Advertisement

Roman Ingarden’s Unique Conception of Aesthetic Objects

  • Victor Kocay
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 80)

Abstract

Ingarden’s conception of the aesthetic object is unique. It involves a relation between a perceiving subject and an object, normally an art object, where the object itself remains primary. Although it is ultimately Kantian in its conception,1 Husserl’s influence on it is more pronounced. For Kant the aesthetic sentiment is a sensation which derives from the relation between a representation and the subject, as the result of the contemplation of art works. For Ingarden the aesthetic sentiment is more complicated than a pleasant sensation, and it is much more than the free-play of the imagination and the understanding which leads to a harmony of these faculties in an abstract fashion, although the notion of harmony remains central to Ingarden’s aesthetics. In the Husserlian sense, an object is constructed by various stages of perception and understanding, successive perceptions rendering the object more complete in its specific qualities. By analogy, the aesthetic object, according to Ingarden, is formed by successive encounters with the art object, be it literary, plastic or musical, in a process known as concretization. This process involves the formation of an aesthetic object. In this sense the aesthetic object is the product of analysis and intellectual effort. What Kant refers to as the sensation of pleasure caused by an encounter with a beautiful object is only one of the initial stages of the concretization process in the work of Roman Ingarden.

Keywords

Literary Work British Society Unique Conception Aesthetic Experience Linguistic Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

