A work of art is a definition in literature. Artwork as structure

Even at first glance, it is clear that a work of art consists of certain sides, elements, aspects, and so on. In other words, it has a complex internal composition. At the same time, the individual parts of the work are connected and united with each other so closely that this gives reason to metaphorically liken the work to a living organism. The composition of the work is characterized, therefore, not only by complexity, but also by order. Piece of art- complexly organized whole; from this awareness obvious fact there is a need to know internal structure work, that is, to single out its individual components and to realize the connections between them. The rejection of such an attitude inevitably leads to empiricism and unsubstantiated judgments about the work, to complete arbitrariness in its consideration, and ultimately impoverishes our understanding of the artistic whole, leaving it at the level of the primary reader's perception.

In modern literary criticism, there are two main trends in establishing the structure of a work. The first proceeds from the separation of a number of layers or levels in a work, just as in linguistics in a separate statement one can distinguish the level of phonetic, morphological, lexical, syntactic. At the same time, different researchers unequally imagine both the set of levels and the nature of their relationships. So, M.M. Bakhtin sees in the work, first of all, two levels - “plot” and “plot”, the depicted world and the world of the image itself, the reality of the author and the reality of the hero*. MM. Hirshman proposes a more complex, mostly three-level structure: rhythm, plot, hero; in addition, the subject-object organization of the work permeates “vertically” these levels, which ultimately creates not a linear structure, but rather a grid that is superimposed on the work of art**. There are other models of a work of art, representing it in the form of a number of levels, slices.

___________________

* Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. S. 7–181.

** Girshman M.M. Style literary work// Theory of literary styles. Modern Aspects study. M., 1982. S. 257-300.

Common disadvantage these concepts can obviously be considered subjective and arbitrariness of the allocation of levels. Moreover, no attempt has yet been made substantiate division into levels by some general considerations and principles. The second weakness follows from the first and consists in the fact that no division by levels covers the entire richness of the elements of the work, does not give an exhaustive idea even of its composition. Finally, the levels must be thought of as essentially equal in rights - otherwise the principle of structuring itself loses its meaning - and this easily leads to a loss of understanding of some core of a work of art, linking its elements into a real integrity; connections between levels and elements are weaker than they really are. Here we should also note the fact that the “level” approach very poorly takes into account the fundamental difference in quality of a number of components of the work: for example, it is clear that artistic idea and artistic detail are phenomena of a fundamentally different nature.

The second approach to the structure of a work of art takes such general categories as content and form as its primary division. In the most complete and reasoned form, this approach is presented in the works of G.N. Pospelova*. This methodological trend has much less cons than discussed above, it corresponds much more to the real structure of the work and is much more justified from the point of view of philosophy and methodology.

___________________

* See e.g.: Pospelov G.N. Problems literary style. M., 1970. S. 31–90.

Even at first glance, it is clear that a work of art consists of certain sides, elements, aspects, and so on. In other words, it has a complex internal composition. At the same time, the individual parts of the work are connected and united with each other so closely that this gives reason to metaphorically liken the work to a living organism. The composition of the work is characterized, therefore, not only by complexity, but also by order. A work of art is a complexly organized whole; from the realization of this obvious fact follows the need to know the internal structure of the work, that is, to single out its individual components and realize the connections between them. The rejection of such an attitude inevitably leads to empiricism and unsubstantiated judgments about the work, to complete arbitrariness in its consideration, and ultimately impoverishes our understanding of the artistic whole, leaving it at the level of the primary reader's perception.

___________________

* Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. S. 7–181.

** Girshman M.M. Style of a literary work // Theory of literary styles. Modern aspects of study. M., 1982. S. 257-300.

Obviously, the subjectivity and arbitrariness of the allocation of levels can be considered as a common drawback of these concepts. Moreover, no attempt has yet been made substantiate division into levels by some general considerations and principles. The second weakness follows from the first and consists in the fact that no division by levels covers the entire richness of the elements of the work, does not give an exhaustive idea even of its composition. Finally, the levels must be thought of as essentially equal in rights - otherwise the principle of structuring itself loses its meaning - and this easily leads to a loss of understanding of some core of a work of art, linking its elements into a real integrity; connections between levels and elements are weaker than they really are. Here we should also note the fact that the “level” approach very poorly takes into account the fundamental difference in quality of a number of components of the work: for example, it is clear that an artistic idea and an artistic detail are phenomena of a fundamentally different nature.

The second approach to the structure of a work of art takes such general categories as content and form as its primary division. In the most complete and reasoned form, this approach is presented in the works of G.N. Pospelova*. This methodological trend has far fewer drawbacks than the one discussed above, it is much more in line with the real structure of the work and is much more justified from the point of view of philosophy and methodology.

___________________

* See e.g.: Pospelov G.N. Problems of literary style. M., 1970. S. 31–90.

We will begin with the philosophical substantiation of the allocation of content and form in the artistic whole. The categories of content and form, excellently developed back in Hegel's system, have become important categories of dialectics and have been repeatedly successfully used in the analysis of a wide variety of complex objects. The use of these categories in aesthetics and literary criticism also forms a long and fruitful tradition. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from applying philosophical concepts that have proven themselves so well to the analysis of a literary work; moreover, from the point of view of methodology, this will only be logical and natural. But there are also special reasons to begin the division of a work of art with the allocation of content and form in it. A work of art is not a natural phenomenon, but a cultural one, which means that it is based on spirituality, which, in order to exist and be perceived, must certainly acquire some material embodiment, a way of existence in the system of material signs. Hence the naturalness of defining the boundaries of form and content in a work: the spiritual principle is the content, and its material embodiment is the form.

