combination of the values of traditional and modern cultures has become a breeding ground that served the growth of the original Russian culture of the second half of XIX and the beginning of the 20th century. The doctrine of N.F. Fedorov is a product of a peculiar cultural environment in which the synthesis of traditional and modern cultures was carried out. The involvement of N.F. Fedorov through the “split” culture of Russia to values of various kinds allows him to find points of contact between them and develop a unique concept that synthesizes them.

In the second paragraph “Features of the texts of N.F. Fedorova" were identified

features of the metatext of the works of N.F. Fedorov. It has been established that Fedorov's texts include a large amount of newly formed terms. Many terms used by N.F. Fedorov have a pronounced

emotional strength and completeness (multiplicity of meanings). Museum, temple, exhibition, cemetery, fathers, factory, university and other terms in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov are, first of all, phenomena and socio-historical processes. The texts of N.F. Fedorov are characterized by the vocabulary of emotionally significant images and associations. As a result of this, relations arise between the rational and emotional planes of N.F. Fedorov's philosophy. With the help of emotional strength and completeness of terms, N.F. Fedorov creates non-obvious, but effective connections between the individual elements of his philosophical system and different texts. In this regard, the texts of N.F. Fedorov's works can be considered as a single text, which is a metatext in relation to individual articles of the philosopher.

The system of teachings of N.F. Fedorov does not find an obvious reflection in the structure of the texts of his works. The nature of the connections between the various elements of Fedorov's teaching is revealed not only through establishing the presence of these elements and their places in the system, but also through the emotional intensity of the lexical units expressing them. In the texts of N.F. Fedorov expressed the desire through the synthesis of "linguistic dialects" of traditional and industrial society to promote the synthesis of the values of both types of societies.

One of the origins of the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov and his views on the museum is Christianity. From Christianity, Fedorov's teaching receives a moral attitude to the past and historicism. Fedorov's Christianity differs from its ecclesiastical understanding. In his teaching, N.F. Fedorov carries out the synthesis of religious, Christian consciousness, with faith in the limitless abilities of science.

In the third paragraph, “The Model of the Emergence and Evolution of the Museum Need in the Teachings of N.F. Fedorov,” the museological views of N.F. Fedorov are studied as a system. It is indicated that N.F. Fedorov's view of the museum is part of his teaching. The analysis of the origins of N.F. Fedorov's philosophy, its cultural and historical preconditions and features of texts makes it easier to isolate museological views from his teaching as a system consisting of two interrelated socio-cultural models. For N.F. Fedorov, the idea of a museum is an important but auxiliary element of his doctrine of resurrection. As a result, the system of museological views is artificially isolated from the holistic teaching of N.F. Fedorov about resurrection.

The central element of the model of the emergence and evolution of the museum need is the idea of a person as a "historical being". According to N.F. Fedorov, a moral attitude towards the past and descendants is a distinctive feature of human existence, distinguishing him from the animal world. Based on this feeling, the commandment of universal resurrection was formulated in Christianity, but in an unformed form arose before it. Being a "historical being", a person shows his attitude to the past in different ways in different ways. different periods its history. Analysis of the texts of N.F. Fedorov allows us to distinguish in his philosophy the concepts of the Ptolemaic worldview (society) and the Copernican worldview (society). The Pto-Lomean worldview is characteristic of the type of society in which the scientific

worldview does not prevail and the cognitive powers of science are not revealed. The Kopsrnikan worldview is the worldview of that type of society in which the scientific view of the world has a huge influence. N.F. Fedorov connects the birth of the Pto-Lomean worldview with that stage of world history, when humanity saw the activity of “intelligent and powerful beings” behind the manifestations of nature. N.F. Fedorov points to the alienation of the spiritual needs of man, the implementation of which was entrusted to supernatural forces. From the very beginning, in the Ptolemaic worldview, a moral attitude towards descendants arose, in which the “historical essence” of man was manifested. Simultaneously with the birth of man as a historical being in Ptolemaic society, the temple appears as a form and symbol of this process. At the same time, the temple, even being pagan, is already filled with history, interaction with the past. The pinnacle of the Ptolemaic worldview, according to N.F. Fedorov, is Christianity, expressed in the Christian temple, which has a genetic connection with the pagan temple.

The main feature of the Copernican worldview is the ability and desire of mankind to know the forces of the universe and to submit to its moral management (regulation). The Copernican worldview gives rise to a new form of human interaction with the past - historical science. Concepts-symbols expressing the nature of the relationship between the Pto-Lomean and Copernican worldviews are the concepts of "city" and "village". "City" in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov symbolizes pure rational knowledge freed from historical feeling. The “village” is a center of active activity based on a moral attitude towards the past, but not armed, however, with the scientific method.

In the Copernican society, the ideology and forms of anti-historicism are developing. N. F. Fedorov sees the root cause of all forms of enmity and discord (anti-historicism is only a special case of it) in the “blind and destructive forces of nature” acting both outside of man and inside him. Forms of anti-historicism in the Copernican society are expressed by N.F. Fedorov through the concepts-symbols of "progress", "factory", "exhibition", "university". In the idea of "progress" N.F. Fedorov sees the transfer of the theory of evolution to the human community, which should not "take blind, unconscious force as a model." Under the “factory” N.F. Fedorov understands an ahistorical form, the emergence of which is associated with the transition from the Ptolemaic worldview to the Copernican one. It contributes to the emergence of a situation where "not a person owns a thing, but a thing owns a person." The product of the "factory" is the "exhibition". "Exhibition" as a phenomenon is based on industry, but symbolizes trade in N.F. Fedorov's philosophy. It is an effective way to draw a person into non-brotherly relations and anti-historicism. The concept of "university" N.F. Fedorov denotes the subordination of science to commercial and industrial relations. "University" is a system of approaches to science and education, from which morality and a living feeling for

descendants, to history. The concept of "university" also symbolizes the elitism of scientific knowledge and its inaccessibility to the broad masses of the people.

The emergence of anti-historical forms in society is due to the weakening of the institutions of traditional (Ptolemaic) society, through which a person interacted with the past. The transition from the Ptolemaic worldview to the Copernican one strengthens anti-historical tendencies associated with the animal nature of man and creates social forms of anti-historicism. At the same time, the opposite process also develops, forcing a person to look for new forms of his historicity. According to N.F. Fedorov, modern man acquires an ideal form for interacting with the past in the museum. The museum becomes a real form of opposition to anti-historicism in the conditions of modern (Copernican) society. This is due to the museum's ability to synthesize science and art, rational and artistic ways of knowing the world, and its non-corporate publicly accessible nature.

H. F. Fedorov denotes the genetic link between the museum as an institution of the Copernican society, and the temple (religion) as an institution of the Ptolemaic (traditional) society. Based on the analysis of N.F. Fedorov's texts, the definitions of a museum and museum needs are formulated.

The museum, in the understanding of N.F. Fedorov, is a socio-cultural institution that, in the conditions of modernity, carries out spiritual and moral familiarization with the past through material objects (monuments).

The museum need is the desire of a person and society to use the historical and cultural information contained in material objects to realize their spiritual and moral connection with the past.

The definitions of the museum and the museum need form the basis of the model of the emergence and evolution of the museum need in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov.

In the fourth paragraph "Model of an Ideal Museum" consideration of museological views of N.F. Fedorov as systems. The model of an ideal museum, isolated from the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov, is considered. N.F. Fedorov sees in the museum a social institution that is in development, at the very beginning of its social path. Due to the patterns of transition between Ptolemaic and Copernican society, the institutional role of the museum must inevitably increase. The indications of the institutional changes of the museum, found in Fedorov's philosophy, are logically interconnected with the idea of the museum as a form of opposition to anti-historicism in the conditions of the "Copernican" worldview. Since the museum is an institution that in modern conditions carries out spiritual and moral familiarization with the past through material objects (monuments), insofar as, in the field of this familiarization, the museum replaces the global systems of traditional society (religion and mythology) and turns into a global socio-cultural institution, while acquiring new forms of existence. The combination of these forms forms the model of an ideal museum in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov. There are five forms:

I. The most important form is expressed in the maximum expansion of its educational and upbringing function. The museum is able to create special forms

direct and active involvement of people in educational and upbringing activities, without being, at the same time, a conductor of an underestimated, popular education. Through the involvement of the widest sections of the population in museum activities, in the study of the past, "Copernican" humanity will comprehend its history, becoming a "historical being".

2. The institutional changes of the museum should be reflected in the expansion of the museum space. As a result, the museum should become an institution that operates "everywhere".

3. The development of interdisciplinarity in the field of museum activity is organically linked with its institutional changes. Due to the fact that the study of the past is becoming a "common cause", the knowledge of a wide variety of specialists who have not previously taken part in museum activities will be required; it will also require the unification of scientists and artists.

4. The logic of institutional transformations of the museum requires the development of inter-museum integration. Museums, according to N.F. Fedorov, should recognize themselves as something whole, operating on the basis of a single ideology. As a result, the line between individual museum institutions will increasingly blur; the formation of a single museum space will begin.

5. In addition, the museum, according to N.F. Fedorov, should turn into an institution striving for the greatest coverage of the totality of material objects of the past and present.

The development of such forms of an ideal museum is conceived by N.F. Fedorov not only as a natural process, but also as a result of a conscious effort of society and man. The institutional development of the museum is its approximation to the model of an ideal museum, capable of ensuring that the museum fulfills its functions in the "Copernican society".

N.F. Fedorov's museum studies views are a structural relationship between socio-cultural models of the emergence and evolution of museum needs and the model of an ideal museum. Describing it, it is necessary to note its abstractness and abstraction from real socio-cultural and historical processes, which represent a complex and multifaceted reality that cannot be described within the framework of one model. So, for example, the ideas about the worldview of a traditional society (Ptole-May's worldview) and a modern society (Copernican's worldview) used in this model never correspond to reality in its pure form. Any traditional society bears the features of a modern (scientific) one; at the same time, even the most developed modern society is not completely freed from traditional forms and even reproduces them on new rounds of development. At the individual level, a modern person, being a product of scientifically oriented education, bears many features of the worldview of the traditional type of society. However, the formation of such, abstract models is of great heuristic value. It allows you to identify important patterns of functioning and being of a "complex whole" and thereby contribute to its deeper knowledge.

