THE DEFINITION OF THE ART WORK: ONTOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Marina Morari1 n acest aticol, pe baza dezvoltrilor teoretice se definete opera de art din perspectiv ontologic i se identific calitile/nsuirile date operei de art: ca proces i produs spiritual, unitar i multiplu. Opera de art este rezultatul mai multor variabile, care decurg din: tipul de gndire, modul de aciune, complexitatea personalitii artistice, interaciunea subiectului cu mediul cultural i societatea. Opera de art se propune experienei artistice, la captul creia se constituie obiectul estetic purttor de valori. Cuvinte cheie: opera de art, principii de organizare a operei de art, experien estetic Based on the theoretical developments, the article hereb defines the art !or" from the ontological perspective and identifies the #ualities/features given to the art !or": as spiritual, unitar and simple process and product. $he art !or" is the result of man variables, resulting from: the t pe of thin"ing, the !a of action, the complexit of the artistic personalit , the interaction of the sub%ect !ith the cultural environment and the societ . $he art !or" is proposed to the artistic experience, t the edge of !hich the aesthetic ob%ect is constituted as value carrier. Key Words: the !or" of art, principles of organizing the art !or", aesthetic experience

Art is a dimension by which the establishment of the man in the society is taking shape in a totally specific way. The work of art is the mans most determined modality of expression. From Parmenide and Aristotel to Hegel and Heidegger the important landmarks of the identity interpretation of the art work are b!lleted. "ignificant contrib!tions keeping to a great extent their topicality ha#e been bro!ght by the $omanian philosophical schools% &!cian 'laga T!dor (ian! )onstantin *oica. 'y means of arts the person transforms the o!ter and the inner world as +ob,ect of his spirit!al conscience- in which as ../. Hegel notes recogni0es own ego and looks at it from the eternity perspecti#e 12 p. 234. $eferring to the essence of art ../. Hegel in a metaphysical light remarks the idea according to which the artistic creation does not p!rchase anymore the spirit!al satisfactions expected from it by the other5cent!ry people 1idem p.134. 6n the opinion of the same thinker 7the work of art is not a prod!ct of nat!re b!t it is reali0ed by the h!man acti#ity- +is essentially done for the man and namely it is more or less taken from what is sensiti#e for his senses-8 +anyway b!t the work of art is not only for the sensiti#e perception as sensiti#e ob,ect b!t its state is in s!ch a way that being something sensiti#e it is at the same time something essential for the spirit- 1ibidem p. 21 914. The work of art is the prod!ct created in the acti#ity of creation which constit!tes the starting point of the +creation- and the +creator-. As M.
1

Associate Professor :octor of Pedagogy -Alec! $!sso- "tate ;ni#ersity 'alti $ep!blic of Moldo#a mmmorari<gmail.com

Heidegger states the origin of the work of art is art% +The artist and the work are, each in itself and in their correlation thro!gh a third term which indeed is the first one as well namely thro!gh the something from which the artist and the work of art take their names% thro!gh art- 19 p. 134. 6n other words none of these terms can exist one witho!t the other. +Art is nothing else that a word to which nothing real belongs anymore- 1idem4. As a way of being the work of art is an ob,ect +something made- according to M. Heideggers expression with lots of attrib!tes and determinations thro!gh which it differentiates from any other type of work at the same time marking its identity. The origin of the work of art sho!ld be searched in the origin of its essence +the work is born from and thro!gh the acti#ity of the artist- 194. &ooking for an answer to the =!estions% what is and how exactly is a work of art where and how does the art exist M. Heidegger thinks that the essence of art cannot be ac=!ired by a comparati#e research of the existing works of art b!t by determining the direct and f!ll reality of the work of art. '!t by comparing the work of art with a thing M. Heidegger clearly reaches two ideas 19 p. 9>4% 1. The means by which the work of art catches the reality are entirely special they seem +both ade=!ate-8 ?. The something which constit!tes the content of the art work does not belong to the work itself as the artist transposes into its str!ct!re +the way he concei#es the work-. From here the work incl!des +the opening for the establishment of being- 19 p. 994. The word opening necessarily corresponds to the being in the Heideggerian meaning and the discover necessarily belongs to the establishment. The