We can define the content of a literary work as its essence, spiritual being, and the form as a way of existence of this content. The content, in other words, is the writer's "statement" about the world, a certain emotional and mental reaction to certain phenomena of reality. Form is the system of means and methods in which this reaction finds expression, embodiment. Simplifying somewhat, we can say that content is what what the writer said with his work, and the form - how he did it.

The form of a work of art has two main functions. The first is carried out within the artistic whole, so it can be called internal: it is a function of expressing content. The second function is found in the impact of the work on the reader, so it can be called external (in relation to the work). It consists in the fact that the form has an aesthetic impact on the reader, because it is the form that acts as the bearer of the aesthetic qualities of a work of art. The content itself cannot be beautiful or ugly in a strict, aesthetic sense - these are properties that arise exclusively at the level of form.

From what has been said about the functions of form, it is clear that the question of conventionality, which is so important for a work of art, is solved differently in relation to content and form. If in the first section we said that a work of art in general is a convention in comparison with primary reality, then the measure of this convention is different for form and content. Within a work of art the content is unconditional, in relation to it it is impossible to raise the question “why does it exist?” Like the phenomena of primary reality, in the artistic world the content exists without any conditions, as an immutable given. Nor can it be a conditionally fantasy, arbitrary sign, by which nothing is meant; in the strict sense, the content cannot be invented - it directly comes to the work from the primary reality (from the social being of people or from the consciousness of the author). On the contrary, the form can be arbitrarily fantastic and conditionally implausible, because something is meant by the conditionality of the form; it exists "for something" - to embody the content. Thus, the Shchedrin town of Foolov is the creation pure fantasy author, it is conditional, since it never existed in reality, but autocratic Russia, which became the theme of the "History of a City" and embodied in the image of the city of Foolov, is not a convention or fiction.

Let us note to ourselves that the difference in the degree of conventionality between content and form gives clear criteria for attributing one or another specific element of a work to form or content - this remark will come in handy more than once.

modern science proceeds from the primacy of content over form. In the case of a work of art, this is true for both creative process(the writer looks for an appropriate form, even if for a vague, but already existing content, but in no case vice versa - he does not first create a “ready-made form”, and then pours some content into it), and for the work as such (features of the content define and explain to us the specifics of the form, but not vice versa). However, in in a certain sense, namely, in relation to the perceiving consciousness, it is the form that is primary, and the content is secondary. Since sensory perception is always ahead of emotional reaction and the more rational understanding of the subject, moreover, it serves as the basis and basis for them, we perceive in the work first its form, and only then and only through it - the corresponding artistic content.

From this, by the way, it follows that the movement of the analysis of a work - from content to form or vice versa - is of no fundamental importance. Any approach has its justifications: the first is in the defining nature of the content in relation to the form, the second is in the patterns of the reader's perception. Well said about this A.S. Bushmin: “It is not at all necessary ... to start research from the content, guided only by the one thought that the content determines the form, and not having other, more specific reasons for this. Meanwhile, it was precisely this sequence of consideration of a work of art that turned into a coercive, beaten, boring scheme for everyone, having become widespread both in school teaching and in teaching aids, and in scientific literary works. Dogmatic transfer of the correct general position literary theory on the methodology of the concrete study of works gives rise to a dull pattern "*. Add to this that, of course, the opposite pattern would not be any better - always in without fail start analysis from the form. Here everything depends on specific situation and specific tasks.

___________________

* Bushmin A.S. The Science of Literature. M., 1980. S. 123–124.

From all that has been said, a clear conclusion suggests itself that both form and content are equally important in a work of art. The experience of the development of literature and literary criticism also proves this position. Belittling the meaning of content or completely ignoring it leads in literary criticism to formalism, to meaningless abstract constructions, leads to oblivion of the social nature of art, and in artistic practice, guided by this kind of concept, turns into aestheticism and elitism. However, no less Negative consequences has neglect art form as something secondary and, in essence, optional. Such an approach actually destroys the work as a phenomenon of art, forces us to see in it only this or that ideological, and not ideological and aesthetic phenomenon. In creative practice, which does not want to reckon with the great importance of form in art, flat illustrativeness, primitiveness, the creation of “correct”, but emotionally unexperienced declarations about a “relevant”, but artistically unexplored topic, inevitably appear.

Highlighting the form and content in the work, we thereby liken it to any other complexly organized whole. However, the relationship between form and content in a work of art has its own specifics. Let's see what it consists of.

First of all, it is necessary to firmly understand that the relationship between content and form is not a spatial relationship, but a structural one. The form is not a shell that can be removed to open the nut kernel - the content. If we take a work of art, then we will be powerless to “point the finger”: here is the form, and here is the content. Spatially they are merged and indistinguishable; this unity can be felt and shown at any “point” artistic text. Let's take, for example, that episode from Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha, when asked by Ivan what to do with the landowner who baited the child with dogs, answers: "Shoot!". What is this "shoot!" content or form? Of course, both are in unity, in fusion. On the one hand, it is part of the speech, verbal form works; Alyosha's remark occupies a certain place in compositional form works. These are formal points. On the other hand, this "shoot" is a component of the hero's character, that is, the thematic basis of the work; the replica expresses one of the turns of the moral and philosophical searches of the characters and the author, and of course, it is an essential aspect of the ideological and emotional world of the work - these are meaningful moments. So in one word, fundamentally indivisible into spatial components, we saw content and form in their unity. The situation is similar with the work of art in its entirety.

