Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Resumen viktor shklovsky

4,787 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Resumen viktor shklovsky

  1. 1. UNIVERSIDAD PEDAGÓGICA EXPERIMENTAL LIBERTADOR INSTITUTO PEDAGÓGICO DE CARACAS SUBDIRECCIÓN DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y POSTGRADO SUBPROGRAMA DE MAESTRIA EN EDUCACIÓN MENCIÓN ENSEÑANZA DE LA LITERATURA EN INGLÉS ENFOQUES LITERARIO ALUMNO: ORLANDO VIVAS PROFESORA: AUDY CASTAÑEDA RUSSIAN FORMALISM SUMMARY MADE FROM CON DAVIES AND SCHLEIFER´S BOOKCONTEMPORARY LITERARY CRITICISM. LITERARY AND CULTURAL STUDIES.PAGES 260-271. The following summary intends to describe theliterary imageriesused bytheRussian Formalist groups,whose one representative wasViktorBorisovichShklovskyin Moscow from 1916 to 1930. While these imageries arepresented, some comparisons will be also mentioned in relation to the opinion thatanother literary group and writer have towards this issue.This description will besupported by the studies made from Con Davies and schleifer (1994). According to Con Davies and schleifer (1994). Russian Formalistgrouppreferred to view literary works as collections of devices that interact in thetext rather than a device which produces only an aesthetic effect, the latter wassustained from another group calledPotebnyan. Shklovsky proposed “Art as Technique” in 1917, which was one of theprimary documents of Russian Formalism. “Art as a Technique” went againstAesthetic Theories (especially Potebnyan) because they considered that a textdoes not have a prescribed effect. They favor Linguistic devices like metaphors(comparison between two unlike things that have something in common) andmetonymy (one word or phrase that is substituted for another that is closelyassociated, for example: crown for royalty), to create a more complete image. Both
  2. 2. Formalist and Potebyan Theories believed that images clarify thoughts butPotebyan did not consider them necessary for thought, but for the emotions. Shklovsky stated that images change little from century to century, fromnation to nation, from poet to poet. He believed that a poet was most interested inarranging images than creating them. He maintained that although a poet couldchange the image, it did not affect the development of poetry. He gave as anexample the technique of placing adjectives after nouns, which he considered alsoartistic. This led to the conclusion that a work can be considered artistry only fromthe perception we give to it. Another aspect Russian Formalismhad against Potebyan was that they didnot distinguish the Language of Poetry and the Language of Prose. Shklovsky saidthatPotebyan omitted that there were two aspects of imagery: Imagery as apractical mean of thinking and imagery as poetic. Shklovsky gave as example inthe word butterfinger, which could be either metonymic or poetic imagery. Shklovsky argued that apart from poetic imagery, as a device of poeticlanguage, there was also The Prose Imagery, which was the means of abstractionbut it had nothing to do with poetry. He also said about the importance ofeconomizing the reader´s or hearer´s attention by presenting ideas to beapprehended with the least possible mental effort. For instance using the Methodof Algebra in which people apprehend objects only as shapes and by recognition ofthe main characteristics. Shklovsky gave as an example the sentence: The SwissMountains are beautiful”. He said that if we took only the first letters of thissentence T,S, M, A, B. we could make a prose perception that would not be easyto fade. According to Shklovsky, it permitted The Economy of Perception Effort. Heinsisted that the writer had to be aware of this because his job was to make theobject unfamiliar. “To make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length ofperception” because the most important thing, according to Shklovsky was “The artthe objecttakes and not the object itself”.Shklovsky´s point of view led him toremark that it did not matter if we had an object in front of us many times, we would
  3. 3. not recognize it unless we saw the object several times. He emphasized that wecould make something familiar unfamiliar only by changing or adding art to it. Con Davies and Schleifer (1.994) expandedShklovsky´s reasoning and theymentioned in their analysis Tolstoy (1897) who in his writings made known objectsunknown for the reader. This process was called The Art of Defamiliarization,which means using familiar words or acts and make them unfamiliar, by describingand changing its form without changing its nature. According to these authors insome cases familiar words became complete new. They cited specifically Tolstoy´snovel War and Peace in which he made a familiar event, which is the case of awar, complete new to the reader. Con Davies and Schleifer present also examplestaken from Erotic art. They think that the use of the image of Defamiliarization canalso make a known object (in this case erotic) unknown. They think that thepurpose would be to lead out the reader from the recognition of the word. Forexample the sexual organs can be referred as if they were a lock and a key. Thisimagery can help writers use polite words instead of a direct one. This technique,according to the authors mentioned is called Euphemismand it is mostly used asriddles or a as a mysterious word that the reader has to figure out. To sum up, we can say that Russian Formalists (represented byViktorBorisovichShklovsky) used literary devices such as metaphors andmetonymy,poetic imagery, etc, similarto others literary groups. However, theirperception of these devices or techniques was that they can be used as literarydevices as well as to defamiliarize our perception of reality and not only as anaesthetic device and in doing this, we are using these devices as Art as techniqueand not only as mere structures in a literary text. I stand byShklovsky point of viewwhen he said that “The most important thing is the art the object takes and not theobject itself”

×