being opens as soon as the establishment is disco#ered. For a reality to be disco#ered by the man it sho!ld obligatorily enter in the field of the h!man being opening. A person which disco#ers one thing@a work is the one that attracts the work@creation in the opening field of own being and in s!ch a way absorbing him in his own field of interest he confers a being to the thing Anamely a meaning a #al!eB which it is ac=!iring only now. As a constit!ent of the work of art the artistic comes as something else to which art is in beside work. The opera is a symbol. The general representation in the perspecti#e of which the art work characteri0ing is mo#ing for a long time are the allegor and the s mbol. These characteristics of the work are a kind of s!pport in the work of art and this is what indeed co!nts. +The work of art opens in a specific way the establishment of the being- the artist of the work tho!gh is the one to 7sacrifice himself-. 6n relation to the opera the artist is an indifferent element C one point which destroys itself while creating letting the creation pass onto the foregro!nd. The work of art ex-poses Aist &ufstellendB a world +by rising in itself the work opens a world and keeps it in a permanent so#ereignty- 19 p. >?4. The world which M. Heidegger speaks abo!t is the content of the image of the works of art which may become an + opening- for the art recei#er +a necessity of closeness- +a directing to high-. 6n the process of making A'erstellungB the work is prod!ced for this or that material d!e to fact that the nat!re of the opera implies the character of pro-posal itself Aist

'erstellendB. 6t means that the essence of the work refers to two feat!res making a common body% the pro(posal of a material and ex(posure of a world. The work of art contains the tr!th occ!rrence M. Heidegger says. Th!s the wor !e"o#$%& o' the wor is one of the ways for the tr!th to become and occ!r. P!tting the tr!th into the creation means +p!t on mo#e and make the nat!re of the work appears- 19 p. DE4. M. Heideggers point of #iew is also rele#ant according to which not the work creation only b!t also +its storage and confirmation- are both important. The phrase +confirming storage- in M. Heideggers concept 19 p. F14 probably designates the act of recei#ing the work of art a kind of foundation with three meanings% as offering a gift A)chen"enB as fo!ndation A*r+ndenB as beginning A&nfangen,. $he gift and foundation incl!de immediacy which M. Heidegger calls beginning. The role of art being !nderlined by the fact that as many times as art occ!rs +when a beginning starts History knows an imp!lse History starts or re#i#es-. The word +Historyhere does not represent a series of e#ents occ!rring in time b!t it identifies itself with a nation that +happens by ins!ring themsel#es into what they ha#e been conferred- 19 p. F24. M. Heidegger states that a meditati#e acknowledgement Ait prepares the space for the work the path for the creators their own place for the keepers5confirmersB indispensable to art it may reali0e by a raise only leis!rely and they may decide whether art can be an originating %ump and after that become a predictive %ump or maybe it sho!ld come in the end so that it accompanies !s as a simple phenomenon belonging to c!lt!re. The tr!ly #al!able art M. Heidegger is saying by which it represents in itself and its essence has been estranged from the man sei0ed to f!lfill its d!ties in the mans existence. 19 p. 1GD4. The philosopher considers that the art can be !nderstood not only as expression of the bea!ty in itself or of the li#ing b!t it m!st be looked at as a tr!th expression of the being. )onse=!ently art can be in#estigated as an aesthetic fact and artistic phenomenon at the intersection of the aesthetics with arts and #al!e philosophy. The gro!nds of the theoretical de#elopments from the book $he Origin of the &rt -or" by M. Heidegger which 6 synthesi0ed more concisely abo#e e#en today keeps its power to express meanings in forms addressing o!r sensiti#eness and constit!tes the f!ndamental meaning in which the work of art re#eals its hidden. 6n another order of ideas T!dor (ian! re#eals the work of art as a n!cle!s of its aesthetic system o!tlining the work of art regarded in it the process of its prod!ction and reception. 6n essence +the artistic creation is in fact intentional. 6t awaringly heads towards the prod!ction of the work- 111 p. ?134 of an entirely new world against what we ha#e in the nat!ral and existential premises in general. The work of art is the res!lt of a procession +a special way of organi0ing the material and composition of the conscience data-. 6n the opera research we sho!ld differentiate between the processed material and the act of organi0ation.

