Painting, sculpting, disappearing?

[Angrboda]

[...]

Literary analysis deals primarily with structure rather than execution.

[...]

Not quite sure what you mean here. When I think of literary analysis, I think of someone identifying and pointing out what's going on in the text -- beyond just restating the plot. As I understand it, this can address both structure and execution (if I understand what you mean by those things).

For example, as you read Nabokov it's useful to understand how he often foreshadows elements of the plot with puns and allusions. This is something that isn't immediately obvious, and it's a pleasure when we realize what he's up to. I guess this falls under the category of structural analysis.

You could also analyze his prose by noticing and pointing out the witty, absolutely non-cliched ways in which he says things. To me, this is about execution. 

I would say that enjoyment and awareness of the beauty of the work is increased through this kind of analysis. It allows us to notice qualities which aren't obvious to more casual reading. It's true that this happens over time, and has this in common with music. 

In a different way, I think this sort of unfolding over time happens with good painting, as well. Coming back to the same work over time will allow us to discover things we didn't see before. Partly the change is in the viewer, of course. We are more aware and open to things at different parts of our lives. Partly the unfolding happens because of the picture, which may have more going on in it than is apparent at first glance. (And we might use this as a way to think about quality, as well. I think there are popular pictures in which the whole thing is revealed in a glance, and that there will be no increase in enjoyment by living with them. The opposite in fact -- they get boring.)

Perhaps it was a poor way of describing the distinction that I was making. Literary analysis is about the text in terms of how it creates the experience of the reader. This is distinct from the experience of reading itself. In a poem, no matter how you analyze the execution, you will never arrive at the perceptual experience of actually reading the poem. I forget who it was, but this aspect of poetry has been referred to as, "milk tongue and goose foot," as there are attendant aural and rhythmic effects which are created in the person reading the poem. Additionally, there is the dimensions of a poem which are revealed from listening to it spoken by someone else as opposed to hearing it in one's own, internal voice. And different speakers can reveal different dimensions to the same poem. It was a response to Neo's claim that literature does not evoke a direct encounter with beauty the way a physical work of art does. And my counter is that narrowing the potential encounter to that delivered by analysis was shortselling the beauty to be found in literature. An analogy to music is probably clearer. Yes, musical theory can enhance one's appreciation of a musical work, but it alone does not replace the experience of actually listening to a piece, without which, what one learns through a focus on theory is missing the actual aesthetic experience.