in art and architecture, the combination of artistic elements of diverse origin; the phenomenon usually occurs during the period of decline of major artistic trends.
Elements of eclecticism are noticeable in late ancient Roman art, mainly in the combination of forms borrowed from Greece, Egypt, and Southwest Asia. The artists of the Bolognese school favored eclecticism, believing that they could attain artistic perfection by combining what in their opinion were the best aspects of works by the great masters of the Renaissance.
Eclecticism is characteristic of the architecture, especially the interior design, of the middle and second half of the 19th century, when different motifs were mixed indiscriminately, including those of the Renaissance and rococo styles; however, the eclecticism typical of 19th-century architecture and design, with their universal range of architectural and ornamental motifs, had a significant impact on the birth of art nouveau, which was essentially a distinct, integral style although influenced by the most diverse sources.
Eclecticism has remained typical of salon art. Eclectic trends became widely popular in Western European and American artistic culture of the mid–20th century as a result of the vogue for retrospective styles of artistic design, which copy stylistic trends of the past.
the combination of diverse views, ideas, and theories. The term was introduced in the second century by Pota-mon of Alexandria, who called his school eclectic. The sources of eclecticism lie in the substitution of one set of logical foundations for another. The shallowness and futility of such constructions have been noted by many philosophers, beginning with Socrates and Aristotle. The classics of Marxism-Leninism were sharply critical of eclecticism. V. I. Lenin pointed out the substitution of foundations—the undermining of the integrity of an object—that is a characteristic feature of eclecticism: “the substitution of eclecticism for dialectics is the easiest way of deceiving the people. It gives an illusory satisfaction; it seems to take into account all sides of the process, all trends of development, all the conflicting influences, and so forth, whereas in reality it provides no integral and revolutionary conception of the process of social development at all” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 33, p. 21).