Review: The object of this research is the evolution of Soviet historical paradigm. The subject is the achievements of postwar Soviet historical science in the area of studying collectivization in the western regions of Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR). The article presents the research results on collectivization in the western regions of Belarus. Special attention is given to the political factors of development of historical science, the most important of which are the Stalinist course, “Thaw”, Brezhnev's re-Stalinization of the 1970s – 1980s, as well as perestroika. The author of traces the evolution of themes and evaluations in the works of Soviet scholars who dealt with the postwar collectivization in the western regions and republics of the USSR under the influence of political factors. The conclusion is made that the agrarian historiography of collectivization in the western regions of BSSR is often subjective, and interprets the published archival documents and statistical records in the spirit of the official ideological attitudes. The topics related to violations during collectivization, “dekulakization” remained taboo until the period of perestroika, when the change of political conjuncture allowed the historians to examine the previously forbidden topics. Namely this instigated the destruction of the Soviet historical paradigm. The author established that there is a discrepancy between the published official statistics and the conclusions on the nature of collectivization along with “dekulakization” in the western regions of BSSR. The novelty of this work is defined by fact that the analysis of Soviet historical studies is based on the modern historical paradigm and the concept of the scientific school of V. P. Danilov that developed in the post-Soviet historical science in terms of studying collectivization and “dekulakization” of the 1930s.

Keywords: dekulakization, kulak, collectivization, agrarian reform, paradigm, scientific school, historiography, western regions of the BSSR, peasant resistance, political departments of MTS

Review: The subject of this research is the peculiarities of the psychological approaches of European experts of the late XIX – early XX centuries (psychiatrists of the so-called “historical psychiatry”), art historians and painters of the XX century, specializing in collection of the works of mentally ill people (or art brut). The historical-comparative method is applied for determination of the specifics of the naive art of Western Europe in the XIX – XX centuries and its comparison with other areas of amateur art of this period. The psychological approach is essential for studying the works of mentally ill people (or art brut) and its key peculiarities. The comparative method allows analyzing the modern forms of art brut and naive art. The novelty consists in outlining the principal psychological approaches of foreign experts with the art brut, the interpretation of which contributes to decoding of all amateur art. Evolution of views stems from determination of similarities between genius and mental disorders, tracing patterns in creative process of the patients, assessment of the ability of a person with mental disorder to creative thinking and invent the object of art prior to learning the artistic beginning. In this regard, the psychological approach revealed the key trends in studying amateur art: from the perspective of Marseille Rege (with his “embryonic” view) to the point of view of Morgenthaller (with his realization of creativity of the patients), and artistic views of Prinzhorn and Dubuffet, who focus on the art criteria: vision of form, color, composition and other formal attributes of an artwork. Thus, the interpretation of art brut becomes a certain “bridge” for understanding the sphere of the naive art.

Keywords: genius, psychiatrist, psychiatry, non-professional art, naive art, artistry of the mentally ill, art brut, insanity, creativity, talent

Review: The subject of this research is Marina Symphony No.2 by the prominent Russian composer of the late XX century Boris Ivanovich Tishchenko. It was completed in 1964, and for a long time remained unreleased. Special attention is given to the symphonic dramaturgy of the piece, interrelation between the music and the poetic text, as well as modernization of the language of composing. Specific trait of Tishchenko's symphonic style — the aspiration and ability to expose the surrounding conflicts and contradictions – is amplified in the symphony. Tishchenko masterfully reconstructs any desirable emotional and psychological atmosphere, which manifests in the variety of techniques and technical solutions. Symphony No.2 by Boris Tishchenko is a remarkable phenomenon in the national music, as well as an important step towards formation of the composer's unique symphonic style. In “Marina”, Tishchenko addresses the pivotal question of not only his creative path, but perhaps of the entire musical art of the XX century: the level of adherence of the author's imagination to the musical form. His imagination is irrepressible; the language is highly modern; the form is classically clear and closely related to the good Russian and Soviet symphonic style. The novelty of this research consists in consideration of the remarkable symphonic piece of Boris Tishchenko from the present-day perspective and in the context of revival of the entire national symphonic style of the 1960s.

Keywords: Marina Mnishek, renewal, mixed choir, symphony orchestra, choir symphony, Marina Tzvetaeva, Boris Tishchenko, history of Russia, poetry, drama