Hne of the ideas most characteristic to T. (ian! is that +the material- of arts is not !nexpressi#e b!t +lit and percei#ed by the significance of certain #al!es- the origin of which is +in the artists so!l in its way of !nderstanding and experiencing the world and life-% the feelings of the artist are not simple acc!m!lations of facts and images they are also their appreciation and selection as +prior to being an artist the art creator is a man able to express the world in a personal way and each of his experiences has a moral or political theoretical or religio!s meaning- 111 p. ?294. :ifferent +#al!es interlaced in its !nity- Aof the workB the hierarchical str!ct!re representing +s!bs!mption of m!ltiple #al!es !nder the large category of the aesthetic #al!e- C finally contrib!tes to ac=!iring + spirit!al depth-. +The work has its own life- not beca!se + it is g!ided by a goal chosen by the creator- g!idance which is possible namely beca!se the #al!e is +another attrib!te characteristic to the work- 111 p. >?1 >?F4. A notable contrib!tion constit!tes the comprehensi#e definition gi#en to the work of art by T. (ian! being #ery general it can be applied to all the arts% art $s a wa( o' or&a%$)$%& the #ater$al a%* *ata o' the "o%s"$e%"e 111 p. 1234. The work of art !nderstood as a whole a final and perfect cosmos to or from which yo! cannot add or take anything T. (ian! recogni0es an eternal existence of the work of art ins!red by its aesthetic feat!re. This feat!re gi#es the work the power to chronologically transgress time and establish itself in the time as s!ch !nderstood as a form of the !ni#ersality by which Platon called +the aion pict!re- meaning thro!gh eternity. At the same time the wor o' art $s *$re"tl( relate* to the e%t$re so"$et(+ !( $ts extraasthet$" ,al-es which it s!ms !p and s!pposes to its !nity. The extraaesthetic content itself gi#es expressi#eness to art and makes it participati#e in the dynamism of the historic life and excises a great force of infl!ence on the society. As pr$%"$ples o' or&a%$)at$o% o' the wor o' art according to T. (ian! are well recogni0ed 111 p.1234% aB Isolat$o%. The first constit!ent moment of the work of art isolation C flows from characteri0ing the aesthetic #al!e as a goal in itself and allows the isolation of the work from the complex of phenomena compiling the field of practical experiences. The isolation modalities #ary each time. Th!s the silence preceding the beginning of a m!sical creation or of a theatre representation works in these arts as an isolation framework. The silence preceding the m!sic is not only a psychological condition for its good reception b!t also an aesthetic constit!ent moment. That which is represented by the silence and darkness in m!sic is the framework in painting. There is no work of art which by its way of representation does not display its feat!re of being isolated against the rest of the reality. bB Or*er$%&. For a conscience which is not g!ided either by the scientific discipline or by the art the impressions penetrate in it in a completely cas!al manner. The world icon can be p!t in order b!t !nlike science art does not need

to sacrifice its sensiti#e =!alities. /e may say +art remains in all circ!mstances the world ordering as an image-. cB Clar$'$"at$o%. /hile knowing the world we can disting!ish a percepti#e and a normati#e content its aspect and significance. )larification as an art constit!ent moment for its works does not in#ol#e the obligati#ity to represent clear creations only meaning well o!tlined and well lit. 6n painting for example the representation of the chiarosc!ro comes off from s!ggested elements in m!sic and poetry the states of spirit are expressed with no well determined shape. dB I*eal$)at$o%. 