In the second chapter "The relationship between the phenomena of modern museology and the museological views of N.F. Fedorov" the trends of modern museology are revealed, comparable with the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov. A comparative analysis of the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov and the identified trends in modern museology has been carried out. In comparing the views of N.F. Fedorov and modern museology, the dissertation proceeded from the signs of the “institutional” development of the museum proposed by N.F. Fedorov, believing that the above signs are, at the same time, evidence of the transformation of museums and museology into a developed system with connections, elements and structure . According to the provisions of the system approach, identifying the structure of a system involves considering its options, state and relationships, because only in this way can one determine relatively stable and unchanging in it. The museum studies views of N.F. Fedorov contain structural and historical aspects, synchrony and diachrony. The ideal museum of N.F. Fedorov is fixed at the empirical level in its development, in the increase of its influence on society and space.

According to the author of the dissertation, the approximation of real museology and the museum to the “ideal” (according to N.F. Fedorov) or “open” state presupposes the development of the features of a complex system in it, which, when analyzed, cannot be reduced to the totality of its constituent elements. Thus, the detection of "Fedorov's" institutional changes of the museum can be facilitated within the framework of a systematic approach. The main definitions of this method make it possible to consider modern museology as a purposeful (purposeful) system that functions on the basis of the society's museum needs. At the same time, some of its goals may be set by external systems and be alien to museum needs. The identification of elements, structure and connections in the system of modern museology contributed to a deeper understanding of the essence of the phenomena under consideration. When describing modern museology, the most important structural parameter of systems was taken into account - the relationship between phenomenon and essence. It is clear that when analyzing phenomena, it is necessary to focus more on the search for a correspondence between the model of an ideal museum by N.F. Fedorov and modern museology. In turn, when analyzing the essence of modern museology, it is necessary to consider what role the society's museum needs play in the new realities of museology.

The first paragraph, “The Background to the Phenomenon of the “Open Museum” in Russia in the 20th Century,” examines the development of the trends of the “open museum” in Russia during the 20th century and the views of the most prominent theorists of Russian museology at the beginning of the 20th century. It is indicated that at the beginning of the 20th century, the first symptoms of institutional changes in the activities of Russian museums. At this time, the history of Russian museum work records powerful attempts to overcome the institutional disunity of the museum and develop the scientific and methodological foundations of museology. In 1906, the draft "Regulations on Boards of Trustees at the Museums of the Imperial Academy of Sciences" was adopted, which emphasized the role of museums as important educational institutions and

laboratories for specialists. In 1912, on the initiative of the museum community, the Preliminary Museum Congress was held. The congress discussed the theoretical issues of museology: the definition of the concept of "museum", the problems of classification and typology of museums, the principles of acquisition of museums and other theoretical problems. Together with practical attempts to save memorial objects from destruction and utilitarian use, there is their diverse theoretical understanding, the most valuable because it takes place against the backdrop of such negative trends as utilitarianism, cultural radicalism, and spiritual nihilism in relation to historical and cultural heritage. Against this unfavorable background, the museological thought of Russia represented by N.F. Fedorov, PAFlorensky, I.M. Grevs made a serious breakthrough in the theoretical understanding of the most important problems of museology and came to the forefront in comparison with Western Europe and the USA. Thus, I.M. Grevs developed a museum-excursion method of exploring the surrounding space and actively involving society in monuments of history and nature, echoing the views of N.F. Fedorov. P.A. Florensky developed the theoretical foundations of the “decentralization” of the museum, arising from the nature of the cultural and physical environment for the existence of monuments, which, in his opinion, should be considered as a kind of organic whole or complex. Theoretical views of I. Grevs, N. F. Fedorov, P. A. Florensky were interconnected with museological practice of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At this time, there is a kind of "institutional frontier" when museology stands out in Russian culture as an independent discipline. In 1919, in Petrograd, at the First All-Russian Museum Conference, a program for the development of museums in Soviet Russia was adopted, which determined the tasks and social functions of museums in the new historical conditions. The first museum conference expressed the view: museum workers and the scientific community on social role museums as scientific centers in which, on the basis of museological research and fund collections, educational and educational work is carried out with the population. The theoretical conclusions of the conference had a great influence on the development of Soviet museology. The museums of the 1920s are characterized by the expansion of exposition work, covering ever wider sections of the population, a differentiated approach to various social and educational groups, the development of excursion business and sociological methods of studying visitors. In the future, however, another trend prevailed, expressed in the transfer of museums from the sphere of Glavnauki to the sphere of Glavpolitprosveta, in which the greatest role was assigned to the ideological functions of museums. The construction of a rigid and ideologized state that put the sphere of science and culture under control came into conflict with the tendencies of the "institutional" development of museums as institutions that reveal to society the entirety of the material and spiritual culture of the past. The ideologization of museum work contributed to the formation of a selective attitude to the historical and cultural heritage, from which entire layers of national history and culture were excluded. Penetration of ideology into museum theory and practice

caused serious damage to domestic museology.