The second thing to note is the special connection between form and content in the artistic whole. According to Yu.N. Tynyanov, between art form and artistic content relations are established that are not similar to the relations of “wine and glass” (glass as form, wine as content), that is, relations of free compatibility and equally free separation. In a work of art, the content is not indifferent to the specific form in which it is embodied, and vice versa. Wine will remain wine, whether we pour it into a glass, a cup, a plate, etc.; content is indifferent to form. In the same way, milk, water, kerosene can be poured into a glass where there was wine - the form is “indifferent” to the content that fills it. Not so in a work of art. There, the connection between formal and substantive principles reaches the highest degree. Perhaps this is best manifested in the following regularity: any change in form, even seemingly small and private, is inevitable and immediately leads to a change in content. Trying to find out, for example, the content of such a formal element as poetic size, the versifiers conducted an experiment: they “transformed” the first lines of the first chapter of “Eugene Onegin” from iambic to choreic. It turned out this:

uncle most honest rules,

He was not jokingly sick,

Made me respect myself

Couldn't think of a better one.

The semantic meaning, as we see, remained practically the same, the changes seemed to concern only the form. But it can be seen with the naked eye that one of the most important components of the content has changed - the emotional tone, the mood of the passage. From epic-narrative, it turned into playful-superficial. And if we imagine that the entire "Eugene Onegin" was written in chorea? But such a thing is impossible to imagine, because in this case the work is simply destroyed.

Of course, such an experiment on form is a unique case. However, in the study of a work, we often, completely unaware of this, perform similar "experiments" - without directly changing the structure of the form, but only without taking into account one or another of its features. So, studying in Gogol's " Dead souls"mostly Chichikov, landowners, yes" individual representatives"of the bureaucracy and the peasantry, we are studying hardly a tenth of the" population "of the poem, ignoring the mass of those" minor "heroes who are just not minor in Gogol, but are interesting to him in themselves to the same extent as Chichikov or Manilov. As a result of such an “experiment on form”, our understanding of the work, that is, its content, is significantly distorted: after all, Gogol was interested not in the history of individuals, but in the way of life. national life, he created not a "gallery of images", but an image of the world, a "way of life".

Another example of the same kind. In the study of Chekhov's story "The Bride", a fairly strong tradition has developed to consider this story as unconditionally optimistic, even "spring and bravura"*. V.B. Kataev, analyzing this interpretation, notes that it is based on "reading not completely" - the last phrase of the story in its entirety is not taken into account: "Nadya ... cheerful, happy, left the city, as she thought, forever." “The interpretation of this “as I thought,” writes V.B. Kataev, - very clearly reveals the difference in research approaches to Chekhov's work. Some researchers prefer, interpreting the meaning of "The Bride", to consider this introductory sentence as if non-existent."

___________________

* Ermilov V.A. A.P. Chekhov. M., 1959. S. 395.

** Kataev V.B. Chekhov's prose: problems of interpretation. M, 1979. S. 310.

This is the “unconscious experiment” that was discussed above. “Slightly” the structure of the form is distorted – and the consequences in the field of content are not long in coming. There is a "concept of unconditional optimism," bravura "of Chekhov's work recent years when in reality it represents "a delicate balance between truly optimistic hopes and a restrained sobriety in regard to the impulses of the very people about whom Chekhov knew and told so many bitter truths."

In the relationship between content and form, in the structure of form and content in a work of art, a certain principle, a regularity, is revealed. O specific character We will discuss this regularity in detail in the section “Comprehensive consideration of a work of art”.

For now, let's just point out one thing. methodical rule: For an accurate and complete understanding of the content of the work, it is absolutely necessary to pay as close attention as possible to its form, down to its smallest features. In the form of a work of art there are no "little things" that are indifferent to the content; on famous expression, "art begins where "a little bit" begins.

The specificity of the relationship between content and form in a work of art has given rise to special term, specially designed to reflect the continuity, the fusion of these sides of a single artistic whole - the term "meaningful form". At this concept there are at least two aspects. The ontological aspect affirms the impossibility of the existence of an empty form or unformed content; in logic such concepts are called correlative: we cannot think one of them without simultaneously thinking the other. A somewhat simplified analogy can be the relationship between the concepts of "right" and "left" - if there is one, then the other inevitably exists. However, for works of art, another, axiological (evaluative) aspect of the concept of “substantial form” seems to be more important: in this case This refers to the natural correspondence of the form to the content.

A very deep and in many ways fruitful concept of meaningful form was developed in the work of G.D. Gacheva and V.V. Kozhinov "Content literary forms". According to the authors, "any art form is<…>nothing but a hardened, objectified artistic content. Any property, any element of a literary work that we now perceive as "purely formal" was once directly meaningful." This content of the form never disappears, it is really perceived by the reader: “referring to the work, we somehow absorb into ourselves” the content of formal elements, their, so to speak, “primary content”. “It is a matter of content, of a certain sense, and not at all about the senseless, meaningless objectivity of form. Most surface properties the forms turn out to be nothing but a special kind of content that has turned into a form.

___________________

* Gachev G.D., Kozhinov V.V. Content of literary forms // Theory of Literature. The main problems in historical coverage. M., 1964. Book. 2. P. 18–19.

However, no matter how meaningful this or that formal element is, no matter how close the connection between content and form, this connection does not turn into identity. Content and form are not the same, they are different, singled out in the process of abstraction and analysis of the sides of the artistic whole. They have different tasks, different functions, different, as we have seen, the degree of conventionality; there is a certain relationship between them. Therefore, it is unacceptable to use the concept of meaningful form, as well as the thesis of the unity of form and content, in order to mix and lump together formal and content elements. On the contrary, the true content of the form is revealed to us only when we are sufficiently aware of fundamental differences these two aspects of a work of art, when, consequently, it becomes possible to establish certain relationships and regular interactions between them.