'y the operation of isolation ordinance and clarification the piece of material or the gro!p of facts of the conscience processed by the artist may ac=!ire an ideal feat!re which compiles the fo!rth constit!ent moment of the art work. The art work may be considered independent of the conscience it reflects to be able to determine this way the pec!liarities of its ob,ecti#e str!ct!re. Art always remains correlated with the h!man spirit. 'eing a way of appearing it is a way of appearance for the h!man science. The pec!liarities of its str!ct!re are constantly adapted to the conscience f!nctions. 6solated from amidst the world not conditioned by that simple appearance we sho!ld admit its ideal feat!re. )onse=!ently merging the axiological point of #iew AT. (ian!B with the !nderstanding of the work in the ontological perspecti#e brings !ndo!btedly an increase of clarity and st!dy in the field of o!r topic of research !sef!l in tackling the artistic phenomenon in ed!cation. A different position is taken by the direction of .eorg &!kIcs who b!ilds the ontology of the work foc!sing on the meaning of the creating s!b,ecti#ity. The merits of .. &!kIcs lie in the elaboration of the re'le"t$o% "o%"ept and its !ltimate application $% the st-*( o' the art wor . +J#en we cannot indicate in principle any determined ob,ect in the existing world in itself able to be +imitated- by a determined ob,ect in an art work it certainly doesnt mean cancellation of its character of reflecting the reality- 1E p.?324. As +the art work nat!rally and primarily constit!tes for !s C !s in the aesthetic reflection not for !s C which directly meets the important characteristics of the self- 1E p. ?3E4. The exemplarity of the work is obser#ed by .. &!kIcs thro!gh the fact that it is not a copy based on the specific of the creation% the connection between +existence and perfection- b!t also +,!st of a determined way of performance1E p. ?D1 ?D?4. Against + all the other ob,ectifications- the art creation is +the being for itself- which res!lts into +a direct action of the s!b,ectification on the whole and an all the parts of the art work- as +the existence for itself- it +is +a world- a kind of ob,ecti#e self which stands in front of the recepti#e ones AKB in a gro!nded need- 1E p. ?D94. Thro!gh these #ery significances the work appears as a +s!preme way the richest and most !nfolded of display of the h!man s!b,ecti#ity. 6ts power of making the s!b,ecti#ity reach the people in expression towards flo!rishing is limitless in itself. '!t this power is of an

ob,ectification one of p!tting of the new conception and in no case of a s!b,ectL 1E p. ?D>4. 6n search of a definition of the art work $oger Pro!#et settled three conditions 11G p.1G4% 1. $he .onditions of the /ntelligibilit when the definition is comprehensible witho!t the mediation of an art theory8 ?. $he .ondition of 0eutralit when the definition does not constit!te a preliminary ,!dgment of #al!es Aartistic@aestheticB8 2. $he .ondition of 1niversalit when the definition is applied to the ma,ority of the things we call art creations. Preocc!pied by finding a definition reported to the abo#e mentioned conditions $. Pro!#et identifies the extrinsic and relational feat!res in the art creation classifying all the attempts of defining the art work in more gro!ps 1idem pp. 925E24% 1. :efinitions by representations form or expression Athe theory of the creation as representation C Platon8 the theory of the arts expressi#eness C $obin .eorge )ollinwoodB8 ?. The definition thro!gh the aesthetic experience AMonroe 'eardsley *oel )arrollB8 2. The proced!ral and instit!tional definition Athe instit!tional theory of the art 5 .eorge :ickie Arth!r :antoB8 9. The historic and intentional definition AMerrold &e#insonB8 >. The f!nctional and s!bstantial definition AAristotel *elson .oodman $oger Pro!#etB. E. The definition as an art fact!al s!bstance A.erard .enette :a#id Amstrong A. :enkenB. 6mposing as a methodological filter the intelligibility ne!trality and !ni#ersality $. Pro!