However, this did not mean a complete rejection of the "institutional" model of development. For a number of decades in Soviet museology, both approaches developed in many respects in parallel. And although the “anti-institutional”, ideological approach dominated outwardly, in reality, museum work in the USSR was a complex and multifaceted phenomenon in which, at different periods of its history, there was an ambiguous relationship between these different trends.

A significant change in the situation is associated with the 60s of the XX century. It was then that both in the theoretical and practical spheres of museology, the tendencies of liberation from vulgar ideologization and further development of the “institutional” direction began to be clearly manifested, bringing museology closer to the model of an “open museum”. By the mid-1960s, a system of views was finally taking shape in domestic museology, in which the museum is regarded as a social and cultural institution significant for society.

In the second paragraph "The main trends in modern museology" the trends in modern museology are analyzed, comparable with the museological views of N.F. Fedorov. It is indicated that in modern museology, the view of the museum as "the most important resource for the development of the territory" has become widespread. During the period that has passed since the beginning of the 20th century, open-air museums have become widespread and very popular. As early as the end of the 19th century, a new direction in museology appeared in Europe - scansenology, which subsequently gained great popularity. At the end of the 19th century, museums broke through the “dam” of pavilion-type exhibits. However, then the process did not go further. Spatial activity of a museum nature during the first half of the 20th century is recorded on a very limited scale. The development of the "institutional" tendencies of the museum in terms of expanding the museum space was not uniform during the 20th century. The quantitative growth of open-air museums was suspended due to a sharp change in the nature of state ideologies aimed at creating powerful, technically and economically, states. A cardinal change in the situation is associated with the second half of the 20th century. At present, open-air museums form quite extensive zones, although they are unevenly distributed on the political map. The trend of spatial activity of museums is becoming more widespread.

It is further noted that the main form of integration of museums and society is the development and expansion of museum and educational functions. In the 1970s, UNESCO and ICOM defined a broad program of linking museums with general education, and formulated the museum's role in this program as an institution that takes an interdisciplinary approach and contributes to a better understanding by visitors of all that constitutes world heritage or is currently being created. The need for a wider integration of museums and society is currently noted by many experts. Modern

Variable statistics reveal, first of all, the quantitative growth of museum visitors. However, a qualitative change in the models of the relationship between society and the museum is much more important.

The most important trend of modern museology is manifested in the fact that museums seek to expand their educational and educational functions in the form of creating special near-museum and intra-museum structures. The desire to form within museums and next to them centers of public life, museum pedagogy and familiarization with values traditional culture characteristic of both domestic and foreign museology. However, even when the educational and integrative functions of museums are not formalized in the form of special structures, they still take place. Modern museums "de facto" become centers of education, communication, cultural information and creative innovation.

Museum practice has developed and uses a variety of methods of self-acquaintance with the space of the museum and the exposition, aimed at overcoming the passive-contemplative forms of traditional museology. Their implementation allows the visitor to "choose routes of movement", to build their own perception associations. Similar methods are used both in pavilion museums and in open museums. The desire to increase the creative activity of the visitor also penetrates into the excursion practice of modern museums. Close integration of educational, scientific and exhibition activities is observed in archaeological museums.

The change in the nature of the interaction between the museum and society is manifested in the delegation of some of the functions of managing museums to various associations represented by public and private organizations. In various countries of the world, "associations", "clubs" or "circles" of friends of the museum are created from among the regular visitors in order to promote the development of museums.

The educational role of museums is increasing not only in the city, but also in the countryside. Thus, the regional museums of Russia in the 90s became the centers of cultural and educational life of the village. Modern museums seek to expand their potential audience by including children among their visitors. All forms of children's museums are focused on the multi-channel and multi-level integration of these institutions into the surrounding society.

An example of the search and development of new forms of interaction between the museum and society is the activity of eco-museums. Eco-museums are created primarily for the local community and by the forces of the local community. The birth and development of an eco-museum draws its main resources and social energy from the aborigines of a particular local area.

A reflection of the museum's intrusion into the social space and the expansion of its educational functions at the theoretical level is the concept of "museum pedagogy" that has emerged in recent years in museology. A special role in museum pedagogy is acquired by co-creation and cooperation between the museum teacher and the visitor.

Another important trend of modern museology is manifested in the integration of museums and the creation of a single museum space. The trend towards

The lineage of museums has been outlined for quite a long time. It manifests itself in the form of creating special over-museum structures with integrative functions. An example of an international organization that unites and integrates both the ideology and the practical activities of museums is ICOM. Such structures operate both at the international, national and even regional levels. The goals of museum partner organizations are aimed at creating a system of interrelated organizational and information channels for integrating museums and museum activities. This happens in the form of creating formal and informal organizations and associations, increasing the role and intensification of partnerships, accelerating the process of exchanging inter-museum information. The development trend of inter-museum unity intersects with the trend of the emergence and rapid growth of the inter-museum information space. Competitions are becoming a powerful form of inter-museum integration. They are held in different countries and supranational associations. Competitive events contribute to the intensification of museum life, the formation of the museum network as a whole.

