Pedagogical Potential Of Contemporary Art In The Spiritual And Moral Education Of Schoolchildren

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of realizing the educational potential of contemporary art by teachers in Russian comprehensive schools. The study was conducted with the aim to analyze and assess the current situation in Russian schools related to employing contemporary art as a meaningful basis for the spiritual and moral education of schoolchildren. The focus is on specific perception of contemporary art by schoolteachers, its place and role in their professional activity. The results of online survey among teachers of several Russian regions are presented. The given results make it possible to judge teachers̕ professional and personal attitude to contemporary art and perception of its role in the educational process, to identify the level of teachers competence in the field of contemporary art and culture, to find out the teachers’ need for scholarly-based recommendations on the use of contemporary art to enhance spiritual and moral education of students. The research suggests reasons for teachers not to use works of modern art to address the problems of spiritual and moral education of schoolchildren. It is concluded that, despite the generally positive or neutral attitude of teachers to contemporary art, the educational potential of it in the practice of spiritual and moral education of schoolchildren is not being fully realized, because of teachers’ insufficient level of knowledge in the field of contemporary art.

Keywords: The content of spiritual and moral educationcontemporary artstudents of secondary schools

Introduction

Today’s Russia witnesses the problems of schoolchildren’s spiritual and moral education that prove relevant both for the society and for the educational system. The documents defining the conceptual and organizational foundations of spiritual and moral education claim that “a general education building partnerships with other institutions of socialization is the main tool of pedagogical influence on the spiritual and moral development of a Russian citizen’s personality” (Danilyuk et al., 2009, p. 16). Thus, the teaching staff of the comprehensive school is considered as the main subject of spiritual and moral education, which lays the groundwork for the educational process in modern school.

Pedagogical science (Belyaeva, 2014; Bondarevskaya, 2016; Kolesnikova, 2015; Luzina, 2000; Popova & Tukhvatulina, 2015; Schurkova, 2017; Solovtsova, 2018) understands spiritual and moral education as pedagogically organized purposeful process of values appropriation, as a joint search by a teacher and a child for “value bases, goals, meanings, content of life” (Luzina, 2000, p. 82).

Their pedagogical activities most often encourage teachers of secondary schools to turn to art when choosing the content of spiritual and moral education. The educational potential of art is huge, and the possibilities of influencing personality formation are undeniable, which is proved by numerous studies by Russian and foreign scientists, teachers, psychologists, philosophers. However, the vast majority of Russian teachers can only work with world-famous examples of classical art and masterpieces of world art created before the 20th century, and are not ready to discuss contemporary art, which, despite its rich history and widespread recognition, is still perceived as terra incognita.

There is no exact and unambiguous definition of the term “contemporary art” nowadays, which is not surprising, given the wide range of genres and trends as well as the blurred and relative boundaries of such art. The expression “modern art” was firstly used by famous American critic, art connoisseur Rosalind Krauss in the late 1960s in order to distinguish art after the Second World War from the art of the first half of the 20th century, in particular from modernism. In English, there is a clear distinction between “modern art” (from the Impressionists until the mid-1960s) and “contemporary art” (from the late 1960s till the present day). Therefore, it is no coincidence that there are both the Museum of Modern Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art.

The Russian language welcomed the term ”contemporary art” in the 1990s as a direct translation from English and often used it with minor semantic differences together with the expression “topical art” to refer to innovative artistic practices that appeared in the second half of the 20th century.

Thus, the term “contemporary art” is used by art critics, curators and art historians for defining the art of the second half of the twentieth century and the art of today, aimed at exploring and interpreting a complex, rapidly changing world through the intermediary of a variety of artistic and expressive means and languages. The interpretation relies on philosophical, psychological, sociocultural concepts and new technologies. The key attributes of such art are its experimental and unorthodox nature, topicality, innovativeness, and critical content. It is important to emphasize that in accordance to this approach, specialists classify not all works of art created nowadays as contemporary art, for example, because they cannot be performed in a traditional manner.

Nevertheless, considering the specific features of our study subject, the vague conceptual apparatus, the small audience and the ambiguous status of contemporary art in Russian context, we find it is relevant to study the pedagogical potential of «contemporary art» not merely in its narrow sense, but rather in a broader sense, which includes works of art created in recent decades, but following the classical tradition, as well as the most relevant, trendy, popular culture media samples, such as anime, comics, video blogs, etc.

