Section ii. Introduction of art time terms
As mentioned above, the issue of the time of long novels was studied in soviet arts and arts in the 1920s, but the term “art time” did not appear for a long time. The term “art time” does not exist in those books, such as bachkin's books, where the term “factory time” is found in “time in novels”, “factory time”, “author time”. This is probably because they are looking at the timing of novels, rather than thinking about time as a separate theoretical issue. The russian formalists' analysis of the structure and circumstances of the work was quite early, and even the book of Šklovski, theory of literature (1925, 1959), did not appear. To the best of his knowledge, the term was most probably first found in the article by Д. C. Lihachev, " time in russian folklore works " , which was part of his report at the second international seminar on poetry, held in jacobo in september 1961. In this article he says:
“i intend to use this example as an example of the difference between the grammatical time and the time depicted, as this is also the case when folklore is interpreted below. The time depicted in the speech works cannot, at all levels, be grammatical. Moreover, grammar is not the most typical factor in creating artistic time.”
Despite the subsequent references to grammatical time, time depicted by the author, time of author, time of reader, time of performer, time of events, time of events, time of events, time of events, time of events (and the explanation that it is the time of events in the work itself), this is the only reference to artistic time. Later, in his book poetry of ancient russian literature, two chapters were devoted to the interpretation of ancient russian literature: “art time poetry” and “art space poetry”. They are also highly visible in terms of terminology. There is time for novels, for literature, for various art disciplines and for research. Here, h. Gai also introduced the term “poetry time” in the 1975 book artistic poetry style of literature. In my opinion, it's a term that can compete with art time. Because it is not limited to a narrow understanding of poetry, it distinguishes the time involved in literature and art from all other times. Later, however, the term “art time” became increasingly accepted in its scientific and highly general nature by the literary and artistic theoretic community, and the term “poetry time” was not popular。
In the 1970s, they were described and interpreted in many ways. The number of articles on art time research is numerous (and this is only a part of it referred to above). Only in 1978 did this term appear as an important phrase in the concise encyclopedia of literature. Even here, however, it is only a description of its characteristics that there is no clear definition. By 1986 (when the term has been in existence for more than 20 years), i saw a more comprehensive and concise definition of “art time” in cheretchenko's book, the type of time relationships in aphrodisiac:
Arts (literacy)
It is the time of aesthetic events (a) that is psychologically felt (attributed, accepted, imagined) in literary reality
It's the perceived time of literary events
It's an image time for literary events
It's the emotional time of literary events
In his view, a was broad and b was narrow and included three similar times. In my view, artistic time is the time of events in a broad picture, i. E., the time of events, and combines artistic time as a psychological, sensory, conceptual and emotional image. In this way, the subjective time, my time, the author's time, is combined (with) objective time, the circumstances, the time of the master, the time of the reader, etc. Therefore, we say that artistic time is not only the time of events, but also the time of visualization of the consciousness of the subject and of the reader. In terms of the nature of artistic time, it seems to me more like a humanized time of events in artistic works。
However, as can be seen from the above definition, the author equates artistic time with literary time only. That is not true. In my view, the time of art should also include other art subjects, such as drawings, music, plastic arts, etc., although they differ in some respects from literature, their essence is compatible with each other and they are conceptualized; other differences, in my view, are simply material differences. It is limited to literature and is too narrow. It is therefore quite difficult to give a precise definition of artistic time。
This nature of artistic time shows that it was created by the author, but that it did not exist outside the accepted subject and could be considered potential. The psychological mechanism of artistic time leads to some kind of distortion of its perception (sensorship). In this case, the recipient (reader) is able to propose a set of functional features for artistic time, which cannot be foreseen by the originator (author). These differences may also not be directly relevant in the time between the originator and the recipient, such as the acceptance of ancient works by modern readers and foreign works. The space between physical time is relatively large. But it cannot be said that the distinction is unlimited. Because the original meaning of the aesthetic message of the sender exists, and the inner meaning exists, that is to say, artistic time has historically been governed by a series of specific circumstances. On the one hand, it is the immutability of the psychological function of the sender and the recipient, and, on the other hand, when accepting it, our retroactivity is also constrained by historical processes at the time. In this respect, bahkin notes that the historical phenomena of the past cannot be modernized when we accept them. This is the understanding of the perceived time, image time and sensory time of literary events。
This is probably one of the results of a comprehensive system study of art time。