Primary Works

  1. Ingarden, R. (1931). Das literarische Kunstwerk. Halle: Niemeyer (Cf. 1973, The Literary Work of Art; 1983, L’ Oeuvre d’art littéraire.) Google Scholar
  2. Ingarden R. (1937). O poznawaniu dziela literackiego. Lw6w: Ossolineum. (Cf. 1968, Vom Erkennen des literarischen Kunstwerks; 1973, The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art.) Google Scholar
  3. Ingarden R. (1938). “Das Form-Inhalt Problem im literarischen Kunstwerk,” Helicon 1, 61–67; 1969.Google Scholar
  4. Ingarden R. (1947), “Quelques remarques sur le problème de la relativité des valeurs,” Actes du III-ème Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de langue française. Paris: Vrin (Cf. “Zum Problem der `Relativität’ der Werte.”1969, Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert.) Google Scholar
  5. Ingarden R. (1947–48). Spor o istnieinie swiata. Krakow: PAU. (Cf. 1964–65, Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt; 1964, Time and Modes of Being.) Google Scholar
  6. Ingarden R. (1957–1970). Studia z estetyki. Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
  7. Ingarden R. (1949). “Des Différentes Conceptions de la vérité dans l’oeuvre d’art,” Revue d’Esthétique 2, 162–80.Google Scholar
  8. Ingarden R. (1957), “La Valeur esthétique et le problème de son fondement objectif,” Atti del III Congresso Internationale die Estetica, Venezi 1956. Turin: Rirista di Estetica, 167–173 (Cf. V “Der ästhetische Wert und das Problem seiner Fundierung im Kunstwerk.” 1969, Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert).Google Scholar
  9. Ingarden R. (1958). “Bemerkungen zum Problem des ästhetischen Werturteils,” Revista di Estetica 3, 414–23.Google Scholar
  10. Ingarden R. (1960), “The General Question of the Essence of Form and Content,” Journal of Philosophy 47, 222–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ingarden R. (1960). “Raccourcis de perspective temporelle dans la concrétisation de l’oeuvre littéraire,” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 54, 19–51.Google Scholar
  12. Ingarden R. (1960–61). “Aesthetic Experience and Aesthetic Object,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 21, 289–313.Google Scholar
  13. Ingarden R. (1962). “Le Mot comme élément d’une langue”, Thinking and Meaning. Entretien d’ Oxford 1962, Logique et Analyse 5, 212–16.Google Scholar
  14. Ingarden R. (1962). Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst: Musikwerk, Bild, Architektur, Film. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingarden R. (1964). “Artistic and Aesthetic Values,” The British Journal of Aesthetics 4, 198–13. H. Osborne, ed., Aesthetics; P.J. McCormick, ed., Selected Papers in Aesthetics. (Cf. “Künstlerische und ästhetische Werte,” 1969, Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert. )Google Scholar
  16. Ingarden R. (1964). “Das Problem des Systems der ästhetisch relevanten Qualitäten,” Actes du Vene Congres International d’Esthe’tique, Amsterdam, 448–56;Google Scholar
  17. Ingarden R. (1964). Time and Modes of Being. Translated by Helen R. Michejda. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  18. Ingarden R. (1964–65). Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  19. Ingarden R. (1966). “Einige ungelöste Probleme der Werttheorie,” in Orbis Scriptus. Munich: Fink, 1966, 365–73.Google Scholar
  20. Ingarden R. (1966). Przezycie-dzielo-wartosc. Krakow. (Cf. 1969, Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert. )Google Scholar
  21. Ingarden R. (1967). “Betrachtung zum Problem der Objektivität,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 21, 31–46Google Scholar
  22. Ingarden R. (1968). “De la Connaissance de l’oeuvre littéraire,” Archives de Philosophie 31, 202–343.Google Scholar
  23. Ingarden R. (1968). Vom Erkennen des literarischen Kunstwerks. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  24. Ingarden R. (1969). Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ingarden R. (1969). “The Physicalist Theory of Language and the World of Literature,”Yearbook of Comparative Criticism 2, 80–98Google Scholar
  26. J. Strelka (ed.) Problems of Literary Evaluation. University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. Ingarden R. (1970). “Künstlerische Funktionen der Sprache. Ein Ausblick,” Sprachkunst 1, 20–31.Google Scholar
  28. Ingarden R. (1973). The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art. Translated by Ruth Crowley and Kenneth R. Olson. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ingarden R. (1973). The Literary Work of Art. Translated by Georges G. Grabowicz. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ingarden R. (1975). “On the Ontology of Relations.” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 6, 75–80.Google Scholar
  31. Ingarden R. (1975). “Phenomenological Aesthetics: An Attempt at Defining its Range,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 33, 257–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ingarden R. (1975). “Remarks Concerning the Relativity of Values,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 6, 102–08.Google Scholar
  33. Ingarden R. (1976). Gegenstand und Aufgaben der Literaturwissenschaft. Aufsätze und Diskussionsbeiträge. Ausgewählt und eingeleitet von R. Fieguth. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ingarden R. (1983). Man and Value. Translated by Arthur Szlewicz. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ingarden R. (1983). L’Oeuvre d’art littéraire. Translated by Philibert Secretan with N. Luchinger and B. Schwegler. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme. (Cf. 1931 Das Literarische Kunstwerk; 1973, The Literary Work of Art. )Google Scholar