Another trend of modern museology, the reality of which is not in doubt among specialists, is manifested in the growth of interdisciplinarity and in the expansion of the range of museum professions. The general trend towards the creation of an "integrated museum" suggests the formation of a new type of museum worker. The trends in the interdisciplinary development of museums are recognized and supported by the governments of some states. Describing the development of interdisciplinarity in the field of modern museology, it should be noted the trend towards an increase in the number of museum professions, as well as an increase in the “share” of museum professions focused on interaction with society.

Another global form of overcoming the “isolation” of the museum as a social institution is the rapidly emerging electronic information space. In practice, the inclusion of a user in the electronic museum community often occurs through the museum's website. At the same time, many sites of modern museums are built on the principles of interactivity and dynamic updating of information. This creates opportunities for dialogue and communication. Passive consumption of information fades into the background. A regular visitor to a museum site built on interactive principles becomes an informal member of the museum community. At present, in the field of the emerging museum information infrastructure, the “visitor” is giving way to a “partner” who is actively involved in the museum process and is able to exert a direct influence on it. The most important hub for museum information and inter-museum communications in Russia is the Museums of Russia Internet portal, which unites about 3,000 Russian museums.

In the third paragraph "Modern museology and N.F. Fedorov's museological views (the problem of relations between models and reality)" a comparative analysis of the system of museological views is made.

N.F. Fedorov and the identified trends in modern museology. It is noted that the processes in modern culture have a serious impact on spatial and social phenomena in the field of museology. Postmodernist views on history are closely connected with the phenomena of modern museology. Their penetration into this sphere takes quite a variety of forms. The most characteristic examples can be found in the field of theory and practice of building expositions. There is a certain parallelism between the artistic methods of "non-objective" modeling of history and postmodern theories. The postmodern art form was formed in museums under the influence of such types of fine art as pop art, assemblage, and installation. The phenomenon of delegating museum functions to other institutions is closely related to the cultural context of postmodernism. Recognizing the danger of "non-objective" approaches, the author of the dissertation does not deny their museum possibilities. Being, in general, a departure from the "institutional" areas of museology and approaching literature and visual arts, they, under certain conditions, are able to contain museum content.

One of the important points at which the modern cultural situation is refracted in museology is the concept of a “living museum”. The “living museum” model, widely discussed in modern museological literature, is not something unified and integral. Comparison of N.F. Fedorov's museological views and the model of a living museum reveals both similarities and differences. The similarity is manifested in the fact that the model of a living museum is aimed at overcoming the social and spatial limitations of traditional museology. Considered in this context, it captures the increase and transformation of the museum needs of modern society. However, this is achieved through the interweaving of "museum" and "secular" life, at the cost of their ultimate integration and more or less deep loss by the museum of its "institutional" features. This is their main difference.

Further, it is indicated that the main feature of the development of the electronic infrastructure of the museum network is that such processes occur in it on the basis of self-organization, excluding any coercive-volitional component. Information and technical means only create a developed technical shell (infrastructure) for expressing certain trends in modern museum life, striving for unity and communication. At the same time, the grouping of electronic communities takes place within the framework of the museum, despite all institutional deviations.

The activity referred to as PR (Public Relation) contributes to the expansion of the museum's social space. Museum PR is a social technology for selecting and conveying to a potential audience those blocks of museum information that are capable of forming stable and effective museum-public relations. As a method, PR is neutral and can be filled with any, including institutional content.

Next, the museum needs of modern society are analyzed. It is noted that the recognition of the museum as the most important public institution is a reality of modern museology. Currently, most researchers agree that the museum in modern society performs unique and irreplaceable functions. The development of such opinions among specialists can be viewed as a reflection of social processes in which there is a tendency to increase the museum needs of society.

Reliable and direct evidence of the growing need for museums is the expansion and improvement of the network of public museums. One of the most important features of museums of this type is their ability to cover phenomena and objects of microhistory and "local cultural situations" that are fundamentally inaccessible to reflection in professional museums.

Another important evidence of the growth and change in the museum needs of society is the expansion of the range of museumified phenomena and objects. The modern museum is focused on the search for new phenomena and objects of museumification, which were not previously included in the circle of its "institutional predilections". The reality and development of this trend is no longer in doubt among experts. Modern museology is showing interest in an ever wider range of regional historical and cultural zones, while among the factors that form these zones, more and more diverse ones are found. The objects of museumification are power plants and mining settlements, rural, urban and archaeological landscapes, a wide variety of objects and their complexes. At present, museums are not uncommon, which include thematic and temporal layers of a very large volume in their activities. Usually, such museums occupy large areas. Modern museology gives us many examples when museums break their boundaries so much that they become something completely different from museums in their traditional sense. So, in modern museum work there are examples when the city itself becomes a form that includes museum and monumental content. The expansion of the range of phenomena covered by the museum occurs not only in breadth, but also in depth, affecting not only open-air museums, but also pavilion-type museums. To designate a set of methods that ensure the systematic exposure of objects of phenomena and processes, the term "deep museumification" is proposed. As a rule, deep museumification is based on a complex (systemic) reflection of the natural, historical and cultural aspects of the object being museumified. It seeks to maximize the actualization of ties and relationships within the framework of the "history, nature, culture" system. Ideally, deep museification should reflect the entire range of internal phenomena and processes of the museum object. At the same time, the reflection of history in the context of its links with cultural and natural processes acquires special depth and richness. Coverage and reflection of the object being museumified in the totality of its intrasystem connections can be considered one of the most promising methods, and, at the same time, directions for the development of modern museology.

