References
- See R. Ingarden, The Literary Work of Art, trans. G. C. Grabowicz (Evanston, Ill., 1973); and The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, trans. R. A. Crowley and K. R. Olson (Evanston, Ill., 1973). These books will be referred to hereafter in my paper as LW and CLW respectively.
- See B. Croce, Aesthetic, trans. D. Ainslie (New York, 1970), 100; M. Dufrenne, Le Poetique (Paris, 1973), 70–71; M. C. Beardsley, Aesthetics (New York, 1958) 116; J. O. Urmson, “Literature” in G. Dickie and R. J. Sclafani (eds.) (New York, 1977), 338.
- See R. Shusterman, “The Anomalous Nature of Literature”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 18 (1978), 317–329; “Aesthetic Blindness to Textual Visuality” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 41 (1982), 87–96. For a fuller exposition of my literary ontology, see R. Shusterman, The Object of Literary Criticism (Amsterdam, 1984), 78–109.
- See, for example, “Aesthetic Blindness to Textual Visuality”; and R. Draper, “Concrete Poetry”, New Literary History, 2 (1971), 329–40.
- To pursue these issues concerning type entities, see E. M. Zemach, “Four Ontologies”, Journal of Philosophy, 67 (1970), 231–247; J. Margolis, “The Ontological Peculiarity of Works of Art”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 36 (1977), 44–49; A. Harrison, “Works of Art and Other Cultural Objects”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 68 (1967). 108–124; and R. Wollheim, Art and its Objects (Harmondsworth, U.K., 1970), 90–100.
- J. Margolis, “On Disputes about the Ontological Status of a Work of Art”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 8 (1968), 150. For a detailed analysis of the logical interdependence of the issues of the work's identity, ontological status, interpretation, and evaluation, see R. Shusterman, “Four Problems in Aesthetics”, International Philosophical Quarterly, 22 (1982), 21–33.
- See R. Shusterman, “Osborne and Moore on Organic Unity”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 23 (1983), 352–359.
- See B. H. Smith, “Literature, as Performance, Fiction, and Art”, Journal of Philosophy, 67 (1970), 553–563; and Urmson, 338–340. For detailed criticism of these views of silent reading, see “The Anomalous Nature of Literature”.
- For Derrida on Husserl and the “phenomenological voice”, see J. Derrida, Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs, trans. D. B. Allison (Evanson, Ill., 1973), 15–16, 74–80.
- Ironically, one such way is discussed in D. M. Levin's “Foreword” to Ingarden's LW, with the example of the following sentence (from Nabakov's Ada) whose visual aspect is shown to be aesthetically significant in enriching complexities of meaning.
- “She looked back before locking her (always locked) door.” (LW, xli) Surprisingly, Levin does not comment on the dubious relevance of such inscriptional features according to Ingarden's theory.
- See, for example, D. M. Anderson, The Art of Written Forms (New York, 1969); W. Chappell, A Short History of the Printed Word (Boston, 1980); J. Sparrow, Visible Words: A Study of Inscriptions in and as Books and Works of Art (Cambridge, 1965). Other studies are cited in my “Aesthetic Blindness to Textual Visuality”.