Problem Statement

Long-term monitoring the secondary schools teachers activities in the field of spiritual and moral education (under the guidance of regional innovation sites activities of Volgograd secondary schools, while professional development trainings) revealed that teachers shun on contemporary art (only in 7% of cases) use as a substantive basis of spiritual and moral education. At the same time, among the works of art displayed to schoolchildren those that represent fundamentally new types, trends, styles and genres of art (“advanced contemporary art”) were absent. Meanwhile, the works of contemporary art belong to the same timeframe the schoolchildren are in and touch upon serious spiritual and moral problems; they are ambiguous both in the content and in the ways of its expression, which is a prerequisite for the search for goals, meaning, content of life, which makes up the mechanism of spiritual and moral education. In addition, these works, reflect the peculiarities of the modern worldview, the context of life. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the reasons for which teachers refuse to use works of art to address the problems of spiritual and moral education.

The analysis of scientific literature showed that contemporary art as a sociocultural phenomenon has been studied quite thoroughly with the focus on various theoretical and practical problems that are widely represented in the works of foreign and Russian philosophers, cultural experts, art historians, curators, art critics: Bakshtein, 2018; Greenberg, 1999; Groys, 2015; Krauss, 2003; Miziano, 2015, etc. Some studies (Bondarevskaya, 2016; Rusakova, 2017; Schurkova, 2017) regard art is as a means of spiritual and moral education. However, there is a gap in the research targeted at possibilities of using contemporary art as a source of spiritual and moral education at school. Some articles touch upon certain aspects of this issue, such as contemporary musical art and its role in the aesthetic education of the youth (Dodonova, 2016), features of the artistic perception of contemporary art by students (Olesina, 2015), and the prospects for using modern artistic practices in aesthetic education on the basis of extra-curricular activities (Yegorycheva, 2017). The shortage of relevant topic sources and the fragmentation of the available ones allow us to conclude that studying the role of contemporary art in the schoolchildren spiritual and moral education is a completely new scientific direction.

Research Questions

(1) The specific perception of contemporary art by schoolteachers, its place and role in their professional activities. The nature of the attitude to contemporary art, its typical features in teachers opinion. The level of general teachers’ knowledge in contemporary art the main types, boundaries, key works. Specific examples of art works that have educational capabilities and are used by teachers in practice, as well as common difficulties associated with it.

(2) The main features of the pedagogical potential of contemporary art in educational process in modern Russian schools. It is important to get answers to questions about whether teachers use works of contemporary art in their educational work, what determines the choice of such works; what grounds prompt the teachers to refuse from using works of contemporary art in educational work; in what forms the work with art is organized, whether it is systematic or episodic; whether pedagogical experience, the subject being taught and other formal indicators affect the attitude of teachers to the educational opportunities of contemporary art; whether the teachers have enough information about contemporary art and pedagogically appropriate ways of works with contemporary art, that are currently available in scientific and methodological literature.

The answers to these questions will make it possible to substantiate the principles, rules, forms and methods of working with contemporary art and to optimize the process of spiritual and moral education of students in a comprehensive school.

Purpose of the Study

The aim of the study is to determine the potential of contemporary art in the spiritual and moral education of secondary schools students. To successfully solve the problems of spiritual and moral education, it is important to have information about teachers’ attitudes to contemporary art and the possibility of its use in the educational process, to see how they assess the educational potential of contemporary art, how actively and consciously they use contemporary art in their professional activities.

Research Methods

The research relied on structurally functional and systemic approaches, as well as on a set of theoretical and empirical methods. The leading theoretical methods were hermeneutic analysis and content analysis of visual material when working with contemporary art works, interpretative and comparative analysis of respondents assessing and judging the possibilities of employing contemporary art in the spiritual and moral education of students, statistical analysis of quantitative research data. Empirical data processing called for ranking.

A quantitative sociological research was in the form of a mass survey conducted in April 2020. There were interviewed 227 respondents aged 22 to 65 years teachers working in urban and rural secondary schools, lyceums, gymnasiums, centers of special education of Volgograd, Orenburg, Pskov, Smolensk regions of the Russian Federation.

