Even at first glance, it is clear that the artwork consists of certain aspects, elements, aspects, etc. In other words, it has a complex internal composition. At the same time, individual parts of the work are connected and united with each other so closely that it gives a reason to assimilate the work metaphorically to a living organism. The composition of a work is thus characterized not only by complexity, but also by order. Artwork is a complex whole; from the realization of this obvious fact, it is necessary to know the internal structure of the work, that is, to isolate its individual components and to realize the connections between them. The rejection of such an attitude inevitably leads to empiricism and the lack of evidence of judgments about the work,
In modern literary criticism, there are two main trends in establishing the structure of a work. The first is based on the selection in the product of a number of layers, or levels, just as in linguistics in a separate
utterance one can distinguish a level of phonetic, morphological, lexical, syntactic. At the same time, different researchers unequally imagine both the set of levels and the nature of their relationships. Thus, M. M. Bakhtin sees in the work primarily two levels – “plot” and “plot”, depicted the world and the world of the image itself, the author’s reality and the reality of the hero *. M. M. Hirschman offers a more complex, basically three-level structure: rhythm, plot, hero; in addition, “vertically” these levels permeate the subject-object organization of the work, which ultimately does not create a linear structure, but rather a grid that is superimposed on a work of art. ** There are other models of artwork, representing it in the form of a number of levels, sections.
The general drawback of these concepts can obviously be considered subjectivity and arbitrariness of the leveling. In addition, no one has yet attempted to justify the division into levels by some general considerations and principles. The second weakness follows from the first and consists in the
fact that no division by levels covers the entire wealth of the elements of the work, does not give an exhaustive idea even of its composition. Finally, the levels should be thought of as fundamentally equal – otherwise the structuring principle itself loses meaning – and this easily leads to a loss of the notion of a certain core of the work of art that links its elements to actual integrity; The connections between levels and elements are weaker than it really is. Here it should also be noted that the “level”
The second approach to the structure of a work of art as a primary division takes such general categories as content and form. In the most complete and reasoned form this approach is presented in the works of GN Pospelov. This methodological trend has much fewer minuses than the one discussed above, it is much more in line with the real structure of the work and is much more substantiated in terms of philosophy and methodology.