  36. Ingarden R. (1983). “On Philosophical Aesthetics,” Dialectics and Humanism 10: 1, 5–12.Google Scholar
  37. Ingarden R. (1985). Selected Papers in Aesthetics. Peter J. McCormick (ed.). Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ingarden R. (1989). Ontology of the Work of Art. Translated by Raymond Meyer with John T. Goldthwait. Athens OH: Ohio University Press. ( Cf. 1962, Untersuchung zur Ontologie der Kunst. )Google Scholar
  39. Rudnick, H.H. (ed.) (1990). Ingardeniana II. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ( Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXX ).Google Scholar
  40. Tymieniecka, A.-T. (ed.) (1976). Ingardeniana I. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ( Analecta Husserliana Vol. IV ).Google Scholar
  41. Tymieniecka, A.-T. (ed.) (1991). Ingardeniana III. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ( Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXXIII ).Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Bartoszynski, K. (1989). “The Ontology of Objects in Ingarden’s Aesthetics,” A.-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), Man within His Life-World, Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXVII, 369–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Brunius, Teddy (1969). “The Aesthetics of Roman Ingarden Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 30, 590–95.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, Sybil (1977). “Ingarden’s Benign Circle,” Dialectics and Humanism 4, 137–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colomb, G.G. (1976). “Roman Ingarden and the Language of Art and Science Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dolgov, K.M. (1975). “Roman Ingarden’s Phenomenology of Literature,” Dialectics and Humanism 2, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dziemidok, B. (1975a). “Roman Ingarden’s Theory of Value of the Work of Art in the Light of Marxist Aesthetic,” Dialectics and Humanism 2, 123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dziemidok, B. (1975b). “Roman Ingarden’s Views on the Aesthetic Attitude,” in P. Graff, and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds.), 9–31.Google Scholar
  8. Dziemidok, B. (1976). “Aestheticism and Formalism in the Theory of the Value of the Work of Art-Ingarden versus Marxism,” VIIIth International Congress of Aesthetics, Darmstadt, 5–11.Google Scholar
  9. Dziemidok, B. (1988). “Roman Ingarden on Evaluation of the Work of Art,” Reports on Philosophy 12, 13–18.Google Scholar
  10. Dziemidok, B. (1989). “Ingarden’s Theory of Values and the Evaluation of the Work of Art,” in B. Dziemidok and P. McCormick (eds.), 71–100.Google Scholar
  11. Dziemidok B. and P. McCormick (eds.) (1989). On the Aesthetics of Roman Ingarden. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Falk, E. (1981). “Ingarden’s Concept of Aesthetic Object,” Comparative Literature Studies 18, 230–37.Google Scholar
  13. Falk, E. (1983). “Ingarden’s Conception of Aesthetic Values in Literature,” in J. P. Strelka, (ed.), 78–85.Google Scholar
  14. Falk, E. (1981). Poetics of Roman Ingarden. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fieguth, R. (1971). “Rezeption kontra falsches und richtiges Lesen oder: Missverständnisse mit Ingarden,” Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 38, 142–59.Google Scholar
  16. Fizer, J. (1968–69). “Schematism: Aesthetic Device or Psychological Necessity,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 27, 417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fizer, J. (1983). “`Actualization’ and `Concretization’ as Heuristic Devices in the Study of Literary Art,” in T.P. Strelka, (ed.) (1983).Google Scholar
  18. Fizer, J. (1973). “The Concept of Strata and Phases in Roman Ingarden’s Theory of Literary Structure,” in The Personality of the Critic, J.P. Strelka, (ed.) ( 1973 ), University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 10–39.Google Scholar
  19. Fizer, J. (1979a). “Epoché, Artistic Analysis, Aesthetic Concretization: Reflections upon Roman Ingarden’s Reflections,” in J. Odmark, (ed. )Google Scholar
  20. Fizer, J. (1979b). “Indeterminacies as Structural Components in Semiotically Meaningful Wholes,” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature, 4119–31.Google Scholar
  21. Fizer, J. (1989). “Ingarden’s and Mukarovsky’s Binominal Definition of the Literary Work of Art: A Comparative View of Their Ontologies,” in B. Dziemidok and P. McCormick (eds.), 159–86.Google Scholar
  22. Gabriel, G. (1975). Fiktion und Wahrheit. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann in H.H. Rudnick Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Galewicz, Wlodzimierz (1990). “The Aesthetic Object and the Work of Art: Reflections on Ingarden’s Theory of Aesthetic Judgment,” in H.H. Rudnick (ed.), Ingardeniana II, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glowinski, M. (1975). “On Concretization,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak, (eds.), 93–115; in J. Odmark, (ed.), 325–49.Google Scholar
  25. Golaszewska, M. (1975a). “Aesthetic Values in Ingarden’s System of Philosophy,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds.), 47–68.Google Scholar
  26. Golaszewska, M. (1975b). “Ingarden’s World of Values,” Dialectics and Humanism 2, 133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Golaszewska, M. (1988). “Roman Ingarden on the Artistic Creativity,” Reports on Philosophy 12, 3–12.Google Scholar