Speaking about the problem of form and content in a work of art, it is impossible not to touch at least in in general terms another concept that is actively existing in the modern science of literature. It's about about the concept internal form". This term really implies the presence "between" content and form of such elements of a work of art that are "form in relation to elements more high level(image as a form expressing ideological content), and content - in relation to the lower levels of the structure (the image as the content of the compositional and speech form)"*. Such an approach to the structure of the artistic whole looks doubtful, primarily because it violates the clarity and rigor of the original division into form and content as, respectively, the material and spiritual principles in the work. If some element of the artistic whole can be both meaningful and formal at the same time, then this deprives the very dichotomy of content and form and, which is important, creates significant difficulties in further analysis and comprehension of the structural relationships between the elements of the artistic whole. One should undoubtedly listen to the objections of A.S. Bushmin against the category of "inner form"; “Form and content are extremely general correlative categories. Therefore, the introduction of two concepts of form would require, respectively, two concepts of content. The presence of two pairs of similar categories, in turn, would entail the need, according to the law of subordination of categories in materialistic dialectics, to establish a unifying, third, generic concept of form and content. In a word, terminological duplication in the designation of categories does not give anything but logical confusion. And general definitions external and inner, allowing the possibility of spatial differentiation of form, vulgarize the idea of the latter”**.

___________________

* Sokolov A.N. style theory. M., 1968. S. 67.

** Bushmin A.S. The Science of Literature. S. 108.

So, fruitful, in our opinion, is a clear opposition of form and content in the structure of the artistic whole. Another thing is that it is immediately necessary to warn against the danger of dismembering these aspects mechanically, roughly. There are such artistic elements in which form and content seem to touch, and very subtle methods and very close observation are needed in order to understand both the fundamental non-identity and close relationship formal and substantive beginnings. The analysis of such "points" in the artistic whole is, of course, the greatest difficulty, but at the same time - and the greatest interest both in the aspect of theory and in practical study specific work.

? TEST QUESTIONS:

1. Why is it necessary to know the structure of a work?

2. What is the form and content of a work of art (give definitions)?

3. How are content and form related?

4. “The relationship between content and form is not spatial, but structural” - how do you understand this?

5. What is the relationship between form and content? What is a "substantial form"?

ARTISTIC WORKS - a product of art. creativity, in which the spiritual and content of its creator, the artist, is embodied in a sensual-material form and which meets certain criteria aesthetic value; main custodian and source of information in the field of art and culture. P. x. it can be single and ensemble, deployed in space and developing in time, self-sufficient or requiring performing arts. In the system of culture, it functions due to its material-objective carrier: the typographic text of the book, the painting canvas with its physical and chemical and geometric properties, cinematic tape; in performing iek-vah - to the orchestra, actor, etc. Actually P. x. is constructed on the basis of the primary pictorial series: sounding or imaginary speech, a combination of shapes and color planes in fine arts, a moving image projected onto a film and television screen, an organized system of musical sounds, etc. Although, unlike a natural object, the creation of P. x. determined by the purpose of man, it occurs on the border with nature, because it uses natural materials(Material of art), and in some forms of art, P. arises in the process of rearrangement and emphasis natural objects(landscape) or in an ensemble with them (, memorial and monumental and landscape gardening). Being a product of a specific creative activity, P. x. at the same time, it borders on the world of utilitarian and practical things (decorative and applied art), documentary and scientific sources, and other cultural monuments, for example. " historical novel there is, as it were, a point at which history as a science merges with art” (Belinsky). P. x. borders, however, not only on "practically useful", but also "on unsuccessful attempts art" (Tolstoy). It must satisfy at least minimum requirements artistry, that is, to stand on a step closer to perfection. Tolstoy divided P. x. into three types - P. outstanding: 1) "by the significance of its content", 2) "by the beauty of the form", 3) "by its sincerity and truthfulness." The coincidence of these three moments gives rise to. Artistic the merits of P. arts are determined by the talent of their creator, the originality and sincerity of the idea (in the art of constantly renewing cultures), the most complete embodiment of the possibilities of the canon (in the art of traditional cultures), and a high degree of skill. The artistry of P. art is manifested in the completeness of the implementation of the idea, the crystallization of its aesthetic expressiveness, in the content of the form, adequate to the general author's concept and individual nuances of figurative thought (Artistic Concept), in integrity, which is expressed in proportionality that meets the principle of unity in diversity , or in an emphasis towards either unity or diversity. Organism, apparent unintentionality of the present P. x. prompted Kant and Goethe to compare it with a product of nature, romantics - with the universe, Hegel - with man, Potebnya - with the word. Artistic the integrity of the P. of the claim, its completeness is by no means always adequate to the technical, quantifiable side constituent parts, its external completeness. And then the sketch is in a meaningful-hu-doge. relation is so precise that it outweighs in its significance and expressive power the detailed and outwardly large-scale P. x. (for example, V. Serov, A. Scriabin, P. Picasso, A. Matisse). In Soviet fine art, there are also detailed, outwardly finished paintings, and those in which there is a tendency to expressiveness, elevating a fragment to the status of an artist. integrity. However, in all cases, genuine P. x. there is a certain organization, orderliness, conjugation of aesthetic ideas into a whole. In the process of development of one or another type of art-wa art, a function can also be acquired technical means, with the help of to-rykh P. x. delivered, transmitted to the public accepting the claim (for example, in cinema). In addition to the materially fixed plan P. x. carries encoded information of an ideological, ethical, socio-psychological order, edges in its structure acquires an artist. value. Despite relative stability, P.'s content x. updated under the influence social development, art changes. tastes, trends and styles. Contacts in the field of art. contents are not fixed with unambiguous certainty, as is the case in scientific text, they are rather mobile, thereby P. x. is not closed in the system once and for all given meanings and meanings, but allows different readings. P. x., intended for performance, already in its textual structure suggests the versatility of artistic and semantic shades, the possibility of different artistic. interpretation. This is also the basis for the creation in the process of cultural inheritance of a new artist. integrity through creative borrowing from the treasury of aesthetic discoveries of past eras, transformed and modernized by the power of civic pathos and talent of new generations. artists. However, it is important to distinguish the fruits of such creative borrowings from epigone handicrafts, where only external features one or another manner, captured in P. x. other masters, but the emotional-figurative fullness of the original is lost. The formal and soulless reproduction of plots and art. techniques does not give rise to a new organic and creatively suffered artist. integrity, but its eclectic likeness. As a cultural phenomenon, P. x. usually considered aesthetic theory as part of a particular system: for example, in the complex of art. values of one or more types of art, united by a typological community (genre, style,), or within the framework of a socio-aesthetic process that includes three links: - P. x. -. Features of psychophysiological perception of P. x. are investigated by the psychology of art, and its existence in society - by the sociology of art.

