The third part of the cycle on the creative history of Vl. Solovyov’s “Justification of the Good” is devoted to the possible sources of the thinker’s doctrine of love, which is also reflected in his treatise on moral philosophy. Vl. Solovyov refers to this part of his doctrine as “mystical aesthetics” and states in “Justification of the Good” that in this section of his new system, he will attempt to justify both the existing connection between people and previous generations, as well as the possibility of fulfilling one’s moral duty towards them. The main focus is on Solovyov’s interest in the work of American religious sectarians, particularly the communities of Bible Communists and Spiritualists, which he expressed in a series of polemical articles. The article explores and analyzes the possible connections between the ideas of the founders of these communities, John H. Noyes and Thomas Lake Harris, and Solovyov’s own ideas.

The purpose of our article was to find an answer to the question: “Why were Eurasian conservatives so interested in leftist art – futurism? What points of contact did Eurasianism and Futurism have?” After analyzing the ideological foundations of Eurasianism and Futurism, we came to the conclusion that both ideological trends of the early twentieth century sought to create a new culture that would replace the old, classical, elitist, and would give language and meanings to the masses entering the stage of history. Russian Russian-European pre-revolutionary classics have revealed layers of the eastern, Eurasian cultural stratum of the Russian people. They shared both a collectivist orientation and an apology for technical prometheism. Neither direction became the main trend of modernist Russian and Soviet culture of the twentieth century, but it can be found traces of the influence of both Futurism and Eurasianism.

This article examines the conceptualization of national ideology in the works of Archpriest A. Schmemann. In his research, the author relies on both various articles by Schmemann and his diaries. The author shows that for Schmemann, love for the homeland and love for the nation are not the same thing. Nationality as a natural belonging to a certain people – a neutral fact – turns into evil when myths are created around it, turning it into a reason for pride, for dividing into ours and others, for opposing ours to others as hostile. Shmemann also criticizes the following principles of national ideology: the perception of the nation as a single, “collective personality”, the ontological elevation of the nation over the person, depersonalization, devaluation, and instrumentalization of the individual. Schmemann is critical of the penetration of national ideology into church consciousness, as this leads to a number of negative consequences: distortion of ecclesiology, pseudo-messianism, and idolatry. The author concludes that in his assessment of national ideology, Schmemann follows V.S. Solovyov, E.N. Trubetskoy, and Archpriest G. Florovsky. Schmemann’s views on this problem are close to the views of Archpriest I. Meyendorff, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, H. Yannaras, Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), A. Papafanasiou, P. Kalaitzidis, D. Dzalto, and other contemporary Orthodox thinkers.

The article is devoted to the consideration of two works by V.L. Borovikovsky – “Portrait of E.N. Arsenieva” and “Portrait of Skobeeva”. Comparative analysis of these portraits is almost always present in monographic studies about the artist, but it seems insufficiently detailed: the historiographical tradition is marked by the definition of external differences in the images but lacks the identification of their artistic features. The aim of the article is to compare two paintings with obvious similarities in order to identify the accents of portrait characteristic in the master’s work, demonstrating the variation of his artistic canon in the second half of the 1790s, which determines the relevance of the study. The main conclusion of the study is the statement about the variability of the artistic canon in the work of V.L. Borovikovsky in the 1790s, who within the framework of one strict compositional scheme implies different accents of portrait characteristic depending on the appearance, character and biography of the model.

The author traces the history of the arrival of E.A. Lanceray’s wax sculpture “Svyatoslav on the Road to Constantinople” (1886) and a wax sketch of this composition to the State Russian Museum using archival sources. According to the 1988 museum catalogue “State Russian Museum. Sculpture of the 18th – early 20^th century”, both works were donated to the museum in 1928 by a private individual. Archival documents do not confirm this information. Documents from the Russian State Historical Archives (appropriations, coupons confirming payment) are published on the purchase by the Academy of Arts of the sculpture “Svyatoslav” from Lanceray’s widow Ekaterina Nikolaevna in 1887–1888. Then, according to the documents from the State Russian Museum archive, by March 1898 the work was transferred to the Russian Museum of Alexander III along with part of the collection of the Academy of Arts.

Two documents from the State Russian Museum archives are published regarding the arrival of the wax sketch of the composition “Svyatoslav” to the museum. In 1920, the Art Department of the Russian Museum accepted Lanceray’s sculptures “Amazon” and two equestrian figures “Svyatoslav” and “Kirghiz” from A.N. Benois for safekeeping. In 1928, the museum received an application from Ekaterina Nikolaevna Lanceray with a request to accept as a gift Lanceray’s original wax works, which were given for safekeeping in 1918– 1919 years by A.N. Benois. These archival documents allow us to conclude that E.N. Lanceray donated to the State Russian Museum the sketch of the composition “Svyatoslav”, which was already in safekeeping at the museum, as well as two other wax compositions by the sculptor “Amazon on horseback Gunter” (1885) and “Kirghiz on the Hunt”.

