Culture and Contemporaneity
ISSN 2226-0285
UDC 792:7.5:005:304.4
Article Volume 28, No. 1, 2026

Features of the study of anthropology of art through the lens of interdisciplinary interaction between culturology and art history

Pavlo Berest*

berest@gmail.com

Received 03.03.2026 Revised 01.06.2026 Accepted 22.06.2026 Published 29.06.2026 Pages 6–13 15 Views

Abstract

The relevance of the study is substantiated by the need to synthesise cultural and art-historical approaches in order to form a holistic paradigm of the anthropology of art and is driven by the crisis of classical formal-stylistic analysis, which may overlook the artist’s subjectivity and the socio-political significance of the creative process. The aim of the study was to distinguish the anthropology of art from the general range of humanities disciplines and to analyse it within the context of interdisciplinary interaction between such important fields of science as cultural studies and art history. The methodological framework of the research consisted of a combination of the cultural-historical method, the systems approach, the comparative method, and the methods of analysis and synthesis. The findings indicate that the anthropology of art, within the interdisciplinary field of cultural studies and art history, functions not as an auxiliary discipline but as an independent analytical approach focused on the study of the human being as a subject of cultural meaning-making. It was determined that its theoretical and methodological potential ensures a shift in research focus from the formal-stylistic analysis of artistic forms to the interpretation of human experience embodied in symbols, images, and cultural archetypes. It was substantiated that the integration of cultural and art-historical approaches makes it possible to consider art as a form of socio-cultural communication and self-construction of both the individual and society. It was revealed that the anthropology of art serves as a theoretical foundation for understanding artistic practices in the context of the formation of value orientations, identity, and cultural space. It was also established that the interdisciplinary approach expands the possibilities for analysing art as a complex system of interaction between symbolic, social, and cultural factors. The results of the study can be used to develop new strategies for teaching the anthropology of art, where priority is given to an interdisciplinary approach, which will facilitate the further development of art studies beyond traditional frameworks towards meta-anthropology and meta-culturology

Show full abstract

Keywords

inter-studio relations; meta-culturology; meta-anthropology; cultural archetypes; sociocultural space; life-creation

Suggested citation

Copy citation
Berest, P. (2026). Features of the study of anthropology of art through the lens of interdisciplinary interaction between culturology and art history. Culture and Contemporaneity, 28(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.63009/cac/1.2026.06

References

Show all references
  1. Androsova, D., & Markova, О. (2022). Anthropology and culturology: Methodological intersection and antitheses. National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, 2, 3-8.
  2. Bakke, G., & Peterson, M. (Eds.). (2017). Between matter and method: Encounters in anthropology and art. Londun: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  3. Bonvillain, N. (2010). Cultural anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  4. Cassirer, E. (2021). An essay on man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  5. Durand, M. (2025). Anthropology of art. Anthropen. doi: 10.47854/a36t1776.
  6. Giordano, Ch. (2005). Homo creator. The Conception of man in social anthropology. Finance & Bien Commun, 22, 25-31. doi: 10.3917/fbc.022.0025.
  7. Just, P., & Monaghan, J. (2000). Social and cultural anthropology: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Karpov, V., Bondyk, O., Lymar, A., & Naumov, O. (2020). Art and anthropology in the discourse of European studies. Culture and Modernity, 1, 110-117. doi: 10.32461/2226-0285.1.2020.221352.
  9. Khamitov, N. (Eds). (2024). Philosophy of science and culture: Dictionary. Kyiv: KNT.
  10. Klein, U. (2019) Between matter and method: encounters in anthropology and art. Visual Studies, 35(2-3), 305-306. doi: 10.1080/1472586X.2019.1672957 .
  11. Klekovkin, O. (2017). Art: Research methodology. Kyiv: Phoenix.
  12. Kryshtopa, M. (2023). Anthropology of art as a methodological approach to the study of Ukrainian painting. Ethnic History of the Peoples of Europe, 71, 71-77. doi: 10.17721/2518-1270.2023.71.10.
  13. Limonchenko, V.V. (2025). Philosophy of art as anthropology. In Philosophy in the modern world: Proceedings of the 6th international scientific and practical conference (pp. 25-27). Kharkiv: National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”.
  14. Lymar, H.M. (2023). Anthropology of art of the Ukrainian avant-garde of the first third of the 20th century. (Doctoral dissertation, National Academy of Culture and Arts Management, Kyiv, Ukraine).
  15. Lytvyn, S. (Eds.). (2025). Ukrainian folklore in the global cultural space. In Ukrainian contemporary humanities: Challenges and development strategies (pp. 181-211). Kyiv: NAKKKiM. 181–211.
  16. Lytvyn, S.Kh., & Dobrovolska, V.V. (2022). Preparation of a research project and presentation of scientific research results. Kyiv: Lira-K Publishing House.
  17. Nechitailo, I., Nazarkin, P., Biriukova, M., Stadnik, O., Boriushkina, O., & Rozova, O. (2022). Opportunities and some results of measuring cultural capital in sociological research practice. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2022, 159-166.
  18. Pavlova, O. (2022). Visual anthropology: Formation stages and basic elements of analysis. NaUKMA Research Papers History and Theory of Culture, 5, 47-53. doi: 10.18523/2617-8907.2022.5.47-53
  19. Pecheranskyi, I., Denysіyuk, Z., Humeniuk, T., Diachuk, V., & Kosinova, O. (2023). “Objective realism”, ethnographic cinema, and the classical model of visual-anthropological research. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(3), 395-409. doi: 10.58256/rjah.v4i3.1153.
  20. Plattner, S. (2003). Anthropology of art. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781781008003.00007.
  21. Polishchuk, O. (2026). Aesthetic and artistic foundations of modern design: A theoretical, methodological and cultural discussion. In Architectonics of socialisation: Human in the landscape of culture (pp. 65-78). Warsaw: East European Association of Scientists. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18406488.
  22. Pushonkova, O. (2009). Current issues in visual anthropology research. Contemporary Art, 6, 300-305.
  23. Rozova, T., & Kubko, V. (2023). Anthropology of collecting. Culturological Almanac, 1, 202-212. doi: 10.31392/cult.alm.2023.1.27.
  24. Rudenko, S. (2025). Metaculturology: Converging the science of culture and museology. National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, 2, 25-35. doi: 10.32461/2226-3209.2.2025.338815.
  25. Rymarenko, Yu. I. (Eds.). (1996). Concise encyclopedia of ethnostate studies. Kyiv: Dovira; Heneza.
  26. Schorch, Ph. (2023). What can museum anthropology do in the twenty-first century? Museum and Society, 21(3), 96-111. doi: 10.29311/mas.v21i3.4388.
  27. Sivers, V.A. (2025). Axiological heterogeneity of culture. In Ukrainian contemporary humanities: Challenges and development strategies (pp. 55-81). Kyiv: NAKKKiM.
  28. Sumchenko, I. (2025). The problem of interpretation in the context of cultural anthropology and philosophy of culture. In 13th Uymovsky readings: Materials of scientific readings in memory of Avenir Uymovsky (pp. 116-119). Odesa: Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University.
  29. Vlasevich, T. (2022). Spiritual foundations of human identity: Philosophical and cultural dimension. Bulletin of Lviv University. Philosophical and Political Studies, 41, 7-13. doi: 10.30970/PPS.2022.41.1.