There was a mixed type questionnaire developed, containing four blocks of closed, half-closed and open questions with the possibility of single choice answers, multiple choice answers and the opportunity for expressing personal views. The first block of questions was devoted to socio-demographic features - gender, age, education, place of work, subject taught, expertise. The second block of questions was focused on revealing the attitude of teachers towards pedagogical work, factors determining the use of art works for addressing educational problems, and teachers’ awareness of students preferences in the field of art and mass artistic culture. The third block of questions made it possible to elucidate the attitude of teachers to contemporary art, its features and degree of popularity, to determine the role of contemporary art and its use in education process with specific examples. The fourth block of questions was aimed at studying the practical experience of establishing the discussion platforms touching upon studying art works at school and the demand for methodological recommendations and materials on the use of art works in education.

Findings

The common features of teachers who answered the questions presented in the questionnaire are the following - their age: up to 25 years old 4.4%, 25-30 years old 12.3%, 30-40 years old 14.1%, 40-50 years old 30.4%, 50-60 years old 28.6 %, over 60 years old 10.1%. Men make up 7.9% of the total number of the respondents, women 92.1%.

The overwhelming majority of the respondents (94.3%) work in urban educational institutions. The expertise of the respondents: less than 5 years 14.1%, 5-10 years 10.1%, 10-15 years 7.5%, 15-20 years 7.9%, 20-30 years 26%, more than 30 years 26%. The questionnaire was distributed among teachers of all subjects taught in general education organizations. Thus, the sample is representative enough for teachers working in urban schools.

Almost all respondents (98.7%) have higher education. 7 surveyed persons (3.1%) have an academic degree.

It is important for our study, that the majority of the respondents are either class teachers (65.6%) at the present moment or used to be ones before (20.7%). This means that 86.3% of the respondents have experience in the systematic organization of educational activities, knowing firsthand about the challenges and concerns in the field of spiritual and moral education. Some teachers who do not have the experience of class guide address pedagogical tasks at the lessons, during individual classes.

To assess the teachers’ cultural background in the field of contemporary art, the respondents were to answer the question “What types of contemporary art do you know?” being given a set of options: graffiti, installation, video art, performance art, public art, conceptual art, sound art, land art and the possibility of multiple choice and adding their own answers. The answers were distributed as follows. Almost all respondents (93.4%) are familiar with graffiti, 71.8% know what installation is, a little less than half of the respondents recognize video art (49.3%) and performance (46.7%), public art together with conceptual art take 26.9% of teachers, 20.3% of the respondents name sound art, 11.5% are familiar with land art, and only 0.4% of respondents can name other types of art. In our opinion, these indicators reflect the superficial level of teachers’ knowledge concerning the types and trends of contemporary art, regardless of the subject taught. Thus, the great popularity of graffiti is quite explainable by its functioning in everyday urban space, the relative simplicity and accessibility for perception and understanding, due to the specific features of form and content. It is significant that only one respondent supplemented the proposed list of art types with their own option recycling art.

To clarify the data, respondents were also asked a multiple choice question “Which of the presented contemporary art works do you know?” There were 6 images proposed: 1. “The Flower thrower” (Banksy); 2. “Balloon dog” (D. Koons); 3. “How to meet an angel” (I. Kabakov); 4. “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” (D. Hurst); 5. “Walking man I” (A. Giacometti); 6. “32 Campbell’s Soup Cans” (A. Warhol).

15. Which of the presented contemporary art works do you know?

227 answers

See Full Size >

The diagram shows the answers collected (see Figure 1 ). It turned out that 20.3% of the respondents were not familiar with any of the proposed works, including the masterpiece of the world-famous graffiti artist Banksy and the long-standing image of Campbell’s Soup Cans by Andy Warhol. It demonstrates the real level of knowledge in both science and humanities teachers concerning art of the second half of the 20th and beginning of the 21th centuries, which can be described as not advanced. It should be recognized that such a result was predictable, since contemporary art in Russia does not appeal to the mass audience and there is no developed network of institutions. Based on the results of a 2018 comprehensive study conducted among the audience of contemporary art in Russian towns, an objective portrait of a typical visitor to the sites of contemporary art was compiled, which is little related to the portrait of a typical teacher: “a modern resident of a big city with flexible and self-regulating employment schedule and blurred boundaries between work and rest, who values autonomy and independence” (“Something new and unusual…”, 2018, p. 33)”.

The urge for personal and professional self-development is eloquently evident in the answers to the question “Do you follow the latest art trends?”, which shows that more than half of the respondents (54.2%) are not interested in newest art forms (see Figure 2 ).

13. Do you follow the latest art trends?

227 answers

See Full Size >

This circumstance complicates the possibility and efficiency of mass use of non-classical art samples in addressing educational problems even in case of developed methodological guidelines available.

