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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment