Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The aim of the article. To find out the current theoretical and terminological activity caused by the nostrification of artistic and educational processes in Ukraine and the world using educational administration. It is noted that schematics and unification come into conflict with the historically formed terminology in the field of methods of art and design education, which have become the historical image of schools. The global civilizational changes that radically weakened the resistance and ability to self-development of authentic varieties of art are considered. The loss of immunity from unification affected the field of terminology, which is a kind of indicator of changes. The starting position of novelty is the understanding that art is not a resource bound in artificial terminological schemes, but a self-sufficient value. Practical significance. Considering the old and new paradigms, building your system of values is recommended, which are concentrated in the field of terminology. Based on the analysis of a large block of literature, it is recommended to preserve the educational programs "Aesthetics", and "Philosophy of Art" as fundamental in Art Academies of modern Ukraine. The conducted analysis of the literature draws attention to the terminological developments of the Faculty of History and Theory of Art of the Lviv National Academy of Arts, which require systematic continuation. Main results. It has been observed that the obsessive juxtaposition of classical and non-classical vectors of creation, as well as "old and new" terminological systems, psychologically traumatizes artists. Contrasting and unifying involuntarily distorts the truth, and thus harms the art itself. During the periods of Ukraine's statelessness, the enemies politically "justified" the new terms as "relevant" and interpreted the national terms as "obsolete". It is recommended that artists-pedagogues and art historians establish the mission of interpreters and "talismans" of the primary and newest values of fine, applied art and design. The need to correlate artistic and administrative-educational terminology in one's language has been put forward as a major problem. In particular, using the example of fine and decorative arts, it is proposed to use the existing administrative and terminological division of specialties "by default". However, the content-conceptual part of educational programs should be enriched with a historically verified spectrum of terms and concepts with their inherent local connotations. It has been observed that in the historical-artistic and sacral-morphological sense, the term "applied art" is not the same as "craft". The relevance of the commonly used by leading Ukrainian art critics of the 19th and early 20th centuries has been proven of the term "applied": that which is "in life", "in use". It is emphasized that global civilizational changes have radically weakened the resilience and ability to self-develop authentic varieties of applied art. The loss of immunity from administrative unification hurt the field of terminology, which is a kind of indicator of changes
Rostyslav Shmagalo (Mon,) studied this question.