It is important to emphasize that the vast majority of teachers lack negative attitudes and stereotypical prejudices regarding contemporary art, which was revealed through a survey. Only 19 respondents (8.3%) answering the question “What, from your point of view, is typical of contemporary art?” mentioned some negative features claiming this type of art is meaningless, annoying, repulsive, pseudo-art. It is notable that 16 out of 19 teachers of this group, that is 84%, do not follow the latest art trends. Rejection, irritation and indignation are typical reactions to something that is not clear, which makes you look for answers, leaves you in an embarrassing situation. “The difficulty in perceiving contemporary art is due to the fact that, unlike the art of the previous generations, which reflected the major spiritual ideas of the epoch or culture, the beginning of the great and tragic XX century saw the disappearance of civilization and culture taking the same direction. <...> This new art form, reflecting the society of today’s, proclaiming the aesthetics of modern culture, is distinguished by the absence of any canons or aesthetic norms” (Levanova, 2014, p. 14).

The rest of teachers (91.7%) are moderately positive and neutral about contemporary art labeling it as “bright, daring, non-standard”, “innovative”, “strange, not always clear”, “interesting, thought-provoking”, “shocking, provocative”. A pedagogically expedient answer that opens up the possibility of employing contemporary art in spiritual and moral education which is “It is interesting, thought-provoking” was chosen by 34.4% of the respondents. Thus, we can tentatively state the teachers are majorly open to new experience, ready for experiments and original approaches, which is confirmed by the results of a quantitative study, which showed that 63.4% of respondents turn to contemporary art in their professional activities for addressing educational problems both in class and out of school, as well as for reaching success and expertise applying contemporary art in extra-curricular education of children and young people. Yegorycheva’s (2017) article “The possibility of applying contemporary art practices in aesthetic education” dwells on cases that demonstrate the great educational potential of creative projects based on contemporary art and realized in Russian schools.

To determine the significance of the research problem, it was relevant to identify the teachers’ attitude to pedagogical work, the basis of which is the students’ spiritual and moral education. The overwhelming majority of the respondents (89.0%) recognize the importance of pedagogical work. At the same time, 59.5% of the respondents give the following answer “I believe that the teacher tries to solve pedagogical problems not only during extracurricular activities, but also at the lessons”, 29.5% claim, “I understand that pedagogical work is very important, and I am responsible for it.” These data are confirmed by answers to other questions of the questionnaire.

46.3% of teachers use works of contemporary art in educational activities. However, this information needs to be adjusted due to the fuzziness of teachers' ideas about contemporary art. Thus, some of the respondents consider the works of M. Bulgakov, I. Bosch, Van Gogh, M. Vrubel, K. Malevich, and impressionists as examples of contemporary art.

From the pedagogical point of view, the teachers’ attitude to the aesthetic pupils preferences is of considerable interest. 7.5% of the respondents are convinced that what pupils are watching and listening to is of extremely low quality, 6.2% of the respondents believe that works of contemporary art do not have educational potential. Five of the respondents do not consider it necessary to know about the pupils aesthetic preferences, because they themselves either prefer classical works of art to modern ones, or believe that they already have enough artistic material that contributes to the educational process.

A group of teachers (107) who were aware of the pupils preferences in the field of contemporary art claimed thorough consideration. The emphasis laid on this group is due to the fact that only a teacher who has complete and reliable data about pupils can be competent and efficient in carrying out professional activities, including those in the field of spiritual and moral education. The questionnaire made it possible to distinguish three groups of them that differ in the way of using works of contemporary art in class.

The first group (55 persons) are teachers who are well versed in contemporary art, follow the latest trends in this area and actively use them in educational activities; at the same time, they turn both to new contemporary art (graffiti, installation, video art, performance art, public art, anamorphosis, etc.), as well as to those works that are fashionable, and popular in teenage environment. As a rule, such teachers run a discussion platform where they can elaborate on various works of art with students. The social portrait of this group is the following (modal indicators are taken as the basis): age 40-60 years, teaching experience 20-30 years, education higher. This group also includes teachers in both urban and rural schools as well as young teachers (9 persons) with an experience of up to 10 years.