Aesthetics: Dictionary. - M.: Politizdat. Under total ed. A. A. Belyaeva. 1989 .

See what "WORK OF ART" is in other dictionaries:

Piece of art- PIECE OF ART. To define a work of art, it is necessary to understand all its main features. Let's try to do this, keeping in mind the works of our great writers, for example, "The Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoevsky ... Literary Encyclopedia

Piece of art- product artistic creativity: in which the idea of its creator, the artist, is embodied in a sensually material form; and who is responsible certain categories aesthetic value. See also: Artistic works Works ... ... Financial vocabulary

Piece of art- This term has other meanings, see Work ... Wikipedia

ARTISTIC SPACE- the space of a work of art, the totality of those of its properties that give it internal unity and completeness and endow it with the character of the aesthetic. The concept of "H.P.", which plays a central role in modern aesthetics, has developed only ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

A work of art in the era of its technical reproducibility- "The work of art in the era of its technical reproducibility" (Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit) essay, written in 1936, by Walter Benjamin. In his work, Benjamin analyzes the transformation ... ... Wikipedia

ARTISTIC KNOWLEDGE- 1) knowledge of objective and subjective reality by a person (not an artist) who has innate ability to a figurative vision of the world and perceiving the world in a “beautiful shell”, as subjectively expressively colored (an example of such ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

piece of art- ▲ work of art in the form, literary work action (# of the novel occurs where). plot is the course of events in a literary work. plot move. intrigue (twisted #). | episode. exod. remark. | retardation. plot. sing. start. |… … Ideographic dictionary Russian language

ARTISTIC TIME AND ARTISTIC SPACE- ARTISTIC TIME AND ARTISTIC SPACE, the most important characteristics artistic image, providing a holistic perception of artistic reality and organizing the composition of the work. The art of the word belongs to the group ... ... Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary

Piece of art- spiritually material reality, which meets artistic and aesthetic criteria, which arose as a result of the creative efforts of an artist, sculptor, poet, composer, etc. and represents a value in the eyes of certain communities. ... ... Aesthetics. encyclopedic Dictionary

The structure of a work of art and its analysis

A work of art is a complex whole. It is necessary to know its internal structure, that is, to single out its individual components and realize the connections between them.

The first comes from the selection in the product of a number of layers, or levels. For example, (“Aesthetics of verbal creativity”) sees two levels in a work - “plot” and “plot”, the depicted world and the world of the image itself, the reality of the author and the reality of the hero.

The second approach to the structure of a work of art takes such categories as content and form as the primary division.

A work of art is not a natural phenomenon, but a cultural one, which means that it is based on a spiritual principle, which, in order to exist and be perceived, must certainly acquire some material embodiment, a way of existing in a system of material signs. Hence the naturalness of defining the boundaries of form and content in a work: the spiritual principle is the content, and its material embodiment is the form.

Form is the system of means and methods in which this reaction finds expression, embodiment. Simplifying somewhat, we can say that content- this is what, what the writer said with his work, and the form– how he did it.

The form of a work of art has two main functions.

The first is carried out within the artistic whole, so it can be called internal: it is a function of expressing content.

The second function is found in the impact of the work on the reader, so it can be called external (in relation to the work). It consists in the fact that the form has an aesthetic effect on the reader, because the form acts as a bearer of the aesthetic qualities of a work of art.

From what has been said, it is clear that the question of conventionality, which is so important for a work of art, is solved differently in relation to content and form.

Thus, Shchedrin's city of Foolov is a creation of the author's pure fantasy, it is conditional, since it never existed in reality, but autocratic Russia, which became the theme of the "History of a City" and embodied in the image of the city of Foolov, is not a convention or fiction.

The movement of the analysis of a work - from content to form or vice versa - does not have fundamental values. It all depends on the specific situation and specific tasks.

A clear conclusion suggests itself that in a work of art Both form and content are equally important..

However, the relationship between form and content in a work of art has its own specifics.

