Search

The human body is often used in contemporary art without the mediation of representation such as in the form of performances, installations using bodily elements or products, etc. These new artistic practices can destabilise legal rules and categories.Firstly, the creation of works of body art is faced with the legal protection of the human body. If the creation of body art is based on a broad de facto freedom when the artist uses his or her own body, this freedom is likely to be restricted when another body is involved (model or performer) or when an audience is present. In addition, freedom of artistic creation does not, and should not, allow for a space of freedom as an exception because of the artistic purpose of dangerous or prohibited bodily practices. Body art thus questions the status of the body in relation with the artistic nature of these practices.Secondly, as a product of the creative process, the body art work is an ambiguous object that stands between object and subject. Due to its embodied nature, it is imperfectly protected by copyright and faces difficulties regarding its circulation on the art market. It can admittedly be reintegrated into this market through strategies that make it possible to separate the work from the body of the artist or performer (photography, re-enactment). However, in a broader way, it also invites us to question the legal notion of authorship, or even that of the subject, in order to better take into account their bodily dimension., Le corps humain est souvent utilisé dans l’art contemporain sans la médiation de la représentation : sous forme de performances, d’installations utilisant des éléments ou produits du corps, etc. Ces nouvelles pratiques artistiques déstabilisent les règles de droit et les catégories juridiques établies. D’une part, la création des œuvres d’art corporel se heurte à la protection juridique du corps humain. Si la création d’œuvres d’art corporel repose sur une large liberté de fait lorsque l’artiste utilise son propre corps, cette liberté est susceptible d’être restreinte dès lors qu’intervient le corps d’autrui (modèle ou interprète) ou la présence d’un public. De plus, la notion de liberté de création artistique ne permet pas, ni ne devrait permettre, de ménager un espace de liberté exceptionnelle du fait de la finalité artistique de pratiques corporelles dangereuses ou interdites. L’art corporel interroge ainsi le statut du corps à l’aune du caractère artistique de ces pratiques.D’autre part, le produit du processus de création, l’œuvre d’art corporel, est un objet ambigu qui se situe entre chose et personne. Du fait de son caractère incarné, l’œuvre d’art corporel est imparfaitement protégée par le droit d’auteur et se heurte à des difficultés pour circuler sur le marché de l’art. Elle peut certes être finalement réintégrée à ce marché par des stratégies qui permettent de séparer l’œuvre du corps de l’artiste ou de l’interprète (photographie, reconstitution). Toutefois elle nous invite aussi à interroger de façon plus large la notion juridique d’auteur, voire celle de sujet, pour mieux y intégrer une dimension corporelle.

The purpose of the thesis is to analyze the concept of the freedom of artistic creation and expression in the European Union law, in particular its recognition in primary law, above all in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), and in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Considering that interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the EU law is greatly based on constitutional traditions of EU member states and on the approach to these rights established within the Council of Europe, this thesis also deals with the conception of the freedom of artistic expression in constitutions of EU member states and in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While relevant case law of the CJEU is only fragmentary, it refers systematically to the extensive case law of the ECtHR, which provides comprehensive theory of the freedom of artistic expression in Europe and provides for studying the evolution of the conception in time. The core method of research used in this thesis is the analysis of different sources of primary and secondary EU law, national law and case law; the thesis refers namely to the case law of the CJEU and...

У статті проаналізовано особливості авторського розуміння свободи творчості та їх взаємозв’язок із про-блемою місця письменника у ХХ столітті. Особливу увагу приділено реалізації цього поняття в публіцистиці письменників. Визначено спільні та відмінні риси трактування Джорджем Орвеллом та Іваном Багряним авторської свободи й чинників її обмеження. The article dwells on the peculiarities of the authors’ understanding of the freedom of creation and on their connection with the problem of writer’s place in the XX century. A special attention is devoted to the realization of this notion in the writers’ publicistics. Similarities and differences in the interpretation of the author’s freedom and its limitation factors by George Orwell and Ivan Bahrjanyj are defined.

In the article there had been undertaken an effort to analyze the problem of social responsibility of the artist in the conditions of totalitarian and liberal projects of modernization. The two central experiences of modernization of XX century - Soviet and European- are deeply connected. If the key element of European modern is autonomic subject though the Soviet project declares about destroying of subjectivity. On the example of the figures of art and culture it shows how the Soviet subject had been constructed and what is its difference from the classical European autonomic subject. В статье предпринята попытка проанализировать проблему социальной ответственности художника в условиях тоталитарного и либерального проектов модернизации. Два центральных опыта модернизации ХХ века - советский и европейский - глубоко связаны друг с другом. Если конститутивным элементом европейского модерна является автономный субъект, то советский проект объявляет своей целью разрушение субъекта. На примере деятелей искусства и культуры раскрывается, как в советском обществе конструировался субъект и в чем его отличие от «классического» западного автономного субъекта.