The second group includes teachers who are in command of contemporary art, follow the latest trends in this field, but basically do not use it in educational work. This is determined by their general attitude to contemporary art. They tend to employ negative connotations while describing contemporary art: “It is strange, not always understandable, meaningless, annoying, repulsive, shocking, pseudo-art.” Such teachers believe that only “eternal classics” has educational potential and can contribute to solving problems of spiritual and moral education, that contemporary art has a devastating effect on the students spiritual and moral development. This group is not numerous (12 persons). As a rule, these are professional specialists with over 20 years of experience. The representatives of this group provided the most meaningful answers to open-ended questions; concerning semi-closed questions, they often chose the option “Your answer”, to provide briefly but accurately describing their own position. When choosing works of art that are used for educational purposes, such teachers are guided by their own beliefs and aesthetic preferences.

The third group (32 persons) included teachers who are well aware of the students’ preferences and tend to acknowledge them, but do not use works of contemporary art due to the fact that, firstly, it is difficult to understand it, and secondly, due to the lack of guidelines for working with it (the latter is typical for young teachers whose work experience is less than five years and those who therefore need pedagogical and methodological support, and on the contrary for teachers with more than 30 years of experience). The teachers of this group admit that they do not understand contemporary art and describe it as “strange, incomprehensible”. Some believe that it is “inexpedient” for teachers of science and mathematics to use works of contemporary art. There are no common features identified; here there are serious differences in age, experience, type of educational institutions.

The remaining 8 persons gave contradictory answers, so we considered it impossible to include them in one of these groups or to separate them into a single group.

Proper modeling and designing the process of students spiritual and moral education on the basis of contemporary art works, together with targeted development of pedagogical and methodological recommendations in this area demand information about teachers who most actively use works of contemporary art in education. To get an answer to this question, we divided all of the respondents into three groups: 1) teachers of humanitarian and social disciplines, cultural disciplines (courses “Fundamentals of religious cultures and secular ethics”, “Fundamentals of the spiritual and moral culture of the peoples of Russia”), subject area “Art”, i.e. those subjects that require teachers to have knowledge in the field of art; 2) teachers of mathematics and natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), i.e. educational disciplines that do not directly require knowledge in the field of art; 3) teachers of disciplines, which primarily involve the formation of basic skills (physical education, the basics of life safety, crafts & design); the same group included primary school teachers. The data are the following:

1 group 51 persons of 97 (52.6%) turn to works of contemporary art while educating schoolchildren;

2 group 41 persons of 105 (39.0%);

3 group 11 persons of 25 (44%).

Of course, these data are preliminary and need to be clarified using other research methods. However, they testify that there is no serious gap to differentiate “humanities” teachers from those of mathematics, natural sciences, and teachers of practice-oriented disciplines in the studied area.

To address the issue of schoolchildren’s spiritual and moral education, it is also important to identify the reasons why teachers refuse to use works of contemporary art in educational activities. The teachers were asked the question: “If you shun works of contemporary art in your pedagogical activity, then why?”, which suggested the possibility of multiple choice answer as well as presenting their own answers. After ranking the answers, the following results were obtained (presented in descending order of choice):

1 - “I think that time-tested works of art are better suited for achieving educational goals.”

2 - “Pedagogical, psychological and methodological literature features no recommendations on how to work with contemporary art”.

3 - “I do not understand contemporary art”.

4 - “It’s hard for me to understand what modern artists want to say through the intermediary of their works, what thoughts and feelings they want to convey to the audience.”

5 - “I believe that contemporary art has a devastating effect on the spiritual and moral development”.

6 - “The use of contemporary art does not apply to my subject”.

7 - “Difficult to answer”.

8 - “There is no time”.

In this case, the answers assigned to the first four ranks are statistically significant. However, the fact that a small number of teachers emphasized the destructive nature of contemporary art (5 answers) and / or that there are subjects on the curriculum which make it impossible to address educational problems using works of art (2 answers) deserves serious attention, since it reflects very common stereotypes in the perception of contemporary art and pedagogical stereotypes.

Thus, along with the stand that “the eternal classics” is better suited for solving the spiritual and moral education problems, the absence of psychological, pedagogical and methodological recommendations that allow teachers to work more enthusiastically with works of contemporary art is very significant.

The abovementioned is proved by the teachers giving answers to other questions on the questionnaire. Thus, the answers to the question “What determines the choice of art works that you use for solving educational problems?” (the question suggested the possibility of multiple choice answers and the opportunity to provide one’s own answer) were allocated as follows (Figure 3 ):

See Full Size >

Thus, the factors that are somehow related to scientifically based principles, rules, recommendations and developments are the most significant, accounting for 58.1% of the total responses. Moreover, there is no dependence on the teachers age and experience.

