Kunt Ernő szerk.: Kép-hagyomány – Nép-hagyomány (Miskolc, 1990)

I. RÉSZTANULMÁNYOK - Lyubomir Mikov: Rituális emberábrázolás - Jel: jelkép: művészi hasonmás

above all by their firm position in an aesthetic and artistic plan or as synthetic aesthetic and artistic generalizations. Finally, it is pointed out that as a representative of the applied ritual genre in folk art, anthropomorphic ritual plastic art is of the non-pictorial type. II. The semiotic characterization leads to the conclusion that at technological, game (functional) and semantic levels the anthropomorphic attributes are differentiated in a social and natural plan as sign-ambivalent structures. Their symbolism gravitates toward the fruit-bearing aspects of the opposition between the female and the male principle, sublimating in the binary nature of the mythologems "marriage"-"death", together with the context of their sacrificing and cosmogonie dimensions

. :.. III. Obervations on the sign dimensions of anthropomorphic ritual images also contain the conclusion that this type of attributes are to the highest extent grotesque images, and on this basis they have established their synthetic and maximally generalizable nature of aesthetic and artistic structures, and of artistic images. JEGYZETEK 1. fjponn, B. H. PyccKue arpapHbie npa3AHHKH. JI., 1963; Tojicman, C. M. BapnaTHBHOCTb rlpopMajibHofi CTpyKTypbi o6p«Aa (Kynana H MapcHa). - B: Tpyßbi no 3HaKOBbiM cncreMaM. T. 15, Bbin. 576, TapTy, 1982, 72-89; MUKOB, Jl. Tnno.norH3auHH Ha aHTponoMopdpnMTe aTpnöyTn B npojicTHO-aHTnaTa oöpeAHoer Ha cjiaBHHCKHTe Hapojrn. - B: FIpoöJieMM Ha 6T>JirapcKHH uboaKJiop. T. 8. ETijirapcKMHT dmniuiop B KOHTeKcra Ha cjiaBHHCKaTa H 6a;iKaHCK.aTa KyjiTypHa TpaAHUMH. C. (in press); Sieber, F. Deutsch-westslawische Beziehungen in Frühlingsbräuchen. Berlin, 1968; Václavík, A. Vyrocni obyceje a lidové uménï. Praha, 1959. 2. )Ku6K06, T. He. 06peAHOCT M oőpeAHO HCCKycTBO. - B: OöpeAU n oöpcAeH rJpojiKjiop. C., 1981,9-11. 3. MuKoe. Jl. ripoMeHM B 3HaKOB3Ta qbyHKUHn Ha MaTepuajinaTa KyjiTypa B oöpcAHOcrra. ripoöneMH Ha KyjirypaTa, 1982, 6, 81-91. 4. KusKoe, T. He. Hapofl H necen. C., 1977, 43-44. 5. 3nuade, M. KOCMOC M MCTopua. M., 1987, c. 206. 6. reopzueea He. ETWirapcKa HapoAHa MMTOJiorun. C., 1983, c. 34. 7. MUKÖS, Jl. MoTMB'bT „CBaT6a-CM"bpT" B cnaBiiHCKaTa oöpeAHOCT, cbA"bp>Kauj,a aHTponoMoprJpHM 3Tpn6yTH

. - B: CjiaBHHCKa abujio^orua. T. 20. C., 1988, 173-181. 8. Jlocee, A. 0. npoÖJietna CHMBOJia n peajiMCTHuecKoe HCCKycTBO. M., 1976. 9. Cp. the opposite view of A. Y. Gurcvich about the mediaeval grotesque - Fypeewi, A. ïï. ripoőjieMbi cpcAneBCKOBofi HapoAHOH KyjibTypbi. M., 1981, 322-323. 10. A typical example in this respect is the brilliant analysis performed not only by M. Bakhtin (BaxmuH, M. TßopwecTBO <t>paHcya Paöjie n HapoAHaa KyjibTypa cpeAHCBeKOBbH n Penecaiica. M., 1965, but also by A. Y. Gurevich (Op. cit., 271-325). 11. MuKoe, Jl. 3a ecTeTHKaTa Ha aHTponoMopqbHMTe aTpHŐyrw B 6"bJirapcKOTO oôpcAHO HiKycTBO. - B: BTopw MOKAyHapoAeH KOHrpec no 6'bJirapncTHKa -flomiaflM. T. 15. OojiKjiop. C., 1988,417-425.