3. Fiction. Conventionality and life-likeness
Fiction in the early stages of the development of art, as a rule, was not realized: the archaic consciousness did not distinguish between historical and artistic truth. But already in folk tales, which never present themselves as a mirror of reality, conscious fiction is quite clearly expressed. We find judgments about artistic fiction in Aristotle’s “Poetics” (chapter 9—the historian talks about what happened, the poet talks about the possible, about what could happen), as well as in the works of philosophers of the Hellenistic era.
For a number of centuries, fiction has appeared in literary works as a common property, as inherited by writers from their predecessors. Most often, these were traditional characters and plots, which were somehow transformed each time (this was the case (92), in particular, in the drama of the Renaissance and classicism, which widely used ancient and medieval plots).
Much more than was the case before, fiction manifested itself as the individual property of the author in the era of romanticism, when imagination and fantasy were recognized as the most important facet of human existence. "Fantasy<...>- wrote Jean-Paul, - there is something higher, she is world soul and the elemental spirit of the main forces (what are wit, insight, etc. - V.Kh.)<...>Fantasy is hieroglyphic alphabet nature" 1 . The cult of imagination characteristic of early XIX century, marked the emancipation of the individual, and in this sense constituted a positively significant cultural fact, but at the same time it also had negative consequences (artistic evidence of this is the appearance of Gogol’s Manilov, the fate of the hero of Dostoevsky’s “White Nights”).
In post-romantic eras fiction somewhat narrowed its scope. Flights of imagination writers XIX V. often preferred direct observation of life: characters and plots were close to their prototypes. According to N.S. Leskova, real writer- this is a “note-taker”, not an inventor: “Where a writer ceases to be a note-taker and becomes an inventor, all connection between him and society disappears” 2. Let us also recall Dostoevsky’s well-known judgment that a close eye is capable of detecting in the most ordinary fact “a depth that is not found in Shakespeare” 3 . Russian classic literature was more a literature of conjecture” than of fiction as such 4 . At the beginning of the 20th century. fiction was sometimes regarded as something outdated, rejected in the name of reconstruction real fact, documented. This extreme has been disputed 5 . The literature of our century - as before - relies widely on both fiction and non-fictional events and persons. At the same time, the rejection of fiction in the name of following the truth of the fact, in some cases justified and fruitful 6, can hardly become the main line of artistic creativity: without relying on fictional images, art and, in particular, literature are unrepresentable.
Through fiction, the author summarizes the facts of reality, embodies his view of the world, and demonstrates his creative energy. S. Freud argued that artistic fiction is associated with the unsatisfied drives and suppressed desires of the creator of the work and involuntarily expresses them 7 .
The concept of artistic fiction clarifies the boundaries (sometimes very vague) between works that claim to be art and documentary information. If documentary texts (verbal and visual) exclude the possibility of fiction from the outset, then works with the intention of perceiving them as fiction readily allow it (even in cases where the authors limit themselves to recreating actual facts, events, and persons). Messages in literary texts are, as it were, on the other side of truth and lies. At the same time, the phenomenon of artistry can also arise when perceiving a text created with a documentary mindset: “... for this it is enough to say that we are not interested in the truth of this story, that we read it “as if it were the fruit<...>writing" 1.
Forms of “primary” reality (which is again absent in “pure” documentary) are reproduced by the writer (and artist in general) selectively and in one way or another transformed, resulting in a phenomenon that D.S. Likhachev named internal the world of the work: “Every work of art reflects the world of reality in its creative perspectives<...>. World work of art reproduces reality in a certain “abbreviated”, conditional version<...>. Literature takes only some phenomena of reality and then conventionally reduces or expands them” 2.