Even more illustrative are the answers to the following question: “Do you need methodological recommendations, materials, developments, instructions for working with art to solve educational problems?” (Figure 4 ).

See Full Size >

The need for such recommendations does not depend on teachers’ age and experience, on the type of educational institution or its location. Therefore, 10 out of 32 teachers surveyed gave a negative answer, still their pedagogical experience was less than 5 years and therefore they objectively urge for pedagogical and methodological support.

What also should be taken into account is the way teachers employ art in their professional (on regular or temporary bases). Collecting data of the kind required answers to the following question: “Do you run students discussion about artworks on the specifically created platforms (for example, a discussion club)?” and the specifying question “If there is such a platform, how is the discussion material selected?” It turned out that such a platform is employed by either class teachers themselves (5.3%), or at school where this or that teacher works (4.8%). Another answer was that there is no permanent club, but works of art are discussed during other education activities, (32.6%) – total 42.7% of cases. Consequently, a significant number of teachers try to use the educational potential of art. However, from the answers to other questions, works of contemporary art fail to take up their proper place in the process of solving educational problems. In 10.5% of cases it is the teacher who offers discussion material, in 7.8% of cases the initiative is taken by students. 31.4% of the respondents say that the teacher and students decide together what issues to discuss, 50.3% that both students and the teacher can come up with the ideas to be discussed. This allows us to state that pedagogical interaction on discussion platforms is organized in a democratic and beneficial from the pedagogical point of view way.

Conclusion

The results of the study allow us to claim the following:

(1) The vast majority of teachers are neutral to contemporary art, have no negative prejudices and even like it. The number of respondents who appeared negative when describing contemporary art is less than 10% of the total number of respondents.

(2) Teachers do not have sufficient competence in contemporary art and culture, which is partly due to the low level of personal and professional self-development every second respondent for one reason or another does not follow current trends and innovations in art.

(3) The teachers who employ contemporary art to address professional challenges prefer to turn to works created in recent decades (late 20th first decades of the 21 century), but still following the classical tradition, as well as to the most fashionable and notorious examples of mass culture. Teachers use educational opportunities of advanced contemporary art less often.

(4) The educational potential of contemporary art in spiritual and moral education of students in secondary schools is not being fully realized, which is primarily due to the insufficient level of teachers’ knowledge about contemporary art.

(5) The positive aspects are the following:

the teachers’ attitude to both curricular and extracurricular activities is thoughtful;

there is a small number of teachers who whom rejection of contemporary art to address the issues of spiritual and moral education is a matter of principle;

a significant part of teachers employ works of art in their professional activities on a regular basis or at least from time to time.

(7) There is an urgent need for the development of scientifically based recommendations on the use of contemporary art as a meaningful basis for the spiritual and moral education of secondary school students. Such recommendations should meet the following requirements:

to contain objective and detailed information about the types of and trends in contemporary art, which are appropriate to use in the process of spiritual and moral education of students;

to contain clearly formulated requirements for selecting the works of contemporary art as a meaningful basis for the spiritual and moral education of students;

to reveal the features of working with contemporary art in the process of solving the problems of spiritual and moral education of students.

The bottom line is teachers are open to new experience and are interested in applying a new approach to educational work on the substantive basis of contemporary art.

Acknowledgments

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-013-00809.