First of all, it is necessary to firmly understand that the relationship between content and form is not a spatial relationship, but a structural one.

The form is not a shell that can be removed to open the nut kernel - the content. If we take a work of art, then we will be powerless to “point the finger”: here is the form, and here is the content. Spatially they are merged and indistinguishable; this unity can be felt and shown at any “point” of a literary text.

Let's take, for example, that episode from Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha, when asked by Ivan what to do with the landowner who baited the child with dogs, answers: "Shoot!". What is this "shoot!" content or form?

Of course, both are in unity, in fusion.

On the one hand, it is part of the speech, verbal form of the work. Alyosha's remark occupies a certain place in the compositional form of the work. These are formal points.

On the other hand, it's "shoot!" there is a component of the character of the hero, that is, the thematic basis of the work. The replica expresses one of the turns of the moral and philosophical quest of the characters and the author, and of course, it is an essential aspect of the ideological and emotional world of the work - these are meaningful moments.

So, in one word - content and form in unity.

The situation is similar with a work of art in its entirety.

According to the expression, relations are established between the artistic form and artistic content, unlike the relationship of “wine and glass” (glass as form, wine as content).

In a work of art, the content is not indifferent to the specific form in which it is embodied, and vice versa. Any change in form is inevitable and immediately leads to a change in content.

Trying to find out, for example, the content of such a formal element as poetic meter, versifiers conducted an experiment: they “transformed” the first lines of the first chapter of “Eugene Onegin” from iambic to choreic. It turned out this:

Uncle of the most honest rules,

He was not jokingly ill.

Made me respect myself

Couldn't think of a better one.

The semantic meaning remained, perhaps, the same, the changes seemed to affect only the form. But it can be seen with the naked eye that one of the most important components of the content has changed - the emotional tone, the mood of the passage. From epic-narrative, it turned into playful-superficial.

It is absolutely impossible to imagine that the novel was written by a trochee, because in this way it would simply be destroyed.

Studying in Gogol's "Dead Souls" only Chichikov, landowners and individual officials and peasants, we study almost a tenth of the "population" of the poem, ignoring the mass of those "minor" characters that Gogol just is not secondary. As a result of such an experiment on form, our understanding of the work, that is, its content, is significantly distorted: after all, Gogol was not interested in the history of individuals, but in the way of national life, he created not a “gallery of images”, but an image of the world, a “way of life”.

There is an important methodological rule: for an accurate and complete assimilation of the content of a work, the closest possible attention to its form is absolutely necessary. In the form of a work of art, there are no trifles that are indifferent to the content. According to a well-known expression, “art begins where “a little bit” begins.

2. The theme of the work and its analysis.

Under theme we will understand object of artistic reflection , those life characters and situations that, as it were, pass from reality into a work of art and form objective side its content. Subject in this sense it acts as connecting link between primary reality and artistic reality, it seems to belong to both worlds at once: the real and the artistic. In doing so, one must, of course, take into account the fact that actual characters and relationships of characters are not copied by the writer"one to one", and already at this stage creatively refract: the writer chooses from reality the most, from his point of view, characteristic, enhances this characteristic and at the same time embodies it in a single artistic image. This is how it is created literary character – fictional character of the writer with its own character. To this individual wholeness and should be directed primarily attention in the analysis of topics.

It should be noted that in the practice of school teaching literature, an unreasonably much attention is paid to the consideration of topics and the analysis of “images”, as if the main thing in a work of art is the reality that is reflected in it, while in fact the center of gravity of a meaningful analysis should lie completely in another plane: not that author reflected, a how did you comprehend reflected.

Exaggerated attention to the subject leads to a conversation about the reality reflected in a work of art, and then literature turns into an illustration for a history textbook. Thus, the aesthetic specificity of a work of art, the originality of the author's view of reality is ignored. And the conversation about literature inevitably turns out to be boring, ascertaining, of little problem.

Topic analysis methodology

Firstly, in a particular literary text it is often not easy to distinguish between the actual reflection object (topic) and image object (situation depicted). Meanwhile, it is necessary to do this for the accuracy of the analysis.

For example: the theme of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is often habitually defined as "Chatsky's conflict with the Famus society", while this not a theme, but only a subject of the image. And in this case, we have not identified a theme, but only one of the features of the form of the work, namely - character systems. In order to “go out” directly to the topic, it is necessary to reveal the characters embodied in the characters. Then the definition of the topic will sound differently: the conflict between the progressive, enlightened and feudal, ignorant nobility in Russia in the 10-20s of the 19th century.

Secondly, in the analysis of topics, it is necessary to distinguish between concrete historical and eternal themes.

Specific historical topics - these are characters and circumstances born and conditioned by a certain socio-historical situation in a particular country; they do not repeat beyond a given time, they are more or less localized. For example, the topic extra person» in Russian literature of the 19th century, the theme of the Great Patriotic War and etc.

Eternal themes record recurring moments in the history of various national societies, in life different generations, in different historical eras. Such are the themes of love and friendship, the theme of the working man, etc.

In the analysis of the subject, it is extremely important to determine which aspect of it - concrete historical or eternal - is more significant, on which, so to speak, the thematic basis of the work rests. (In "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" - the most important - historically specific, in "The Secret Man" - eternal).

Sometimes these themes are combined in the work: in "Eugene Onegin", "Possessed", "The Master and Margarita". In these cases, it is important not to lose sight of the eternal aspects of the topic, which will allow change the angle of view of an object, supplement the traditional sociological approach with an understanding of the universal, universal content of classical works.