At the same time, there are two trends in artistic imagery, which are designated by the terms convention(the author’s emphasis on non-identity, or even opposition, between what is depicted and the forms of reality) and lifelikeness(leveling such differences, creating the illusion of the identity of art and life). The distinction between convention and life-likeness is already present in the statements of Goethe (article “On truth and verisimilitude in art”) and Pushkin (notes on drama and its improbability). But the relationships between them were especially intensely discussed at turn of the 19th century– (94) XX centuries. L.N. carefully rejected everything implausible and exaggerated. Tolstoy in his article “On Shakespeare and His Drama.” For K.S. Stanislavsky's expression “conventionality” was almost synonymous with the words “falsehood” and “false pathos.” Such ideas are associated with an orientation towards the experience of the Russian realistic literature XIX century, the imagery of which was more life-like than conventional. On the other hand, many artists of the early 20th century. (for example, V.E. Meyerhold) preferred conventional forms, sometimes absolutizing their significance and rejecting life-likeness as something routine. Thus, in the article P.O. Jacobson "O artistic realism"(1921) conventional, deforming, and complicating devices for the reader are put on the shield (“to make it more difficult to guess”) and verisimilitude, identified with realism as the beginning of the inert and epigonic 3, is denied. Subsequently, in the 1930s – 1950s, on the contrary, life-like forms were canonized. They were considered the only acceptable ones for the literature of socialist realism, and convention was suspected of being related to odious formalism (rejected as bourgeois aesthetics). In the l960s, the rights of artistic convention were again recognized. Nowadays, the view has become stronger that life-likeness and conventionality are equal and fruitfully interacting tendencies artistic imagery: “like two wings on which creative imagination rests in a tireless thirst to find out the truth of life” 4.
At the early historical stages in art, forms of representation prevailed, which are now perceived as conventional. This is, firstly, generated by a public and solemn ritual idealizing hyperbole traditional high genres(epic, tragedy), the heroes of which manifested themselves in pathetic, theatrically effective words, poses, gestures and had exceptional appearance features that embodied their strength and power, beauty and charm. (Remember epic heroes or Gogol's Taras Bulba). And secondly, this grotesque, which was formed and strengthened as part of carnival celebrations, acting as a parody, laughter “double” of the solemn-pathetic one, and later acquired programmatic significance for the romantics 1 . It is customary to call the artistic transformation of life forms, leading to some kind of ugly incongruity, to the combination of incongruous things, grotesque. Grotesque in art is akin to paradox in (95) logic. MM. Bakhtin, who studied traditional grotesque imagery, considered it the embodiment of a festive and cheerful free thought: “The grotesque frees us from all forms of inhuman necessity that permeate the prevailing ideas about the world<...>debunks this necessity as relative and limited; grotesque form helps liberation<...>from walking truths, allows you to look at the world in a new way, feel<...>the possibility of a completely different world order” 2. In the art of the last two centuries, the grotesque, however, often loses its cheerfulness and expresses a total rejection of the world as chaotic, frightening, hostile (Goya and Hoffmann, Kafka and the theater of the absurd, to a large extent Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin).
Art initially contains life-like principles, which made themselves felt in the Bible, classical epics of antiquity, and Plato’s dialogues. In the art of modern times, life-likeness almost dominates (the most striking evidence of this is the realistic narrative prose of the 19th century, especially L.N. Tolstoy and A.P. Chekhov). It is essential for authors who show man in his diversity, and most importantly, who strive to bring what is depicted closer to the reader, to minimize the distance between the characters and the perceiving consciousness. However, in art of the 19th century–XX centuries conditional forms were activated (and at the same time updated). Nowadays this is not only traditional hyperbole and grotesque, but also all kinds of fantastic assumptions (“Kholstomer” by L.N. Tolstoy, “Pilgrimage to the Land of the East” by G. Hesse), demonstrative schematization of the depicted (plays by B. Brecht), exposure of the technique (“ Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin), effects of montage composition (unmotivated changes in place and time of action, sharp chronological “breaks”, etc.).
Artistic fiction in the early stages of the development of art, as a rule, was not recognized: archaic consciousness did not distinguish between historical and artistic truth. But already in folk tales, which never present themselves as a mirror of reality, conscious fiction is quite clearly expressed. We find judgments about artistic fiction in Aristotle’s “Poetics” (chapter 9 - the historian talks about what happened, the poet talks about the possible, about what could happen), as well as in the works of philosophers of the Hellenistic era.
For a number of centuries, fiction has appeared in literary works as a common property, as inherited by writers from their predecessors. Most often, these were traditional characters and plots, which were somehow transformed each time (this was the case, in particular, in the drama of the Renaissance and classicism, which widely used ancient and medieval plots).
Much more than was the case before, fiction manifested itself as the individual property of the author in the era of romanticism, when imagination and fantasy were recognized as the most important facet of human existence. "Fantasy<…>- wrote Jean-Paul, - there is something higher, it is the world soul and the elemental spirit of the main forces (such as wit, insight, etc. - V.Kh.)<…>Fantasy is the hieroglyphic alphabet of nature." The cult of imagination, characteristic of the beginning of the 19th century, marked the emancipation of the individual, and in this sense constituted a positively significant fact of culture, but at the same time it also had Negative consequences(artistic evidence of this is the appearance of Gogol’s Manilov, the fate of the hero of Dostoevsky’s “White Nights”).