  28. Golaszewska, M. (ed.) (1996). Aesthetics for the Future. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Institute of Philosophy, Department of Aesthetics.Google Scholar
  29. Graff, P. (1975). “The Ontological Basis of Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetics. A Tentative Reconstruction,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds), 69–75.Google Scholar
  30. Graff P. and S. Krzemien-Ojak, (eds.) (1975). Roman Ingarden and Contemporary Polish Aesthetics. Warsaw: PWNGoogle Scholar
  31. Günter, H. (1973). Struktur als Prozess. Studien zur Ästhetik und Literaturtheorie. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Hamm, V.M. (1961). “The Ontology of the Literary Work of Art: Roman Ingarden’s Das literarische Kunstwerk, in P.R. Strelka (ed.), 171–209.Google Scholar
  33. Hamrick, William S. (1974). “Ingarden on Aesthetic Experience and Aesthetic Object,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 5, 71–80.Google Scholar
  34. Hamrick, William S. (1975). “Ingarden and Artistic Creativity,” Dialectics and Humanism 2, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holub, Robert C. (1984). Reception Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  36. Iseminger, Gary (1973). “Roman Ingarden and the Aesthetic Object,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33, 417–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iser, Wolfgang (1978). The Act of Reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kmita, J. (1975). “Work of Art-Its Concretization, Artistic Value, Aesthetic Value,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds.), 109–28.Google Scholar
  39. Kocay, Victor (1990). “L’Objet esthétique chez Roman Ingarden: prémisses et valeur,” Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée 1–2, 17, 36–44.Google Scholar
  40. Kocay, Victor (1991). “Le Jugement chez Roman Ingarden et chez Saint Thomas: perspective référentielle,” Texte 11, 265–81.Google Scholar
  41. Kocay, Victor (1993). “La Signification révisée dans le contexte littéraire et esthétique du `modèle’ ingardénien,” Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 12, 135–47.Google Scholar
  42. Kocay, Victor (1995). “L’Axiologie d’Ingarden,” Philosophiques 22, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kocay, Victor (1996). Forme et référence: le langage de Roman Ingarden. Sprimont, Belgium: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  44. Kocay, Victor (1996). “Roman Ingarden: the Language of Aesthetics,” in M. Golaszewska (ed.), 86–97.Google Scholar
  45. Kocay, Victor (1997). “Linguistic Notions in the Work of Roman Ingarden,” Melanges de Linguistique. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Les Presses de l’ALFA (a), 285–91.Google Scholar
  46. Konstantinovic, Z. (1973). Phänomenologie und Literaturwissenschaft. Munich: List Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Konstantinovic, Z. (1975). “Uber Ingarden hinaus: Forschungsgeschichtliche Hinweise zur Entwickling des phänomenologischen Ansatzes in der Literaturwissenschaft,” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 1, 25–34.Google Scholar
  48. König, R. (1936). “Das Kunstwerk als Quelle kunsttheoretischer Einsichten,” Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 30, 1–27.Google Scholar
  49. Krenzlin, N. (1969). “Bürgerliche Ideenentwicklung und ästhetische Theorie,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 17, 1285–1309.Google Scholar
  50. Krenzlin, N. (1979). Das Werk “rein für sich”. Berlin: Akademic-Verlag.Google Scholar
  51. Kling, G. (1972). “Ingarden on Language and Ontology,” A.-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), The Later Husserl and the Idea of Phenomenology, Dordrecht: Reidel (Analecta Husserliana Vol. 2 ), 204–17.Google Scholar
  52. Kling, G. (1986). “Ingarden and Brentano on the Experience and Cognition of Values,” Reports on Philosophy 10, 57–67.Google Scholar
  53. Lüthe, R. (1978). “Objectivism or Decisionism? A Critical Interpretation of Ingarden’s Value Theory from an Ingardian Point of View,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 9, 82–92.Google Scholar
  54. McCormick, Peter J. (1975). “On Ingarden’s Account of the Existence of Aesthetic Objects,” Dialectics and Humanism 2, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Makota, J. (1972). “Applicability of Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetic Categories to Contemporary Art,” Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress of Aesthetics, Bucharest, Bucharest: 1976, 611–16.Google Scholar
  56. Makota, J. (1975). “Roman Ingarden’s Views on the Communication with a Work of Art,” in P. Graff and S. KrzemienOjak (eds.), 145–57.Google Scholar
  57. Markiewicz, H. (1975). “Places of Indeterminacy in a Literary Work,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak, (eds.), 159–71.Google Scholar
  58. Markiewicz, H. (1989). “Ingarden and the Development of Literary Studies,” in B. Dziemidok and P. McCormick (eds.), 101–29.Google Scholar
  59. Misiewicz, J. (1989). “The Work of Art and Aesthetic Categories According to Ingarden,” in B. Dziemidok and P. McCormick (eds.), 55–70.Google Scholar
  60. Mitias, M. H. (1985). “Ingarden on the Aesthetic Object,” Dialectics and Humanism 12, 3–4 199–220.Google Scholar
  61. Mitscherling, J. (1985). “Roman Ingarden’s The Literary Work of Art: Exposition and Analysis,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45, 351–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mitscherling, J. (1997). Roman Ingarden’s Ontology and Aesthetics. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  63. Morawski, S. (1975). “Ingarden on the Subject Matter and Method of Aesthetics,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds.), 173–89.Google Scholar