Less obvious ("blurred"), however, no less significant evidence of the growth of the museum's view of the world is the scientific and social legitimation of the concepts " cultural values or "heritage". The very concept of "heritage" received its final expression in the Convention "On the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage", adopted by the 17th session of the General Conference of UNESCO on November 16, 1972. The adoption of this convention was the result of a long-term effort by the international community and prominent public figures to create a system of organizational and legal norms that prevent the destruction of monuments. A close connection with the concept of heritage is formed by the concept of the cultural landscape, which has a serious impact on the practice of museum and monument protection organizations. Despite the different approaches to the definition of the concept of cultural landscape, they reveal something in common. This common is manifested in the fact that the cultural landscape, in the vision of modern researchers, has the function of preserving and reflecting the processes of history and culture. The expansion of the range of objects and phenomena museum-fitted is also manifested in the ever-increasing number of forms of museum and monument protection organizations working in the field of protection and promotion of historical, cultural and natural heritage.

The penetration of moral orientation into historical science and museology is closely connected with the growing need for museums in society. Spiritual appeal to the past is increasingly understood by experts as an important part of the process of moral education of modern society.

Further, it is indicated that many phenomena of modern museology have a multicomponent nature. They bizarrely intertwine museum needs, elements of mosaic culture and the business activity of commercial companies. Analyzing these phenomena, it is very difficult to separate one from the other. Based on the consideration of the anti-historical tendencies of modern society, the dissertation shows that anti-historical views are not formalized in the form of a coherent theory or ideological doctrine, however, their reality is no less significant and effective. Disseminators of such views are many scientists, politicians, journalists and teachers who form values in the public mind based on the criteria of usefulness and utilitarianism, which the historical and cultural heritage cannot fit into. Anti-historical views also penetrate the education system, contributing to the education of people for whom the past is not something real and significant.

Further, based on the results obtained, modern museology is analyzed as a system at the level of an important parameter of systems - the relationship between essence and phenomenon. It is the growth and transformation of museum needs that cause the systemic phenomena in modern museology, which is expressed in the irreducibility of its common properties to individual elements (museums and forms of their activities). The phenomena of the social and spatial expansion of the museum as an institution, the development of inter-museum relations, the formation of a single

information museum space are

integrative qualities of modern museology as a system and cannot be reduced to its individual elements. This is confirmed by the detectable parallelism between social and spatial phenomena, which can only be separated conditionally.

The most important trend of modern museology is the emergence of open (in social and spatial relations) forms in it. The phenomenon of the "open museum" in its main features coincides with the model of an ideal museum by N.F. Fedorov. Among the signs of such a development are: 1) an increase in the educational role of museums through the involvement of broad sections of the population in their activities; 2) the exit of the museum beyond the limits of locality in space; 3) development of interdisciplinarity; 4) association of museums. 5) expansion of the range of objects of museum significance.

According to the author of the dissertation, the most reliable and direct confirmation of the growth of the museum demand, along with an increase in the degree of integration of the museum and society, is the change in the nature of the objects being museumified and the methods of their museumification. Another direct evidence of the correspondence between the museological views of N.F. Fedorov and the nature of the development of modern museology is the growth and penetration of moral orientation into historical science and museology. The consequence of this is such a reorientation of historical knowledge, which makes moral and spiritual familiarization with the past a priority, and not just its rational comprehension. New approaches in historical science greatly strengthen the role of the museum as an important social and cultural institution for society.

Based on the results obtained, the dissertation proposed a method of information fields of the historical territory. According to him, the historical territory:

1. It is analyzed as a system that has a structure, elements, connections and relationships.

2. In the process of analysis, places that are most saturated with historical, cultural and natural history information (information fields - places that unite groups of monuments and other information carriers) and single objects (monuments) are identified and taken into account when developing a museum project.

3. A detailed analysis of the information fields and the historical territory as a whole is carried out in order to identify:

1) connections and relationships between objects within each field (historical and natural monuments);

2) connections and relationships between fields;

3) connections and relations between objects of different fields and single objects;

4) external connections and relations (with respect to the system) of objects and fields;

4. The allocation and actualization of system-forming relations are being made, which, with the help of certain means and methods, can be rendered into fi-

physical and information space as an object or means of museumification; used to build a museum concept.

5. Isolate the integrative properties and qualities of the system in order to use them in the museum concept.

6. Based on the results obtained, the boundaries of the historical territory are specified.

The method of information fields is focused on the active development of the territory. This is an active museumification aimed at spatial expansion. Another important feature of the method is that it allows you to identify many non-obvious (non-actualized) connections within the historical territory. This method is able to eliminate the main drawback of modern approaches to the museumification of historical territories, when a set of objects (monuments) is museumified and insufficient attention is paid to the links between objects within the system. The method of information fields of the historical territory makes it possible to rationalize the largest number of connections between objects and make them accessible to the language of museums (museification). It is advisable to use it where most of the historical, cultural and natural information is not obvious.

