CHARACTERISTICS OF VISUAL ART IN UKRAINIAN CULTURE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 21st CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines artistic imagery in Ukrainian fine arts in the first quarter of the 21st century. It outlines the main directions in the development of visual art within the contemporary cultural process. The research employs philosophical, historical, cultural, and art-historical methods, supported by structural and systemic approaches, to ensure scholarly novelty. Artistic processes of the past twenty-five years have been shaped by the cultural achievements and heritage of the late twentieth century. Much of Ukraine’s artistic development in the 21st century is rooted in earlier historical transformations. The author sup-ports the view of art critic Halyna Sklyarenko, who argues that Ukrainian art of the second half of the twentieth century—from the “Thaw” to independence—occupies a distinctive place in global art history, having developed according to a unique and incomparable tra-jectory. Ukrainian art and cultural studies still lack sufficient research that would fully reflect the specific artistic and stylistic features of Ukrainian fine arts in the early 21st century. To date, the artistic processes of this period, as well as the interaction between visual art and society, have not been comprehensively systematized. It is important to emphasize that the last twenty-five years have witnessed a signifi-cant transformation of the artistic language, enriched by influences from related fields of knowledge. This has provided scholars with new tools for understanding the role and sig-nificance of visual art within broader cultural development. At present, reassessing the ar-tistic output created in Ukraine over the past quarter century has acquired particular ur-gency. This reassessment enables a deeper understanding of the evolving figurative struc-tures and conceptual approaches that define contemporary Ukrainian visual art. The study of the factors influencing this cultural development remains ongoing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".