#et describes analy0es and tests the main definitions of the art work in circ!lation% some of them en#oking extrinsic and relational properties definitions by representation form or expression definitions in terms of aesthetic experience others incl!ded in procedural historic and intentional arg!ments. To come to a reasonable definition $. Pro!#et considers that we sho!ld o#ercome three diffic!lties re=!iring a#oiding eliminating the role of the context and dissol#e the ontology of the art work !se the concept of the art work within e#al!ating terms8 not to excl!de the ob,ects and e#ents from the category which we call art. Almost all the works of $. Po!i#et are characteri0ed by two ass!mptions% 1B +no aesthetics exists witho!t ontology- and ?B any aesthetics sends towards a certain metaphysical position. The tentati#e to define the art work relates to the specific of a strictly philosophical enterprise. The ontological problems regard the way of existence of the art works or the meaning of their +nat!re-. $. Po!i#et in#okes +the manner of being- or the +way of existence- A+the way of f!nctioning- or + specific f!nctioning-B in order to characteri0e that which makes the art work be taken as s!ch 11G4. There are two s!ppositions common almost to all the creations of $. Pro!i#et% 1B +there is no aesthetics witho!t ontology- and ?B any aesthetic sends to a certain metaphysical position. The

tentati#e to define the art work refers to the specific of an enterprise strictly philosophical. The definition is determining the significance or the concept!al content of a term or expression A+/hat is ArtsN-B. 6t can be implied real nominal con#entional ostensi#e context!al nominal rec!rsi#e stip!lation pers!asi#e ... Hften tho!gh the definitions are #ag!e partial or obsc!re. They do not necessarily express themsel#es !pon the ontological stat!te of a thing A+what does a work of art consist inN-B. 6n an almost scholastic manner $.Pro!#et states that the +art creation is an art fact!al s!bstance the aesthetic f!nctioning of which determines its specific nat!re- 11G p. 3>4. /e s!pport the #ision of Petr! 'e,an 114 according to whom this definition does not answer the !ni#ersal exigence as it lea#es o!tside the artistic experience where the message is important not its +creation- =!ality. .regory )!rrie mentioned that what we lack is not information for !nderstanding and e#al!ating the work b!t the elements from which the art work is constit!ted 1Ap!d% 1G p. 11F4% the process AHB thro!gh which an artist reached the discover A:B of a certain str!ct!re A"B at a certain moment AtB all of these forming a type of action or e#ent. The form!la s!ggested by .. )!rrie 5 1x " H D O4 the artistic creation as an event(t pe is the ensemble of these elements. This form!las is inspired from the theor( o' e,e%ts proposed by Maegwon Pim thro!gh which is reali0ed the passing from the concept of the creation as an ob,ect to the concept of the creation as an e#ent. 6n this respect the creation is the creating acti#ity as a property of the artist reali0ation of the artist disco#ering something the art creation cannot be translated excl!si#ely in e#ent terms as .. )!rrie arg!es. /e sho!ld remember the obser#ation of (. Morar 1D p.1F24 according to which the art works besides the s!bstit!ted format of words so!nds mo#ements lines #ol!mes colors etc. we find a meaning we cannot s!bordinate to a concept or to a link of precise concepts a richer meaning and which contin!o!sly o#erflowing the concept pro#okes the limitless work of the meaning reestablishment. "o the artistic symbol is limited. The artistic originality is not only imm!table b!t also limitlessly symbolic. /e can say that the work is the finalist prod!ct endowed with #al!e of a moral creator who !sing material and integrating m!ltiplicity introd!ced in reality a =!alitati#ely new ob,ect. This =!alitati#ely new ob,ect is original and symbolic in case of the works of philosophy and science. 