Although both designed strata models for various kinds of art and especially for literature, the philosophers Nicolai Hartmann and Roman Ingarden never entered into any kind of dialogue. Also in secondary literature there is no exact comparison of their systems to be found.
For that reason, the two strata systems are compared here for the first time and their resp. advantages and deficiencies are being pointed out.
Amongst other things, the following topics are being discussed: 1. In what way Hartmann's "Real Foreground" ("Realer Vordergrund") is more specifically subdivided in Ingarden's system, 2. How, on the other hand, Ingarden's "Stratum of Depicted Objects" ("Schicht der dargestellten Gegenständlichkeiten") was more thoroughly subdivided by Hartmann, 3. Why there cannot be found in Hartmann's system a corresponding stratum for Ingarden's "Stratum of Schematized Aspects" ("Schicht der schematischen Ansichten") and 4. Why Hartmann's two strata of the "Irreal Background" ("Irrealer Hintergrund") are consolidated by Ingarden and expressly not seen as a stratum.
(In: Acta Humanistica XIX/3, Foreign Lang. and Lit. S. No. 17,June 1990, 64-82)
Table of Contents
1. The Main Differences Between Roman Ingarden’s and Nicolai Hartmann’s Strata Systems
2. The Stratification of the Literary Work of Art according to Roman Ingarden and Nicolai Hartmann
3. Schematized aspects in literary works
4. Subdivisions of the last two strata
Objectives and Topics
This work provides the first comparative analysis of the strata-models designed by philosophers Roman Ingarden and Nicolai Hartmann for the literary work of art, aiming to identify their commonalities, distinct differences, and the philosophical implications of their respective systemic structures.
- Comparison of the "Real Foreground" and "Stratum of Depicted Objects" in both models.
- Evaluation of Ingarden's "Stratum of Schematized Aspects" and its validity as an independent stratum.
- Analysis of Hartmann’s "Irreal Background" and its consolidation within Ingarden’s framework.
- Examination of the ontological basis versus the lowest stratum of literary works.
- Discussion of the creative function of strata-systems in modern art interpretation.
Excerpt from the book
The Stratification of the Literary Work of Art
Ingarden as well as Hartmann differentiate a really given foreground from an appearing background in depictive art. In a painting, the really given foreground would consist of the canvas and the color pigments on it. In sculpture, it would be stone, metal or some other matter. In music and literature it could be sounds or writing and print of notes and words, However, Ingarden takes issue with Hartmann occasionally designating the former as the "lowest stratum" of the work of art(5) In the last analysis, this seems to be merely a semantic quarrel, since Hartmann, as well as Ingarden, maintain that "depicted objects" (Ingarden) appear within or behind the "real foreground" (Hartmann) of the work of art (not in music, of course). We might also say that with respect to the appearing background the real foreground "becomes transparent." And without doubt the foreground determines all the background-strata.
Naturally, the "real foreground" (in a portrait, canvas and pigment) is heterogeneous with respect to the "irreal foreground" (in our example the depicted face), and the latter again heterogeneous with respect to the "irreal background" (e. g. the "idea" or "Weltanschaung" expressed in and through the depicted face). Since the former according to Hartmann represents the most concrete stratum of the work of art, or - according to Ingarden - constitutes its "ontic basis" ("ontisches Fundament"), it cannot determine the formation of a still "lower" or more concrete stratum. Similarly, Hartmann's "irreal background" (“irrealer Hintergrund"), which corresponds to Ingarden's "metaphysical qualities" ("metaphysische Qualitäten") does not "support" a further stratum, simply because it is the last one.
Summary of Chapters
1. The Main Differences Between Roman Ingarden’s and Nicolai Hartmann’s Strata Systems: An introductory overview stating that while both philosophers developed contemporaneous strata-models, they never engaged in a direct dialogue, necessitating this comparative study of their respective advantages and deficiencies.
2. The Stratification of the Literary Work of Art according to Roman Ingarden and Nicolai Hartmann: This section details the specific ontological dependencies of abstract strata upon concrete ones, illustrating how the foreground determines the appearance of the background.
3. Schematized aspects in literary works: A critical examination of Ingarden’s postulation of "schematized aspects" as a unique stratum, arguing that this concept is problematic and redundant given the intentional character of all art strata.
4. Subdivisions of the last two strata: This chapter analyzes Hartmann’s more flexible approach to strata compared to Ingarden’s stricter requirements, concluding with a discussion on the creative function of applying such spatial models to interpret works of art.
Keywords
Strata-theory, Roman Ingarden, Nicolai Hartmann, literary work of art, Real Foreground, ontic basis, Irreal Background, schematized aspects, ontological aesthetics, intentional objects, spots of indeterminacy, artistic structure, strata-sequence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this publication?
This work offers the first systematic comparison between the aesthetic strata-models of Roman Ingarden and Nicolai Hartmann, highlighting how each philosopher structured the components of literary and depictive works of art.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The text focuses on the stratification of artworks, the distinction between the "ontic basis" and the "lowest stratum," the role of the "Real Foreground," and the philosophical validity of "schematized aspects."
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to point out the advantages and deficiencies of both systems and to clarify how these models function as frameworks for ordering and understanding the complex structure of aesthetic objects.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author employs a comparative philosophical analysis, scrutinizing the primary texts of both philosophers and evaluating their definitions against one another to resolve semantic and ontological inconsistencies.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body examines the specific strata of both authors, the "categorical laws" of strata, the distinction between matter and material, and the role of the perceiver in completing the "spots of indeterminacy" within an artwork.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include strata-theory, ontic basis, intentionality, Real Foreground, Irreal Background, and aesthetic completion.
Why does the author critique Ingarden’s concept of "schematized aspects"?
The author argues that Ingarden's "schematized aspects" do not function as a coherent, independent stratum, as all strata of a work of art are inherently schematized and rely on the viewer's active reception.
How does Hartmann’s model differ in its flexibility?
Hartmann avoids a dogmatic application of his strata-model, viewing it as a general principle rather than a rigid structure, which allows for a more versatile description of various genres and individual works of art.
What is the significance of the "ontic basis" in this theory?
The "ontic basis" (such as sound, color, or stone) makes the existence of the artwork possible, but it is distinct from the formal strata that constitute the aesthetic experience and meaning of the work.
- Quote paper
- Dr. Wolfgang Ruttkowski (Author), 1990, The main differences between Roman Ingarden’s and Nicolai Hartmann’s strata-systems, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/81090
