Oliinyk Kateryna

Professor Yaroslava Fedoriv

Academic Writing A2

13 April 2013

The Nature of Russian Formalism

The beginning of the XX century in literary studies was marked with a new vector of scientific and artistic mind; it was directed to evolution and renovation of this field. Russian formalists were in an avant-garde of these movements.  Without any doubt, formalism as a wave of literary studies called the attention to itself with the question of a composition’s form. In the manual to poetical activity “How to make a poetry?” Vladimir Maiakovski represents the formalist’s work: “With removing, breaking and destroying monuments, we showed for the readers the Greatest from the absolutely uncertain and strange side. Kids (as well as young literary schools) always want to get what is inside the paper pony. After the work of formalists the internal organs of all paper horses and elephants become clear” . (Maiakovski 82) According to this opinion, the main idea of formalism becomes reasonable too. It is consisted in reorganization of the previous way of understanding the literary composition with an accent on its form, not only the contents.     

There were two groups who researched formalism in Russia – Moscow Linguistic Circle founded by Roman Jacobson and Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ) founded in St. Petersburg by Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, and Yury Tynyanov. In the capital, scientists were surrounded mostly on the linguistic subject and the society of Petersburg worked with a literature. Particularly, a question of the language and its transformation in the work of art was the first and basic in Russian Formalism.

The first step to formalistic method was made by the head of the OPOYAZ Viktor Shklovsky in the article “Resurrection of the word”. The author takes into account the perception received from images and words. And in the article “Art as a method”, which became a so-called manifest of formalism, Viktor Shklovsky proposes a theory of defamiliarization (ostraneniie) to overcome the automation of the perception; and at the same time it became a way to return to the meaning of the word and to the sensitivity of the form.  

Austrian scientist Oge Hanzen-Liove distinguishes a concept of defamiliarization (ostraneniie) as a nucleus of the whole Russian formalism. Without any doubt, it is a narrowing of all formal method’s wide system. However, these problems became basic in the OPOYAZ`s work. The problem is that “the thing goes pass by us as wrapped one, we know that it takes some space, but we see only its surface.” (Shklovski 14) The author leads this line to hyperbolic conclusion saying that in such way an automation of perception takes away not only simple things from the recipient, but also a wife or a fear of war. Pursuant to these problems, Viktor Shklovski organized the concept of art: “To return a feeling of life, to sense things, to make a stone stony there is so-called art. The aim of art is sensibility of things, seeing, but not recognizing; a method of art is a method of defamiliarization (ostraneniie), of complicating form.” (Shklovski 15) 

In this context it is useful to refresh the conception of Yurii Tunianov about evolution and a constructional principle. According to the scientist, the idea of evolution in literature is based on the two contrast feelings of automation and novelty. The author circumscribes four stages of evolution: opposition, using, mass using, and automation. In addition, the more unusual appearance is, the more influential it is. In the opinion of Yurii Tunianov, every deformity, every “mistake”, and every “incorrectness” of normative poetics is a new potential constructional principle. (Tunianov 236) Therefore, according to evolution and this principle, the recipient relives every thing in the composition, feels it again as for the first time.

 Obviously, new controversial opinion found its negation among the conservative content-supporters. Thus, to understand ideas of Russian Formalism in completeness it is worth to look on them through the extant criticism.

First thing of literary work’s formalists were stressing on is unity of all components. What is more, Russian scientists were denying the usual opposition of form and contents. In the same time, they were subjected to criticism mostly because the priority of form. According to Svetlana Matviyenko, formalists have always been criticized for an ignorance of the contexts, while the awareness of form in its contextuality was one of the highlights in formalist theoretical movement. (Matviyenko 24) But novelty of the reorientation from ‘what’ to ‘how’ contained in idea about form as a starting point which creates the content for itself.

On the other hand, there still were lots of scientists who pursued to learn the content only. The idea about importance of form was rejected as a mechanical and algebraical opinion without creative inspiration. Besides, only position based on content allowed to be inserted into the literary studies with its orientation on the social and political value of a composition. For instance, Vladimir Hadzinsky states that the art is a "product of revolution" (Hadzinsky 179); in other words, he believed that art is purely utilitarian. Thus, formalism as a new methodology in literary studies raised a question about the credibility of Marxism. Notoriously, the latter it was promoted as the only possible method and the end for Soviet literature.

However, formalists doubted even the term of content and offered to substitute it on material. According to their works, all the plots, motifs and artistic images had been already done and just can be used again: “The essential to represent was not the quality of what was combined, but to show how this was happened - “the labyrinth of the clutches””. (Hanzen 233) This means that individuality of the author can be described just in the building of form.

Therefore, literary studies with a works of Russian formalists were reoriented to the new idea of form as a first point of the composition. Revising a major opinion of literary studies, which were attached by content-supporters, was a big step to creative individuality over the social and political servant. 

It is worth to stress that there were other receptions of formal method. The articles about form and contents were published during the literary discussion of 1925-1927th in Ukraine. What is more, the leaders of the debates – masterpiece society “VAPLITE” and Russian formalists have got a lot of similar and some different thoughts about literature, which are interesting to look through. First of all, both circles insisted on separation of the literary studies as particular science. On the other hand, throughout the interchange of perspectives, the members of “VAPLITE” kept with the idea of attraction the biographic and psychological methods for analyzing text. In contrast to Ukrainian artists Russian ones protested against any unliterary backgrounds in their studies. However, the fallows of “VAPLITE” adopted formalist’s set of instruments. The main point of Russian artist was the denial of the common opposition of form and contents; the Ukrainian scientist accented on this likewise. 

In conclusion, Russian formalism appeared in an avant-garde of modernistic literary studies. This method proposes reorganization in literature as in the science and, particularly, in the body of composition. Scientific articles, critique work or personal art of formalists were directed on renovation the freedom of recipient. What is more, an idea of importance of the form was adopted in almost every modernistic wave of literary studies. It found its response in semiotic studies, receptive critique, and it also influenced on the next literary studies of structuralism. Nowadays, works of Russian formalists still have its value and wide applications in literary research and critique.  

 Works Cited

Matviienko, S. A. (2004) Discourse of a Formalism: the Ukrainian Context. Lviv: Litopys.

Tynianov, Ju. N. (1977) Poetic. History of Literature. Cinema. Мoscow: Nauka.

Hadzinsky, V. (1923) A Few Words to the Question of "Form and Content" Chervonyj shliah, (4-5), 174-79.

Hanzen-Liove, O. A. (2001) Russian Formalism Moscow: Jazyk Ruskoj Kultury.

Shklovsky, V. B. (1983) On the Theory of Prose. Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel.

Eikhenbaum, B. M. (1987) On the Literature. Moscow: Sovremennyj pisatel.

Erlich, V. (1965) Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine. The Hague: Mouton.

Jameson, F. (1972) The Prison-House of Language : a Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  

Matviienko, Svitlana. Discourse of a Formalism: the Ukrainian Context. Lviv: Litopys, 2004. Print.

Tynianov, Jurij. Poetic. History of literature. Cinema. Мoscow: Nauka, 1977. Print.

Hadzinsky, Viktor. “A Few Words to the Question of "Form and Content"”.  Chervonyj shliah 4-5 (1923): 174-79. Print.

Hanzen-Liove, Oge. Russian Formalism. Moscow: Jazyk Ruskoj Kultury, 2001. Print.

Shklovsky, Viktor. On the Theory of Prose. Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel , 1983. Print.

Eikhenbaum, Boris. On the Literature. Moscow: Sovremennyj pisatel, 1987. Print. 

Erlich, Viktor. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine. The Hague: Mouton, 1965. Print.

Jameson, Fredric. The Prison-House of Language : a Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. Print.