In the post-romantic era, fiction somewhat narrowed its scope. Flights of imagination of writers of the 19th century. often preferred direct observation of life: characters and plots were close to their prototypes. According to N.S. Leskova, a real writer is a “note-taker,” and not an inventor: “Where a writer ceases to be a note-taker and becomes an inventor, all connection between him and society disappears.” Let us also recall Dostoevsky’s well-known judgment that a close eye is capable of detecting in the most ordinary fact “a depth that is not found in Shakespeare.” Russian classical literature was more a literature of conjecture than of fiction as such. At the beginning of the 20th century. fiction was sometimes regarded as something outdated and rejected in the name of recreating a real fact that was documented. This extreme has been disputed.
The literature of our century—as before—relies widely on both fiction and non-fictional events and persons. At the same time, the rejection of fiction in the name of following the truth of the fact, in some cases justified and fruitful, can hardly become the main road artistic creativity: Without relying on fictional images, art and, in particular, literature are unrepresentable.
Through fiction, the author summarizes the facts of reality, embodies his view of the world, and demonstrates his creative energy. Z. Freud argued that artistic fiction is associated with unsatisfied drives and suppressed desires of the creator of the work and involuntarily expresses them.
The concept of artistic fiction clarifies the boundaries (sometimes very vague) between works that claim to be art and documentary information. If documentary texts (verbal and visual) exclude the possibility of fiction from the outset, then works with the intention of perceiving them as fiction readily allow it (even in cases where the authors limit themselves to recreating actual facts, events, and persons). Messages in literary texts are, as it were, on the other side of truth and lies. At the same time, the phenomenon of artistry can also arise when perceiving a text created with a documentary mindset: “... for this it is enough to say that we are not interested in the truth of this story, that we read it “as if it were the fruit<…>writing."
Forms of “primary” reality (which is again absent in “pure” documentary) are reproduced by the writer (and artist in general) selectively and in one way or another transformed, resulting in a phenomenon that D.S. Likhachev named inner world works: “Each work of art reflects the world of reality in its creative perspectives<…>. The world of a work of art reproduces reality in a certain “abbreviated”, conditional version<…>. Literature takes only some phenomena of reality and then conventionally reduces or expands them.”
At the same time, there are two tendencies in artistic imagery, which are designated by the terms conventionality (the author’s emphasis on non-identity, or even opposition, between what is depicted and the forms of reality) and life-likeness (leveling such differences, creating the illusion of the identity of art and life). The distinction between conventionality and life-likeness is already present in the statements of Goethe (article “On truth and verisimilitude in art”) and Pushkin (notes on drama and its improbability). But the relationship between them was especially intensely discussed at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. L.N. carefully rejected everything implausible and exaggerated. Tolstoy in his article “On Shakespeare and His Drama.” For K.S. Stanislavsky's expression “conventionality” was almost synonymous with the words “falsehood” and “false pathos.”
Such ideas are associated with an orientation towards the experience of Russian realistic art. literature of the 19th century c., the imagery of which was more life-like than conventional. On the other hand, many artists of the early 20th century. (for example, V.E. Meyerhold) preferred conventional forms, sometimes absolutizing their significance and rejecting life-likeness as something routine. Thus, in the article P.O. Jacobson's “On Artistic Realism” (1921) emphasizes conventional, deforming, and difficult techniques for the reader (“to make it more difficult to guess”) and denies verisimilitude, which is identified with realism as the beginning of the inert and epigonic. Subsequently, in the 1930s - 1950s, on the contrary, life-like forms were canonized.
They were considered the only acceptable ones for literature socialist realism, and convention was under suspicion of being related to odious formalism (rejected as bourgeois aesthetics). In the l960s the rights were again recognized artistic convention. Nowadays, the view has become firmly established that life-likeness and conventionality are equal and fruitfully interacting tendencies of artistic imagery: “like two wings on which creative imagination rests in an indefatigable thirst to find out the truth of life.”
At the early historical stages in art, forms of representation prevailed, which are now perceived as conventional. This is, firstly, the idealizing hyperbole of traditional high genres (epic, tragedy), generated by a public and solemn ritual, the heroes of which manifested themselves in pathetic, theatrically effective words, poses, gestures and possessed exceptional appearance features that embodied their strength and power, beauty and charm. (Remember the epic heroes or Gogol’s Taras Bulba). And, secondly, this is the grotesque, which was formed and strengthened as part of carnival celebrations, acting as a parody, a laughing “double” of the solemnly pathetic, and later acquired programmatic significance for the romantics.