References

1. Bakshtein, I. M. (2018). Statji i dialogi [Articles and dialogues]. Ad Margin
2. Belyaeva, V. A. (2014). Formirovanie u uchashchihsya tsennostnogo vospriyatiya okruzhayushchego mira sredstvami iskusstva [The formation of students' value perception of the surrounding world by means of musical art]. Formirovaniye dukhovno-nravstvennyh tsennostey sredstvami iskusstva [The formation of spiritual and moral values by means of art] (pp. 3-5). Publishing House of the RSU named after S. A. Yesenin.
3. Bondarevskaya, E. V. (2016). Gumanitarnaya missiya obrazovaniya v sovremennom mire [The humanitarian mission of education in the modern world]. Vysshaya skhola: opyt,problemy,perspektivy [Higher school: experience, problems, prospects]. RUDN University, 26-44.
4. “Chto-to novoe i neobychnoe”: auditoriya sovremennogo iskusstva v krupnyh gorodah [“Something new and unusual”: an audience of contemporary art in large cities of Russia]. (2018). In A. Prudnikova, & L. Petrova (Eds.). Moscow; Yekaterinburg: Cabinet scientist; Yekaterinburg: Yekaterinburg Academy of Contemporary Art.
5. Danilyuk, A. Y., Kondakov, A. M., & Tishkov, V. A. (2009). Kontseptsiya duhovno-nravstvennogo vospitaniya i razvitiya lichnosti grazhdanina Rossii [The concept of spiritually-moral development and education of the person citizen of Russia]. Publishing House “Education”.
6. Dodonova, S. G. (2016). Esteticheskoe vospitanie i sovremennoe iskusstvo [Aesthetic education and contemporary art]. Vestnik Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kultury I iskusstv [Bulletin of Kazan State University of Culture and Arts], 4, 136-138.
7. Yegorycheva, S. A. (2017). Vozmozhnosti primeneniya sovremennyh hudozhestvennyh praktik v esteticheskom vospitanii [The possibility of applying contemporary art practices in aesthetic education]. Gumanitarnyye vedomosti TGPU im. L. N. Tolstogo [Humanitarian Journal of Tula State Pedagogical University after L. N. Tolstoy, 1(21), 80-88.
8. Greenberg, C. (1999). Homemade Esthetics: Observations on Art and Taste. Oxford University Press.
9. Groys, B. E. (2015). Razlichie mezhdu zapadnym postmodernizmom i vostochnym sotsializmom [The Difference Between Western Postmodernism and Eastern Socialism]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arua5VotkmM
10. Kolesnikova, I. A. (2015). Pedagogicheskoe voproshanie o cheloveke budushchego [Pedagogical questioning about the human of the future]. Nepreryvnoye obrazovaniye: XXI vek [Journal Continuing Education: XXI Century], 2(10), 2–18.
11. Krauss, R. (2003). Podlinnost' avangarda i drugie modernistskie mify [The authenticity of the avant-garde and other modernist myths]. Art Journal.
12. Levanova, E. F. (2014). Sovremennoe iskusstvo i ego mnogomernost' [Contemporary art and its multidimensionality]. Kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedeniye [Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Cultural studies and art history], 3(15), 14.
13. Luzina, L. M. (2000). Teoriya vospitaniya: filosofsko-antropologicheskij podhod [Theory of education: philosophical and anthropological approach]. Pskov.
14. Miziano, V. (2015). Pyat' lektsij o kuratorstve [Five lectures on supervision]. Moscow: Ad Margin.
15. Olesina, E. P. (2015). Hudozhestvennoe vospriyatie sovremennyh shkol'nikov: problema formirovaniya i razvitiya [Artistic perception of modern schoolchildren: problems of formation and development]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of Moscow State University of Culture and Arts], 2(64), 133-140.
16. Popova, V. I., & Tukhvatulina, L. G. (2015). Dukhovno-nravstvennaya sostavlyayushchaya sovremennogo vospitaniya shkol'nikov [The spiritual and moral component of the modern education of a schoolchildren]. Tsennostno-smysloviye orientiry vospitatel’noy raboty s det’mi I molodyozh’yu [Value-semantic guidelines for educational work with children and youth] (pp. 7-20). Orenburg.
17. Rusakova, T. G. (2017). K probleme duhovno-nravstvennogo vospitaniya mladshego shkol'nika: teoreticheskie aspekty [The problem of spiritual and moral education of a younger student: theoretical aspects]. Nauchno-metodicheskiy elektronniy zhurnal “Kontsept” [Scientific and methodical electronic journal Concept], 13, 80-87.
18. Schurkova, N. E. (2017). Strategiya vospitaniya: chelovek v prostranstve tsennostej gumanisticheskoj kul'tury [Education strategy: a person in the space of values of a humanistic culture]. Narodnoye obrazovaniye [Journal Public Education], 8(1464), 95-104.
19. Solovtsova, I. A. (2018). Dukhovno-nravstvennoe vospitanie uchashchihsya v sovremennoj shkole: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i sposoby organizatsii [Spiritual and moral education of students in a modern school: theoretical foundations and methods of organization]. Teoreticheskiye osnovaniya vospitaniya i sotsializatsii v sovremennoy shkole [Theoretical Foundations of Education and Socialization in a Modern School]. Publishing House “Scientific’. VSSPU Publishing house “Peremena”.