At the end of the dissertation, the results of the conducted research are briefly summarized. It is pointed out that the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov is an innovative achievement of museology, anticipating the development of trends in modern museum activity, giving them a theoretical explanation. The work allows to identify the "problem field" of cultural studies, philosophy, history in the further study of museological phenomena associated with the phenomenon of "open museum". The results of the work can be used as a basis for building theoretical models of innovative museum institutions

1. N.F. Fedorov's museum concept and modern museology. - Kemerovo: Publishing House of NTs VostNII, 2002. - 146 p.

2. The teachings of N.F. Fedorov and modern museology // "Young scientists of Kuzbass. A look into the XXI century". Proceedings of the regional scientific conference. T. 2. Humanities. - Kemerovo: RIO SMU Kuzbass, 2001. - S. 89-91.

3. The Museum Thrown into Space: Reflections on the Kugs of the Development of the Krasnaya Gorka Museum in the Spirit of the Ideas of the Russian Philosopher N.F. Fedorov // Krasnaya Gorka. - 2002. - No. 3. - S. 18-23.

4. Burnt mountain - a symbol of Kuzbass history // Fuel and energy complex and resources of Kuzbass. -2002.-№1/5.-S. 119-121.

5. Social and spatial models of modern museums and N.F. Fedorov's museological concept // Open Cultures: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference. May 23-25, 2002 / - Ulyanovsk: UlGU, 2002. -S. 136-138.

6. Educational and cognitive activities of the museum in the concept of the Russian philosopher N.F. Fedorov // Science and education: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference (April 12-13, 2002): At 2 pm Belovo: BI (F) KemSU, 2002. - 4.1. - S. 167-170.

7. Mechanisms of interaction between traditional and modern cultures in the museum concept of N. F. Fedorov // Man: physical and spiritual self-improvement: Proceedings of the Interregional Scientific and Practical Conference (October 28-31, 2002). - Izhevsk: Publishing house of UdGU, 2002. - S. 3536.

8. Formation of a new noospheric worldview, in the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov // Problems of material and spiritual culture of the peoples of Russia and foreign countries: Abstracts of the All-Russian Scientific Student Conference. - Syktyvkar, 1995. - S. 69-70.

Signed for printing 05.05.2004 Circulation 100 copies. Format 60x90 1/16 Offset printing. Pech. L. 1.0. Order number 8. 2004 Kemerovo, Rotaprint VostNII, Institutskaya, 3

Chapter 1. Museological views of N.F. Fedorov.

1.1. Teachings of N.F. Fedorov in the context of his contemporary era.

1.2. Features of the texts of N.F. Fedorov.

1.3. Model of emergence and evolution of the museum need in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov.

1.4. Model of an ideal museum.

Chapter 2. The relationship between the phenomena of modern museology and museological views

N.F. Fedorova.

2.1. Prehistory of the “open museum” phenomenon in Russia in the 20th century.

2.2. The main trends of modern museology.

2.3. Modern museology and museological views of N.F. Fedorov (the problem of relations between models and reality).

Dissertation Introduction 2004, abstract on cultural studies, Zykov, Andrey Viktorovich

The urgency of the problem. Currently, there is a museum boom all over the world. Numerous museums are being intensively developed and created. At the same time, the creators of museums are increasingly moving away from the traditional, pavilion type of museum and prefer open-type museums. The global trend of modern museum development is manifested in the desire of museums to be open to society and overcome locality in space. Expositions of modern museums are created on areas exceeding the size of the premises, and the nature of their activities is aimed at bringing the museum closer to people. Many modern museums merge with the life of the local population. In the museum community, ideas of an “integrated museum” and a “new museology” are spreading, in which the museum is seen as an institution that goes beyond identification, conservation and education and moves towards the implementation of broader programs that allow the museum to participate more actively in society and more fully integrated into the environment. In the new phenomena of museum activity, the rapid growth and change in the nature of museum needs and the socio-cultural role of the museum in society are manifested. The absence of a theory of the emergence and development of museum needs is the most important problem of modern museology. The theoretical and methodological provisions related to this subject are fragmentary and do not meet the needs of modern museum practice.

A theoretical explanation of the reasons for the emergence of a museum need in society, its transformation and related new phenomena in the practical and theoretical museum activities is necessary.

The museological layer in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov was reflected in the publications of E.F. Gollerbach, S.G. Semenova, N.A. Gerulaitis, N.I. Reshetnikov, E.M. Kravtsova.