It is customary to call the artistic transformation of life forms, leading to some kind of ugly incongruity, to the combination of incongruous things, grotesque. Grotesque in art is akin to paradox in logic. MM. Bakhtin, who studied traditional grotesque imagery, considered it the embodiment of a festive and cheerful free thought: “The grotesque frees us from all forms of inhuman necessity that permeate the prevailing ideas about the world<…>debunks this necessity as relative and limited; grotesque form helps liberation<…>from walking truths, allows you to look at the world in a new way, feel<…>the possibility of a completely different world order.” In the art of the last two centuries, the grotesque, however, often loses its cheerfulness and expresses a total rejection of the world as chaotic, frightening, hostile (Goya and Hoffmann, Kafka and the theater of the absurd, to a large extent Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin).
Art initially contains life-like principles, which made themselves felt in the Bible, classical epics of antiquity, and Plato’s dialogues. In the art of modern times, life-likeness almost dominates (the most striking evidence of this is realistic narrative prose XIX c., especially L.N. Tolstoy and A.P. Chekhov). It is essential for authors who show man in his diversity, and most importantly, who strive to bring what is depicted closer to the reader, to minimize the distance between the characters and the perceiving consciousness.
However, in art XIX-XX centuries conditional forms were activated (and at the same time updated). Nowadays this is not only traditional hyperbole and grotesque, but also all kinds of fantastic assumptions (“Kholstomer” by L.N. Tolstoy, “Pilgrimage to the Land of the East” by G. Hesse), demonstrative schematization of the depicted (plays by B. Brecht), exposure of the technique (“ Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin), effects of montage composition (unmotivated changes in place and time of action, sharp chronological “breaks”, etc.).
V.E. Khalizev Theory of literature. 1999
The writer's goal is to understand and reproduce reality in its intense conflicts. The idea is the prototype of the future work; it contains the origins of the main elements of content, conflict, and structure of the image. The birth of an idea is one of the mysteries of the writing craft. Some writers find the themes of their works in newspaper columns, others - in famous literary subjects, others turn to their own everyday experience. The impulse to create a work can be a feeling, an experience, an insignificant fact of reality, a story heard by chance, which in the process of writing the work grows to a generalization. An idea can linger for a long time notebook as a humble observation.
The individual, the particular, observed by the author in life, in a book, passing through comparison, analysis, abstraction, synthesis, becomes a generalization of reality. Movement from idea to artistic embodiment includes the pangs of creativity, doubt and contradiction. Many word artists have left eloquent testimonies about the secrets of creativity.
It is difficult to build a conventional scheme for creating a literary work, since each writer is unique, but in this case, indicative trends are revealed. At the beginning of the work, the writer faces the problem of choosing the form of the work, decides whether to write in the first person, that is, prefer a subjective manner of presentation, or in the third, maintaining the illusion of objectivity and letting the facts speak for themselves. The writer can turn to the present, to the past or the future. The forms of understanding conflicts are varied - satire, philosophical understanding, pathetic, description.
Then there is the problem of organizing the material. Literary tradition offers many options: you can follow the natural (plot) course of events in presenting the facts; sometimes it is advisable to start from the ending, with the death of the main character, and study his life until his birth.
The author is faced with the need to determine the optimal boundaries of aesthetic and philosophical proportionality, entertainment and persuasiveness, which cannot be crossed in the interpretation of events, so as not to destroy the illusion of “reality” art world. L.N. Tolstoy stated: “Everyone knows the feeling of mistrust and rebuff that is caused by the apparent intentionality of the author. If the narrator says ahead: get ready to cry or laugh, and you probably won’t cry or laugh.”
Then the problem of choosing a genre, style, repertoire is revealed artistic means. One must seek, as Guy de Maupassant demanded, “that one word that can breathe life into dead facts, that single verb that alone can describe them.”
Special Aspect creative activity- her goals. There are many motives that writers used to explain their work. A.P. Chekhov saw the writer’s task not in searching for radical recommendations, but in “ correct positioning» questions: “In “Anna Karenina” and “Onegin” not a single question is resolved, but they are completely satisfying, only because all the questions are posed in them correctly. The court is obliged to pose the right questions, and let the jury decide, each to their own taste.”
Anyway, literary work expresses the author's attitude to reality , which becomes, to a certain extent, the initial assessment for the reader, the “plan” for subsequent life and artistic creativity.
