Titlebook: On the Aesthetics of Roman Ingarden; Interpretations and Bohdan Dziemidok,Peter McCormick Book 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989 aesthe

Abduct

The Structure of Artworks,r philosophic orientation — they have found a permanent place in Polish aesthetic thought and one can hardly imagine a contemporary investigation in aesthetics taking no account of Ingarden’s impressive achievement. Yet despite some fascination with his aesthetic system, nothing like a “school of In

modest

The Work of Art and Aesthetic Categories According to Ingarden, work of art. Most modern aesthetic theories seem to share this conviction. However, the explanation of artistic values through the operation of a certain kind of object (works of art) leads to unexpected and even paradoxical results, which appear even in competent and conscientious studies.

Ancillary

有罪

,Ingarden’s and Mukařovsky’s Binominal Definition of the Literary Work of Art,th phenomenology and structuralism. However, a closer look at these positions reveals that in spite of their manifestly different epis-temologies, on a number of other issues they are not as disparate as one might assume. Even though Ingarden, unlike Mukarovsky, “considered [the literary work] as so

Nonporous

The Sculptural Work of Art,llection takes as its unifying theme the aesthetics of Ingarden, I’m confident that he would find this emphasis congenial. For, in this case, it is the phenomenon of sculpture itself which makes Ingarden’s reflections so welcome. Little could have give him greater satisfaction than to know that appr

Dna262

Ingarden on the Theatre,rned with theatre: “The Stage Play” (317–23) and the appendix “The Function of Language in the Theatre” (377–93). The latter Ingarden wrote in the fifties,. more than twenty years after the former. Though he does not comment on this, it seem an important fact because from the current point of view t

MIME

8楼

Acquired

8楼

itinerary

9楼

monologue

9楼