For example:

In our minds, the understanding of the title of Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" is quite firmly rooted as a clash of two social forces, representatives different stages Russian public life XIX century - the nobility and commoners. This sociological interpretation of the subject matter as concrete historical is, in general, correct and justified. But at the same time it is very insufficient. The words "fathers and sons" in relation to Turgenev's novel can and should be understood not only figuratively, but also in literally: as the relationship between parents and children, the relationship of generations separated not by social, but by age barriers.

The eternal theme, being accentuated in the analysis, is able to revive the perception, because it touches upon issues with which young reader encountered in practical life.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that when analyzing a concrete historical topic, one must see not only socio-historical, but also psychological certainty of character. For example, in the work “Woe from Wit”, where the specific historical aspect is, of course, the leading one in the subject, it is necessary to designate the character of Chatsky not only as an advanced enlightened nobleman, but also pay attention to such features of his psychological appearance as youth, ardor, uncompromising, witty, etc. All these features are important for a more complete understanding of the subject matter of the work, and - in the future - for correct understanding unfolding plot, motivations for its ups and downs.

Often one has to deal with works in which there is not one, but many themes. The totality of all the themes of a work is called a theme. In these cases, it is advisable to single out one or two main topics, and consider the rest as secondary. Side thematic lines usually "work" for the main one, enrich its sound, help to understand it better.

For practical analysis it is useful to decide whether to dwell on the characters themselves or on the relationships between them.

linger on thematic analysis in the practice of teaching it should not be: further in a work of art it will be much more interesting.

Problem analysis

artistic idea

Artistic details

Portrait

artistic time and art space

Artistic speech

Narrative and character of the narrator

Composition analysis

Plot and conflict

Even at first glance, it is clear that a work of art consists of certain sides, elements, aspects, and so on. In other words, it has a complex internal composition. At the same time, the individual parts of the work are connected and united with each other so closely that this gives reason to metaphorically liken the work to a living organism. The composition of the work is characterized, therefore, not only by complexity, but also by order. A work of art is a complexly organized whole; from the realization of this obvious fact follows the need to know the internal structure of the work, that is, to single out its individual components and realize the connections between them. The rejection of such an attitude inevitably leads to empiricism and unsubstantiated judgments about the work, to complete arbitrariness in its consideration, and ultimately impoverishes our understanding of the artistic whole, leaving it at the level of the primary reader's perception.

___________________

* Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. S. 7–181.

** Girshman M.M. Style of a literary work // Theory of literary styles. Modern aspects of study. M., 1982. S. 257-300.

The second approach to the structure of a work of art takes such general categories as content and form as its primary division. In the most complete and reasoned form, this approach is presented in the works of G.N. Pospelova*. This methodological trend has far fewer drawbacks than the one discussed above, it is much more in line with the real structure of the work and is much more justified from the point of view of philosophy and methodology.

___________________

* See e.g.: Pospelov G.N. Problems of literary style. M., 1970. S. 31–90.

We will begin with the philosophical substantiation of the allocation of content and form in the artistic whole. The categories of content and form, excellently developed back in Hegel's system, have become important categories of dialectics and have been repeatedly successfully used in the analysis of a wide variety of complex objects. The use of these categories in aesthetics and literary criticism also forms a long and fruitful tradition. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from applying philosophical concepts that have proven themselves so well to the analysis of a literary work; moreover, from the point of view of methodology, this will only be logical and natural. But there are also special reasons to begin the division of a work of art with the allocation of content and form in it. A work of art is not a natural phenomenon, but a cultural one, which means that it is based on a spiritual principle, which, in order to exist and be perceived, must certainly acquire some material embodiment, a way of existing in a system of material signs. Hence the naturalness of defining the boundaries of form and content in a work: the spiritual principle is the content, and its material embodiment is the form.

From what has been said about the functions of form, it is clear that the question of conventionality, which is so important for a work of art, is solved differently in relation to content and form. If in the first section we said that a work of art in general is a convention in comparison with primary reality, then the measure of this convention is different for form and content. Within a work of art the content is unconditional, in relation to it it is impossible to raise the question “why does it exist?” Like the phenomena of primary reality, in the artistic world the content exists without any conditions, as an immutable given. Nor can it be a conditionally fantasy, arbitrary sign, by which nothing is meant; in the strict sense, the content cannot be invented - it directly comes to the work from the primary reality (from the social being of people or from the consciousness of the author). On the contrary, the form can be arbitrarily fantastic and conditionally implausible, because something is meant by the conditionality of the form; it exists "for something" - to embody the content. Thus, Shchedrin's city of Foolov is a creation of the author's pure fantasy, it is conditional, since it never existed in reality, but autocratic Russia, which became the theme of the "History of a City" and embodied in the image of the city of Foolov, is not a convention or fiction.

Modern science proceeds from the primacy of content over form. In relation to a work of art, this is true as for a creative process (the writer looks for the appropriate form, even for a vague, but already existing content, but in no case vice versa - he does not first create a “ready-made form”, and then pours some content into it) , and for the work as such (features of the content determine and explain to us the specifics of the form, but not vice versa). However, in a certain sense, namely in relation to the perceiving consciousness, it is the form that is primary, and the content secondary. Since sensory perception is always ahead of the emotional reaction and, moreover, the rational comprehension of the subject, moreover, it serves as the basis and basis for them, we perceive in the work first its form, and only then and only through it - the corresponding artistic content.

