Metamorphoses of Narrator in Novels of Jaromír John This diploma paper focuses on the function of the narrator and his various forms in John's prosaic work. It deals with the issue of the construction of the fictional world and how the narrator influences the reader's understanding of the described events. Primarily, we try to compare the narrative categories of the main contemporary concepts as influenced by Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Franz Stanzel and Lubomír Doležel. It is our terminology base. Theoretical understanding of the narrator is the basis for the analysis of John's fiction from the aspect of narrative types applied to a selected sample of author's works: the anthology of the tales with war theme Večery na slamníku, novels Moudrý Engelbert, Výbušný zlotvor, Pampovánek, Honda Cibulků; marginally Estét and other works. Concurrently this work aims to describe construction methods that are typical for John's creative style - it is mainly the use of irony, the principle of collage and documentary elements. It shows that the author's work at that time belonged to the experimental stream of Czech prose. Also, we observe the relationship between author's prose work and his aesthetic concept. We hope that we were able to, at least partially, explain the literary style of Jaromir John. His importance and...

Au XXe siècle, le problème de l’illusionnisme perspectif a posé d’importantes difficultés théoriques aux historien d’arts. En effet, la compréhension de la perspective induit une conception de l’histoire de l’art. Si la perspective est conforme à la perception, alors l’art peut être objectif et son histoire participe de l’histoire des sciences. En revanche, si la perspective n’est pas conforme à la perception, alors l’art, dans son histoire, ne peut être compris comme une quête de l’objectivité. Dans ce cas, deux autres questions se posent : comment penser le rapport entre art et rationalité, et comment définir la visée de l’art? Le premier problème appelle une réflexion sur le concept de schématisme, le second une réflexion sur le rapport entre l’art et les conceptions du monde. La Perspective comme forme symbolique, d’Erwin Panofsky, est le premier texte à avoir proposé une réponse générale à ces questions. Le concept de forme symbolique, emprunté à Ernst Cassirer, lui a permis de considérer la perspective comme une forme culturelle, et de mettre au second plan la question de l’objectivité. Cette position est à l’origine d’intenses polémiques, que les débats historiographiques ne sont pas parvenus à résoudre. En confrontant les travaux de Panofsky à ceux de Philippe Descola et de Ernst Cassirer, cette thèse explicite d’abord les attendus théoriques inhérents au rapport entre forme symbolique, schématisme et conceptions du monde. Elle propose ensuite une analyse des controverses liées à la perspective et met en valeur la pensée de Robert Klein. Cette pensée travaille la phénoménologie et amène à une conception de l’histoire différente de celle proposée par Panofsky. / During the 20th century, perspective illusionism caused significant theoretical issues to art historians. That is because an understanding of perspective leads to a conception of art history. If perspective is true to visual perception, then art can be objective and its history is related to the history of sciences. On the other hand, if perspective is not true to visual perception, then art, in its own historical development, cannot be understood as a quest for objectivity. In this case, two further issues arise: how to conceive the relationship between art and rationality, and how to define the purpose of art? The first problem requires a reflection on the concept of schematism, the second a reflection on the relationship between art and different worldviews. Erwin Panofsky’s essay, Perspective as a Symbolic Form, was the first text to provide a comprehensive answer to these questions. The concept of symbolic form, borrowed from Ernst Cassirer philosophy, allowed him to consider perspective mainly as a cultural form, thus overlooking the issue of objectivity. This position has led to numerous controversies, which have not been overcome by historiographical discussions. By comparing Panofsky’s work with those of Philippe Descola and Ernst Cassirer, this thesis first clarifies the theoretical prerequisites for the relationship between symbolic form, schematism and worldviews. It then provides an analysis of several historiographical controversies and underscores the thinking of Robert Klein. His approach tackles phenomenology and leads to a different conception of history than the one proposed by Panofsky to overcome the issues raised by perspective.