This leads the critic to distort reality

R. Sobolev, in his speech on unsolved problems of criticism, rightly noted that not every sociology is vulgar. But the point here, of course, is not reduced to a simple identification of "vulgarity" with "mediocrity". Vulgar sociologism, as well as its reverse side, which could be called vulgar aestheticism (and they have twin brothers in art and criticism - for example, vulgar psychologism, vulgar everyday life and biographism, vulgar moralizing... — and not all their manifestations are incompetent), is based in art criticism and in general in art criticism on the "principle" of straightening, simplifying, schematizing, that is, it is the vulgarization of social (or, on the contrary, aesthetic) laws and connections of art, denies (or, on the contrary, in its aesthetic "version" absolutizes) complex relatively independent "internal" laws and connections of its generic and individual origin and development. Against this background, what can the wish to "become a sociologist" practically mean for a Marxist critic? I think, strictly speaking, this is nothing more than a reminder of his fundamental professional tasks dictated by his position and role in society and the very nature of art as the "subject" of his professional activity.

In this sense, to assert the special advantages of "talented sociological analysis" over (I emphasize) "some kind of I n y m" - does it not mean to make an involuntary concession to the assumption that artistic criticism, which is alien to social issues, is also competent in its own way? Perhaps it is not for nothing that R. Sobolev used concepts of an obviously negative nature here to denote non-sociological methods of critical approach to artistic phenomena, speaking of "descriptive or quasi—aesthetic methods of analysis" (emphasized again by me) - the truly "sociological" in art criticism cannot somehow act by itself, outside of the truly "aesthetic".

For example, according to the critic, "Zabriskie Point" cannot be understood and evaluated, "based only on aesthetic criteria: after all, if "Antonioni" has become worse here," then why is "Zabriskie Point" accepted with hostility even by many reputed liberal American critics? Why did one of the US newspapers bluntly say that "this son of a bitch should be shot"? And the critic is right: the answer to all these purely political questions should be sought in politics, and it is impossible to get around them. But are the observations of "others", which, in my opinion, are not unfounded for judging the film "Zabriskie Point" as a whole, including the political aspects of it as a work of fiction, not unfounded, in my opinion, noticing real changes in the seemingly firmly established aesthetic system of Antonioni - the director and screenwriter? Obviously, R. Sobolev, who is aware of the existence of these changes (even, it seems to me, exaggerating them somewhat), does not want to say at all that the formulation of direct political issues in art criticism casts a shadow on the very possibility of thinking about whether it is "worse" or "better", or just what it has become in terms of aesthetics the artist in his given work; as if, finally, a really deep sociological analysis of a work of art is not assumed by itself in art criticism, if it has the intention to be such, but the use of aesthetic criteria, does not organically absorb them into itself, does not merge them ultimately with all other practical life criteria of truth in art!.. One can be sure in advance that in cases of significant discrepancy or mutual displacement of these criteria in a particular artistic analysis, any of them, becoming overwhelming, ceases to serve the truth in one way or another, leads the critic to simplifications, to distortion of reality, aesthetic or real, or even both at once. 鮮やかなグラフィック、エキサイティングなゲームプレイ、そして魔法のような雰囲気の組み合わせが、ムーンプリンセス（moon princess）をユニークで、あらゆる年齢や興味を持つプレイヤーに魅力的なものにしています。 moon princess のユニークな点は、スピンのたびに新たな驚きと感動がもたらされ、プレイヤーに新たなチャンスと賞金への期待を常に抱かせることです。 Moon Princessをプレイすることで、プリンセスの魔法の世界に浸り、そのパワーと強さを体験することができ、ゲームプレイをエキサイティングでスリリングなものにしています。