From this, by the way, it follows that the movement of the analysis of a work - from content to form or vice versa - is of no fundamental importance. Any approach has its justifications: the first is in the defining nature of the content in relation to the form, the second is in the patterns of the reader's perception. Well said about this A.S. Bushmin: “It is not at all necessary ... to start research from the content, guided only by the one thought that the content determines the form, and not having other, more specific reasons for this. Meanwhile, it was precisely this sequence of consideration of a work of art that turned into a forced, hackneyed, boring scheme for everyone, having become widespread in school teaching, and in textbooks, and in scientific literary works. The dogmatic transfer of the correct general proposition of literary theory to the methodology of the concrete study of works gives rise to a dull pattern. Let us add to this that, of course, the opposite pattern would not be any better - it is always mandatory to start the analysis from the form. It all depends on the specific situation and specific tasks.

___________________

* Bushmin A.S. The Science of Literature. M., 1980. S. 123–124.

From all that has been said, a clear conclusion suggests itself that both form and content are equally important in a work of art. The experience of the development of literature and literary criticism also proves this position. Belittling the meaning of content or completely ignoring it leads in literary criticism to formalism, to meaningless abstract constructions, leads to oblivion of the social nature of art, and in artistic practice, guided by this kind of concept, turns into aestheticism and elitism. However, the neglect of the art form as something secondary and, in essence, optional has no less negative consequences. Such an approach actually destroys the work as a phenomenon of art, forces us to see in it only this or that ideological, and not ideological and aesthetic phenomenon. In creative practice, which does not want to reckon with the great importance of form in art, flat illustrativeness, primitiveness, the creation of “correct”, but emotionally unexperienced declarations about a “relevant”, but artistically unexplored topic, inevitably appear.

First of all, it is necessary to firmly understand that the relationship between content and form is not a spatial relationship, but a structural one. The form is not a shell that can be removed to open the nut kernel - the content. If we take a work of art, then we will be powerless to “point the finger”: here is the form, and here is the content. Spatially they are merged and indistinguishable; this unity can be felt and shown at any “point” of a literary text. Let's take, for example, that episode from Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha, when asked by Ivan what to do with the landowner who baited the child with dogs, answers: "Shoot!". What is this "shoot!" content or form? Of course, both are in unity, in fusion. On the one hand, it is part of the speech, verbal form of the work; Alyosha's remark occupies a certain place in the compositional form of the work. These are formal points. On the other hand, this "shoot" is a component of the hero's character, that is, the thematic basis of the work; the replica expresses one of the turns of the moral and philosophical searches of the characters and the author, and of course, it is an essential aspect of the ideological and emotional world of the work - these are meaningful moments. So in one word, fundamentally indivisible into spatial components, we saw content and form in their unity. The situation is similar with the work of art in its entirety.

The second thing to note is the special connection between form and content in the artistic whole. According to Yu.N. Tynyanov, relations are established between the artistic form and the artistic content, unlike the relations of “wine and glass” (glass as form, wine as content), that is, relations of free compatibility and equally free separation. In a work of art, the content is not indifferent to the specific form in which it is embodied, and vice versa. Wine will remain wine, whether we pour it into a glass, a cup, a plate, etc.; content is indifferent to form. In the same way, milk, water, kerosene can be poured into a glass where there was wine - the form is “indifferent” to the content that fills it. Not so in a work of art. There, the connection between formal and substantive principles reaches its highest degree. Perhaps this is best manifested in the following regularity: any change in form, even seemingly small and private, is inevitable and immediately leads to a change in content. Trying to find out, for example, the content of such a formal element as poetic meter, versifiers conducted an experiment: they “transformed” the first lines of the first chapter of “Eugene Onegin” from iambic to choreic. It turned out this:

Uncle of the most honest rules,

He was not jokingly sick,

Made me respect myself

Couldn't think of a better one.

Of course, such an experiment on form is a unique case. However, in the study of a work, we often, completely unaware of this, perform similar "experiments" - without directly changing the structure of the form, but only without taking into account one or another of its features. So, studying in Gogol's "Dead Souls" mainly Chichikov, landowners, and "individual representatives" of the bureaucracy and the peasantry, we study hardly a tenth of the "population" of the poem, ignoring the mass of those "minor" heroes who, in Gogol, are just not secondary , but are interesting to him in themselves to the same extent as Chichikov or Manilov. As a result of such an “experiment on form”, our understanding of the work, that is, its content, is significantly distorted: after all, Gogol was not interested in the history of individuals, but in the way of national life, he created not a “gallery of images”, but an image of the world, a “way of life”.

___________________

* Ermilov V.A. A.P. Chekhov. M., 1959. S. 395.

** Kataev V.B. Chekhov's prose: problems of interpretation. M, 1979. S. 310.

This is the “unconscious experiment” that was discussed above. “Slightly” the structure of the form is distorted – and the consequences in the field of content are not long in coming. There is a “concept of unconditional optimism, “bravura” of Chekhov’s work of recent years”, while in reality it represents “a delicate balance between truly optimistic hopes and restrained sobriety in relation to the impulses of those very people about whom Chekhov knew and told so many bitter truths” .

In the relationship between content and form, in the structure of form and content in a work of art, a certain principle, a regularity, is revealed. We will talk in detail about the specific nature of this regularity in the section “Comprehensive consideration of a work of art”.

In the meantime, we note only one methodological rule: For an accurate and complete understanding of the content of a work, it is absolutely necessary to pay as close attention as possible to its form, down to its smallest features. In the form of a work of art there are no "little things" that are indifferent to the content; According to a well-known expression, “art begins where “a little bit” begins.

Portal for the student. Self-training

See what "WORK OF ART" is in other dictionaries:

Topic analysis methodology

RELATED ARTICLES