There seems to be a relationship between the Russian Formalism and Saussure's semiontics, even though semiontics is not a literary theory. According to Saussure, semiology is the study of conventional communicative systems, which can be called languages. Human language, then, is a mode of communication that, however, belongs to the public sphere, meaning that it was not originated by a particular individual. Shklovsky in his essay "Art as Technique" points out that "the purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known” (that's the artist's responsibility , correct?). To understand Shklovsky, I though it might be helpful to look for the meaning of perception, as it seems to be a key concept throughout the essay (s). Therefore, Perception is a "conscious understanding of something". If art can be used as a technique or device to make an object visible, that is, to make it available to the public to be consciously perceived as it is (and not as we know it, by employing techniques that make things unfamiliar) then, one could say that art, as a technique, is a mode of communication that seeks to show things through the process of perception. It's a system of signs that appeals the un/conscious.
Formalists seem to reject the notion of seen things for what we are accustomed to see them rather than for what they actually are. It seems to me they suggest a separation of the object from any (cultural, ideological, etc) connotation in order, for the reader/spectator, to be able to appreciate it. If the artist manages to present the object in a way that it is being appreciated, through the process of perception, by the reader, then we could say that the artist succeeded? So, could we say that the role of the artist is to make things “visible” to the viewer? Perhaps the value of the object is not found within its signified (because the meaning may vary depending on the employment in different discourses[?]) but in itself. But now, by perceiving an object for what it is and not for what we know it, what are we perceiving?
The formalists seem to rely on the reader, what I wonder is if there is an implicit reader in the author's mind while writing literature, or is the formalist critic suggesting that the author should have a reader in mind while s/he is creating? Or, is the critic suggesting that the reader must be trained to focus and distinguish features of literature in order to be able to understand and see? Or are both ideas being suggested?
The essay “The Study of Fairy Tales” seemed to me as an example of how it is possible to create patterns withing a genre to allow it to be communicative. On the other hand, PE (poetics of expressions) appears to defend that PE seeks to capture the reader's natural reaction to the work of art.
"Or, is the critic suggesting that the reader must be trained to focus and distinguish features of literature in order to be able to understand and see?"
ReplyDeleteI think that is exactly what it is being suggested. Since we were children, we've been taught how to approach different types of texts with various analysis techniques- so by this point we all have it ingrained in us how to interpret and analyze a work of literature, especially since we've all chosen to study literature. By now, it's probably very difficult to read something and not go into it with a specific mindset and looking for specific qualities that can point toward a larger meaning.
But then I got to thinking about applying this idea to film studies. Most of us weren't trained from a young age to analyze film as a "text", so I think many people watch movies and are able to be simply entertained without being able to see any large underlying themes and contexts and what not. In my opinion, you have to be trained to approach and interpret "texts" to be able to understand fully what is being presented in them, whether that be a novel or a movie. However, is this always a positive thing? Maybe its a good thing to read something or watch something without always going deep into it. Ignorance is bliss?
"Or, is the critic suggesting that the reader must be trained to focus and distinguish features of literature in order to be able to understand and see?"
ReplyDeleteI'd say that it was the other way around for Shklovsky: it is art that teaches us to see, literature that tells us how to read.
Whether things actually work out this way is another matter, of course. So perhaps we could say that Shklovsky's ideal readers are those who are willing to put in the work required to decipher difficult texts and so re-encounter the world around them.