  64. Müller, G. (1939). “Über die Seinsweise der Dichtung,” Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 17, 137–52.Google Scholar
  65. Odmark J. (ed.) (1979). Language, Literature and Meaning I: Problems of Literary Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  66. Poltawski, A. (1967). “Roman Ingarden-the Structure of Reality and the Structure of Art,” Poland (Polen, La Pologne) 6, 18–19.Google Scholar
  67. Poltawski, A. (1972). “Constitutive Phenomenology and Intentional Objects,” in A.-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), The Later Husserl and the Idea of Phenomenology, Dordrecht: Reidel (Analecta Husserliana Vol. II), 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Poltawski, A. (1978). “The Idea and Place of Human Creativity in the Philosophy of Roman Ingarden,” Dialectics and Humanism 5, 129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Riska, A. (1976). “Language and Logic in the Work of Roman Ingarden,” in A.-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), Ingardeniana I, Dordrecht: Reidel (Analecta Husserliana Vol. IV), 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosner, K. (1975). “Ingarden’s Philosophy of Literature and Analysis of Artistic Communication,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds.), 191–221.Google Scholar
  71. Rudnick, H. H. (1974). “Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetics of Literature,” Colloquia Germanica (University of Kentucky), 1–14.Google Scholar
  72. Rudnick, Hans H. and Wawrzycka Jolanta W. (1990). “Roman Ingarden: An International Bibliography (1915–1989),” in H.H. Rudnick, Ingardeniana II (Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXX, Ingardeniana II) 225–96.Google Scholar
  73. Schopper, W. (1974). Das Seiende und der Gegenstand. Munich: Berchmanskolleg Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Slawinski, J. (1975). Literatur als System und Prozess. Munich: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, B. (1979). “Roman Ingarden: Ontological Foundations for Literary Theory,” in J. Odmark (ed.), 373–90.Google Scholar
  76. Smith, B. (1980–81). “Ingarden Versus Meinong on the Logic of Fiction,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 41, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith, B. (1983). “Meinen und Vorstellen in der literarsichen Gegenstandskonstitution,” in Wohlandt (ed.), 49–61.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, Jadwiga S. (1991). “The Theory of Drama and Theatre: A Continuing Investigation of the Aesthetics of Roman Ingarden,” in H.H. Rudnick, Ingardeniana II (Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXX ), 3–62.Google Scholar
  79. Strelka J.P. (ed.) (1973). The Personality of the Critic, University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar
  80. Strelka J.P. (ed.) (1983). Literary Criticism and Philosophy, University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Strelka P.R. (ed.) (1961). The Critical Matrix, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stucki, P.A. (1965). “Le Langage littéraire selon M. Roman Ingarden,” Studia Philosophica 25, 189–99.Google Scholar
  83. Szczepanska, A. (1975). “Artistic Functions of Clarity in Proust,” in P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (eds.), 247–67.Google Scholar
  84. Szczepanska, A. (1975). “Perspectives of the Axiological Investigations of the Work of Art in the Theory of Roman Ingarden,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 6, 116–25.Google Scholar
  85. Szczepanska, A. (1989). “The Structure of Artworks,” in B. Dziemidok and P. McCormick (eds.), 21–54.Google Scholar
  86. Takei, Yushiro (1984). “The Literary Work and its Concretization in Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetics,” A.-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), Man within His Life-World ( Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXVII ), 285–307.Google Scholar
  87. Tymieniecka, A.-T. (1957). Essence et Existence: études d propos de la philosophie de Roman Ingarden et de Nicolal Hartmann. Paris: Aubier, Editions Montaigne (1955).Google Scholar
  88. Tymieniecka, A.-T. (1984). “The Tenets of Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetics in a Perspective,” A.-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), Man within His Life-World (Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXVII), 271–83.Google Scholar
  89. Tymieniecka A.-T. (ed.) (1959). For Roman Ingarden: Nine Essays in Phenomenology, The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  90. Tymieniecka A.-T. (ed.) (1976). “Beyond Ingarden’s Idealism-Realism Controversy with Husserl—The New Contextual Phase of Phenomenology” ( Analecta Husserliana Vol. IV ), 241–418.Google Scholar
  91. Wegrzecki, A. (1975). “On the Absoluteness of Values,” Jour-nal of the British Society for Phenomenology 6, 109–15Google Scholar
  92. Wellek, René (1981). Four Critics: Croce, Valéry, Lukdcs, and Ingarden. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  93. Wellek, R. and Warren, A. (1942). Theory of Literature, New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  94. Wolandt, Gerd (ed.) (1983). Kunst und Kunstforschung. Beiträge zur Âsthethik. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Kocay
    • 1
  1. 1.St. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada

Personalised recommendations