6t is imm!tably original and limitless symbolically in case of the works of art. Along with the appearance of the post5modern art they stress the interest for the reform!lation of the working definition of the art creation. The postmodern thinking is characteri0ed according to Mean5FranQois &yotard 134 by a #i#id homology with the modern art seen as a#angarde of the transformations in society and thinking. More than that as arts in general may be considered an -elementary school of the pl!rality7 A/elschB the aesthetic paradigm becomes the model according to which they reflect general

philosophical orientations Afor example post5heideggerian and post5gadamerian hermene!ticsB and c!rrents coming from the science like the constr!cti#ist thinking which some place in parallel with the postmodern thinking. 6n this order of ideas we sho!ld mention the #ision of MRdRlina :iacon! 1? p. E24 thro!gh which they refer to the reasons that led to re#ising the definition of the art work from the perspecti#e of the modern arts. Th!s for example the contemporary plastic arts gi#es an extremely large field of #erification Amore of infirmationB of the !s!al beliefs abo!t the identity and !nity of the art work as it is destroyed by a collage and by the proced!re of the collecti#e creation8 the creation is not working anymore it becomes an e#ent or a lifestyle 5 -the sc!lpt!re of itself7 planned by Michel Hnfray following Fo!ca!ltB if it does not remain a simple mental pro,ect8 also they c!lti#ate the conf!sion often calc!lated between nat!re and artifacts. Art $s w$th*raw$%& 'ro# a% o!/e"t-pro*-"$%& a"t$,$t( $%to a p-rel( sp$r$t-al o%e as the re#erie and meditation following amongst other things the correlation of the artistic practice with the existence of the artist. Th!s they consider that art sho!ld become a goal in itself a tool of the existential f!lfillment first of all of the artist and then e#ent!ally of the recei#er. "he sho!ld reconcile the man and nat!re from which he broke !p by his scientific mentality and techni=!e and to re5teach him the -li#ing7 to help him find the feeling of intimacy with the world. Hther artists !se the art as an experience of disco#ering the otherness of the ob,ects which can be interpreted either positi#ely as reco#ery of a meaning of the +wonderf!l7 and of the +mirac!lo!s7 or negati#ely as expression of the alienation. "o starting from the tra%s'or#at$o%s o' the art wor "o%"ept in the a#ang!arde mo#ements Adissol!tion of the work !nity of the a!thor in collages !sing as creating agent of the ha0ard in dadaism or of the inconscientio!s in s!prarealismB passing from happening and thro!gh those trials where the recei#er acti#ely contrib!tes to the production of the work Aof the str!ct!re or of its config!rationB and ending with the radical experiments like the concept!al art and 2and &rt or with the most recent of the digiti0ation C all these contest the concept of creation. 6n contemporary art the creation is !nderstood on one hand as a proposal that can be accepted changed or e#en declined by contemplators in their position of participants to the -co5creation7 art being transformed in an action essentially social and comm!nicational 1? p. EF4. Hn another hand it falls into the opposite side by absol!ti0ing the creation into its reic character and we speak instead of +art work7 by )t+c" or 3i4ce. Hther pr!dently ad#ance #ag!e sol!tions of the type that this concept that became problematic sho!ld be limited extended or eliminated. 6n other words we sho!ld choose between limiting it by !sing it only for the J!ropean art between $enaissance and the second half of the S6Sth cent!ry and !se it in a #ery broad meaning Aand at least apparently neb!lo!sB as +e#erything that refers to history and the present