The author's position reveals a critical attitude towards the environment, activating people's desire for an ideal, which, like absolute truth, is unattainable, but which needs to be approached. “It is in vain that others think,” reflects I. S. Turgenev, “that in order to enjoy art, one innate sense of beauty is enough; without understanding there is no complete pleasure; and the sense of beauty itself is also capable of gradually becoming clearer and ripening under the influence of preliminary work, reflection and study of great examples.”
Fiction - a form of recreation and re-creation of life inherent only in art in plots and images that do not have a direct correlation with reality; creation tool artistic images. Artistic fiction is a category important for differentiating the artistic itself (there is“attachment” to fiction) and documentary-informational (fiction is excluded) works. Measureartistic fiction in a work may be different, but it is a necessary component artistic image life.
Fantastic - this is one of the varieties fiction, in which ideas and images are based solely on the wonderful world imagined by the author, on the depiction of the strange and implausible. It is no coincidence that the poetics of the fantastic is associated with the doubling of the world, its division into the real and the imagined. Fantastic imagery is inherent in such folklore and literary genres, as a fairy tale, epic, allegory, legend, grotesque, utopia, satire.
5. Fiction in the image
The fact that in an image the typical is expressed through the individual leads to another feature characteristic of the image, which can be defined as artistic fiction.
Striving to express a generalization created by observations of many phenomena in any one individualized phenomenon, the artist must inevitably go beyond any given directly to him. fact of life, discarding certain moments in it, adding certain ones. It is clear, of course, that in practice the fact itself may turn out to be beyond the understanding of the artist and therefore its reflection will be incomplete - for example. This is still the problem of creating the image of Lenin in artistic literature - but in principle, the image is always broader, more generalized than the specific fact to which it corresponds in reality. Goethe said that in his “Selective Affinities” “there is not a single feature that has not been experienced, but at the same time, not a single feature is presented exactly in the form in which it was experienced.” In a number of cases, of course, O. may be close to one degree or another to some fact (for example, the closeness of many of L. Tolstoy’s characters to real historical figures, to his relatives, etc. is known: L. Tolstoy spoke about O . Natasha Rostova that he “took Tanya (T. Kuzminskaya, his wife’s sister), pushed her with Sonya (S.A. Tolstaya - his wife) and Natasha came out”), but nevertheless, fundamentally we are always dealing with that. the position that the O. of a work of art does not coincide with a real life fact; as an individual phenomenon, it is invented by the artist, created by him with the power of his creative imagination; his vitality, individuality is secondary, having gone through a complex path characteristic of human knowledge in general. But artistic fiction, the creation of a writer’s creative imagination, is not something divorced from real reality; in it we find a unique form of generalization, which necessarily follows from the unity of typification and individualization of life, which is inherent in the image as a specific feature of fiction. The very nature of fiction (down to its most distorted forms - mysticism, fantasticality, etc.) is determined by the real-class situation that determines the consciousness of the artist.
For an artist, it is important to depict this or that concrete, life fact not because of its immediate real meaning. this fact, but due to the fact that the demonstration of a specific, life fact is for him a form of a generalized disclosure of the life patterns that govern (in his opinion) facts of this kind. Aristotle’s remarks on this matter are interesting: “The poet’s task is to speak not about what actually happened, but about what could happen, therefore about what is possible by probability or by necessity. It is the historian and the poet... who differ in that the first speaks about what actually happened, and the second about what could have happened.” Developing this position, Lessing wittily noted that “the poet... historical event necessary not because it happened, but because it happened in such a way that he could hardly have thought of anything better for his purpose...” We can now establish as essential properties of the image its typifying meaning, its individualized form and, finally, necessity imagination, fiction.
6. Image and imagery; system of images.
As we see, O. expresses the artist’s idea about some phenomena of life, and the idea is given by reflecting the phenomenon in his individual form with the help of artistic fiction highlighting the most characteristic features typical for a given range of phenomena. Thus, M. Gorky in “Foma Gordeev” expressed his ideas about capitalism in the individual figure of Yakov Mayakin, created through artistic invention (i.e., by concentrating a number of properties of Russian capitalists, noted by M. Gorky, in the typical image of Yakov Mayakin) and which is typical. It is clear that phenomena in objective reality itself do not exist in isolation from each other; they are interconnected by a very complex system of connections and mutual transitions, forming increasingly complex phenomena, etc., etc. Therefore, the artist does not create a separate isolated image; reflecting the connection and interaction of phenomena, he creates a series of images, connected and intertwined with each other, reflecting the entire complex complex of phenomena inherent in a given side of reality and expressing his holistic attitude towards it (the main idea of the work). Therefore, speaking about the concept of “O.”, we to a certain extent abstract it from the specific fabric of a work of art, we designate with it the very type of the artist’s display of reality, which in fact is much more complex. Each individual image is fully revealed only in the entire holistic complex of images of this work, in the main idea expressed in them, organizing them.