The Russian avant-garde was a unique phenomenon of the transitional culture of the early 20^th century, representing a holistic aesthetic system that combined radical artistic experiments, social utopia, and industrial progress. This is a new historical era, when artists, losing their status as individual creators, saw art as a means of shaping a new world and a “new” human. Now art supposed to serve society by fulfilling practical tasks. For costume, which became a symbol of transformative influence in the new conditions, the ideas of industrial art, constructivism, and suprematism proved to be truly declarative. The analysis of these trends formed the basis of this research. It is based on a combination of formal-stylistic and iconographic analysis, comparative and semiotic approaches. As a result, the new aesthetics of Russian avant-garde costume clearly demonstrated. Its basis consisted of three interconnected principles: functionality (the central principle of the theory of production art), the geometrization of the silhouettes (straight silhouette and rectangular cut, emphasis on the shoulder line, simplification and schematization), and combinability. At the same time, the visual language of the avant-garde is analyzed: contrasting color blocks, suprematist ornament, and the incorporation of alphanumeric elements that turned the costume into a means of visual communication and agitation. All design elements – from construction to color – were subordinated to the ideological tasks of unification, collectivity, dynamism, and revolutionary optimism (understood here as the modular principle, universality and economy, having ideological significance). The new aesthetic was a response to the social and economic challenges of the era.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the unique creative method of the graphic artist Evgeny Adolfovich Kibrik (1906–1978), considered as an integral system synthesizing the practices of book illustration, theatrical directing and psychological portraiture. The focus is on the analysis of Kibrik’s adaptation of the principles of Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky’s “system” for solving the problems of graphic art, in particular, for overcoming the static nature of the image and achieving maximum psychological authenticity of literary characters. The key components of the method are investigated: the organization of “sketches” involving actors and models, the technique of fixing «experienced» action in quick sketches, strategies for searching and synthesizing a type based on working with several sitters, as well as the role of numerous experimental versions in the crystallization of the final image. Data from the archive of the artist’s heirs (the collection of N.P.”Nikolaev) are introduced into scientific circulation, allowing to trace the evolution of the concept using the examples of the images of Lasochka, the Holy Fool, and Cola Breugnon. The aim of the study is not only to systematize Kibrik’s methodology, but also to assess its influence on the tradition of Russian psychological graphics of the 20^th century. The main conclusion is the statement that Kibrik’s method, built on a deep internalization of theatrical principles, is a special technology of visual storytelling, where illustration becomes not an addition to the text, but an independent act of interpretation, equal in complexity to the work of a director.

Based on the autoethnographic method, the article explores the phenomenon of a private artist’s house-museum as a key element of Russia’s self-organized artistic infrastructure. Using the example of a complex event – the anniversary exhibition of Dmitry Sanjiev “Myths of the Planet”, combined with a large-scale award ceremony – the author analyzes strategies for constructing legitimacy, social capital, and alternative hierarchies in the field of contemporary art. The aim of the work is to identify operational models that allow private institutions not only to survive but also to effectively influence the artistic process, forming their own networks of recognition. Four key strategies are examined in detail: the synthesis of artistic and social ritual, the production of an “expanded event” through media, the formation of a “dense node” of professional connections, and the construction of a public narrative of significance. In conclusion, a conceptual model of a “field integrator” describing the function of such museums is proposed, and practical conclusions for curators and researchers are formulated, relevant in the context of the decentralization of cultural life and the search for new institutional forms.

The article presents an overview of the reports of the annual scientific conference “Alyoshinskie Chteniya – 2025”, dedicated to the topic “Space, Time, Event: the differences in philosophical traditions”. More than 80 papers were presented at the conference, organized by the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State University of Humanities in cooperation with the Scientific Council of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the Methodology of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Research and the Russian Society of Religious Studies. The work took place in ten thematic sections, as well as in the format of a round table and presentations of the latest monographs on the conference topic. The review consistently outlines the main ideas of the plenary reports and breakout presentations. The multilevel nature of the problematic of space and time is discussed, from transcendental-epistemological foundations and the phenomenology of consciousness to historical and philosophical methodology and speculative ontologies. The author notes the productivity of the dialogue between various philosophical approaches (phenomenology, post-kantianism, psychoanalysis, russian platonism, theology, aesthetics, etc.) in understanding temporality and spatiality.