of any c!lt!reT and which is displayed in m!se!ms and exhibitions or is st!died in sciences78 finally it co!ld be eliminated when they describe the contemporary art 1? p. 1D34. 6n the speciali0ed literat!re we cannot find appreciations regarding the need of s!ch radical sol!tions. Probably the c!rrent transformations in the art field regard the concept of the art creation in general b!t as a one of its #ariants. As 6 ha#e mentioned the "o%testat$o% o' the theoret$"al pr$#a"( o' the art wor comes today especially from the plastic arts. The fact can act!ally be explained as most of aesthetics so far applied an ontological model from the field of the plastic arts and calked in its t!rn by the work paradigm. Th!s the art work is considered a physical ob,ect endowed with the aesthetic #al!e obtained by processing a material of creati#e spirit!ality called artist. He had an ideal content b!t a material shape the two aspects being indissol!bly linked. This is where the importance of the theory of the symbol for aesthetics comes from as the symbol was the nod!le linking two worlds that of the spirit and the material. '!t the work has a closed !nity that of the s!bstance8 the fact that it enters the b!dding and that its accidents #ary in time does not hinder it from keeping to a constant and contin!ity in other words a static identity. "o the tra*$t$o%al *es$&% o' the art "reat$o% lea#es from certain ontology based on a determined !nderstanding of the identity. The latter is characteristic to the common sense and that is why it roots deep in o!r c!rrent way of tackling any ob,ect of the knowledge or action being defined as% nat!ral process contin!ed on the spirit!ality plan A.. "UaillesB delirio!s act e#en insane or mystical imp!lse of the :i#inity APlatonB sensiti#e expression of the Absol!te 6dea A.. HegelB spirit!al prelogical and immoral acti#ity A'. )roceB p!re re#elation AA. 'rUmondB s!blimated compensation or manifestation of the instinct!al discharge A". Fre!dB a pathological prod!ct A). &ombrosoB or of the a!tomatic dictation AA. 'rUtonB free act random or simple game AP. .rossB expression of the harmonio!s and s!perior synthesis of the #ital a#ailabilities AM. M. .!ya!B the art fact!al s!bstance the aesthetic f!nctionality of which determines its specific nat!re ha#ing a relation between the non5aesthetic properties and the aesthetic properties which co5#ary A$. Pro!#etB. The aestheticians see in these transformations a radically new beginning in the arts history as they p!t !nder =!estion a f!ndamental concept of the arts theory so far C the art creation. As a sol!tion they s!ggest that the aesthetics takes as an ob,ect the aesthet$" exper$e%"e not the "reat$o%. 6n this meaning the work the process of creation@the artistic act and the personality of an artist@receptor of

arts are coherent and parties of a !nitary whole like a li#e being C expressions of an indi#id!ali0ed way of thinking of reporting to c!lt!re society the historic e#ol!tion of the artistic phenomenon. 0$!l$o&raph$"al Re'ere%"es: 1. 'e,an P. A?G1GB $e5definiri ale artei. Vn% )on#orbiri literare. An. 199 *r. 11 p. 1D151D2. ?. :iacon! M. A?GG1B Hntologia operei de artR Wn l!mina principi!l!i identitRii Jdit!ra )artier '!c!reti. 2. Hegel ../. A1FEEB Prelegeri de esteticR #ol. 6 Jdit!ra Academiei '!c!reti. 9. Heidegger M. A?G11B Hriginea operei de artR H!manitas '!c!reti. >. Pelly M.A?GGGB A Philosophy of Mass Art. 6n% Philosophy and Phenomenological $esearch @@ (ol!me E1 6ss!e ? "eptember ?GGG p. 9D15 9D> E. &!kIcs .. A1F39B Jstetica. (ol!m!l 66 Jdit!ra Meridiane '!c!reXti. 3. &yotard M.5F. A1FDDB &inh!main. )a!series s!r le temps Yditions .alilUe Paris. D. Morar (. A?GG2B Jstetica% interpretRri Xi texte. Jd. ;ni#ersitRZii '!c!reti. F. Perrone P.A?GG9B /hat 6s ArtN 6n% [!estions% Philosophy for \o!ng People@@(ol. 9 "!mmer p. 151E 1G.Pro!#et $. A?GGFB )e este o operR de artRN Jdit!ra F!nda iei AS6S '!c!reti. 11.(ian! T. A?G1GB Jstetica Jdit!ra Hri0ont!ri '!c!reti.