The concept of "O." denotes the very type of reflection of life by the artist; in the practice of art itself we are dealing with more complex shapes this reflection. Artistic process(even in the most condensed lyric poem) creates not a separate image, but a work of art as a whole, that is, as a complex of images, as a system of them, united by a main idea. Therefore, terminologically it would be more correct to speak not about imagery as a specific art, but about imagery (this term is used in a narrower sense, denoting specific features artistic literary language, about which below) as a designation of the very type of this kind of ideological activity, as more broad concept, which also includes the fact that O. does not exist in isolation, but in a system, realizing the main idea of the writer. But in the work itself, we are, of course, dealing with a number of separate, individual images, reflecting certain aspects of life, which are the artist’s judgments about them. Analyzing the work, we establish which O. are included in it, what aspects of life are reflected in them, how they relate to each other, what holistic conclusion follows from the entire work about the side of life that is reflected in all the complexity of these O.
Along with the complexity of a work of art, in which an individual O. plays the role of only an element of the system, we can consider the O. itself as a complex construction that arises as a result of the writer combining a number of elements, as a structure. Thus, O. Eugene Onegin appears to us continuously throughout the entire narrative, acquiring more and more new signs that help us imagine Eugene Onegin as a specific, individual figure. Gogol characterized his work on the creation of O.: “Containing in my head all the major character traits, I will collect all the rags around him, down to the smallest pin... all those countless little things and details that say that the person taken really lived in the world.” In this regard, the structure of O. (historically very different in different works Gogol) differs significantly from the structure of the concept, where we are dealing, on the contrary, with the discarding of individual properties and details by highlighting only the general, the basic in them. Lenin emphasized that the law takes what is essential, settled in the phenomenon, and that in this sense, the phenomenon is richer than the law... Hence the differences in the structure of O. and the concept. However, the writer makes a selection of “countless little details and features,” highlighting only what can most clearly characterize the phenomenon. The writer, as it were, highlights the main links of this chain of properties that make up the image, leaving the reader to complement and complete the rest. This comes out especially clearly in lyrical poems, where the poet emphasizes only two or three strokes, but with such force that the experience he depicts appears with all concreteness. Chekhov speaks about this ability to most economically create the image of any phenomenon in Treplev’s famous monologue (“The Seagull”): “On his dam the neck of a broken bottle shines and the shadow of a mill wheel turns black - that’s Moonlight night I’m ready, but I have a flickering light, and the quiet twinkling of stars, and the distant sounds of a piano, fading in the quiet fragrant air... it’s painful.” This possibility of saving artistic means is explained in particular by the fact that the image is located in a system of other images, which complement the omitted details in their interaction, creating a holistic, individualized display of this side of life. Depending on the complexity of the structure of the image, we encounter very different types of it - from the most complex and detailed to the most compressed, primary elements of imagery. Whole line elements of a work of art in itself does not represent a complete figurative expression, but, entering the artistic system, it enriches it and acquires a figurative character. Thus, when drawing the O. of his character on the street, the writer does not strive to give the O. of the street, city, etc., but in connection with the whole nature of the narration in the work, a figurative depiction of the city, street, etc. appears. Thanks to this, we, despite the sharp difference between concepts and concepts in their most complete forms, we will encounter their close relationship; a writer can also operate with concepts, but, entering the system of images, as well as artistic narration, they acquire to a certain extent a figurative character; on the contrary, elements of figurative narration may appear in the system of concepts, individualizing this or that phenomenon, but it will no longer have an artistic character.
How the artist builds his image, what elements he highlights, in what sequence he places them, etc., depends, of course, on specific historical conditions, which determine both the nature of reality reflected by the artist and the quality of its subjective understanding. Therefore, the structure of romantic O. will be sharply different from the structure of realistic O., etc. And within the same style we will deal with structurally different O. both in connection with different genders (O. in lyric poetry and O. in epic), genres, and in connection with the individual nature of the writer’s creativity (for example, schematic O., etc.).