For the first time, the Russian art critic and museum worker E.F. Gollerbach pointed out the possibility of using the teachings of N.F. Fedorov to create museology in his article “Apology of the Museum”, published in 1922. He gives a detailed description of this aspect of Fedorov's philosophy. E.F. Gollerbach notes an important feature of the museological aspect of the philosophy of N.F. Fedorov. So, according to E.F. Gollerbakh, N.F. Fedorov “considered the museum not only as an educational institution, but also as a moral and educational institution that determines the goals of human activity and therefore is widely relevant” . E.F. Gollerbakh notes the presence in the teachings of N.F. Fedorov’s ideas about the “ideal museum”, linking it with the change in the public role of the museum: “Museums in the form in which they were in the time of Fedorov, of course, did not satisfy him, and he mentally created an “ideal” museum, which should be a museum- school, placed at different levels of scientific breadth and completeness, in accordance with the place, content and purpose of the museum itself, ranging from the initial, lower schools that communicate primary knowledge and teach the first simplest ways and techniques to achieve them, to the highest, dedicated to complete, analyzing knowledge ( special) and generalizing (synthetic) ". One of the main tasks of the museum school is to overcome the corporatism of traditional education, therefore “the museum should open all types, all degrees, all data of science to everyone, not excluding the so-called ordinary people who need knowledge, of course, no less than “wise men” . E.F. Gollerbach notes the focus of the “ideal museum” on the development of various areas of scientific knowledge, as a result of which the museum “takes on an encyclopedic, universal character, incomparably more than a university, with which it is similar in tasks to embrace all knowledge, but from which differs in purpose to make knowledge the property of all. Another feature of N.F. Fedorov’s views on the museum, according to E.F. Gollerbach, is that “each given locality in its memoirs, in collections of historical monuments and in its modern activity, correctly defined, was in the eyes of N. F. Fedorov as the highest moral and educational institution - a museum, a shelter of a genius - a repository of a native, sacred past, but the past is not dead, not soulless, but like dust "having imati" .

However, despite the fixed interest in this issue, a purposeful study of N.F. Fedorov's museological ideas in modern cultural studies and museology has not been carried out.

So, A.U. Canare believes that “we must be prepared for the question of what a museum is, and for the demand to expand the very concept of a “museum”.

Y. Erreman notes the historical conditionality of the changes taking place in museology, but he limits the reasons for this to the social processes of the 60s of the XX century: “Today's museums began to appear only as a result of processes that took place earlier (in particular, in the sixties): changing the goals of museums and ways to achieve them, their use of such disciplines as communication, computer science, educational psychology, semiotics, etc., as well as improving the methods of conservation, success in museum work and scientific and technological progress.

In general, in modern museology, the view of the museum as an intensively developing institution has become quite widespread. Thus, the participants of the regional meeting on the problems of museums held in Santiago (Chile) came to the conclusion that the museum should take its proper role as a permanent institution in people's lives. Noting the “unsustainability” of the institutional position of the museum, the participants of this meeting “examined in detail the following questions in 1977: a) Will the museum become a factor in socio-economic development or a secondary institution, the existence of which is associated only with the growth of well-being and the improvement of the quality of life; b) whether it will promote mutual understanding and rapprochement of people belonging to different groups, or will it be another area of application of funds in a broader development context; c) whether it will turn out to be just a special institution created to please the elite, or an instrument for educating the masses; d) whether it will become a center of cultural activity or an institution intended for tourists.

The object of the study is the process of formation and development of museology as a field of knowledge and practice.

The purpose of this work is to study the correlation between the nature of modern museology and N.F. Fedorov's museological views.

This goal determines the following tasks: ■ Reveal the trends in contemporary museology.

To explore museological views of N.F. Fedorov as a system.

Make a comparative analysis of the system of museological views

N.F. Fedorov and the identified trends in modern museology.

Defense provisions.

6. In the field of spiritual familiarization with the past, the modern museum, according to N.F. Fedorov, replaces the religious institutions and mythological systems of traditional society and turns into a global socio-cultural institution striving for social and spatial expansion. Research methodology. In this study, the works of E.F. Gollerbach, S.G. Semenova, N.A. Gerulaitis, E.M. Kravtsova, N.I. Reshetnikov turned out to be methodologically significant for the author. They reflected a certain view of the teachings of N.F. Fedorov as an object of study, which has great potential in terms of the development of the theory and practice of museology, outlined the problematic field of museological views of N.F. Fedorov.

The work uses such general scientific cognitive procedures and methods as analysis and synthesis, historical and logical.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were presented in the form of reports and messages at the following conferences and seminars: All-Russian Scientific Conference "Open Cultures" (Ulyanovsk, 2002); All-Russian Scientific Conference "Science and Education" (Belovo, 2002); interregional scientific and practical conference "Man: Physical and spiritual self-improvement" (Izhevsk, 2002); regional scientific conference “Young scientists to Kuzbass. A look into the 21st century” (Kemerovo, 2001); the second regional scientific conference "Young scientists to Kuzbass" (Kemerovo, 2002).

The structure of the work is determined by the goal and objectives of the study. The dissertation consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion, bibliography.

Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Museological views of N.F. Fedorov and modern museology"

Conclusion

Summing up our study of the relationship between the nature of modern museology and N.F. Fedorov's museological views, we can single out the following main results. In work:

1. The definitions of the Ptolemaic and Copernican worldviews (types of societies) are given, isolated from the teachings of N.F. Fedorov.

3. The regularities of the globalization of the museum in the modern (Copernican) society, which affect the social and spatial activity of the museum, are revealed.

5. It was revealed that the system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov has a significant heuristic potential for explaining the trends in the social and spatial activity of a modern museum.

Based on the results obtained, the following main conclusions were made:

3. The system of museological views of N.F. Fedorov is a theoretical model that largely explains the phenomena and essence of modern museology.

List of scientific literature Zykov, Andrey Viktorovich, dissertation on the topic "Museum Studies, Conservation and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Objects"