This article argues that Viktor Shklovsky and his allies’ theory cannot be duly appreciated and understood without accounting for their engagement in journalism. The latter was both practiced and ...theorized by Shklovsky’s group of the Russian Formalists, which stood out as a then rare combination of rigorous theory and extreme performativity. Accordingly, there was disagreement among the Formalists of Shklovsky’s group. On one hand, they did not want the kind of criticism that is published in periodicals and holds sway over contemporary writers to be naïve banter—the Formalists would rather criticism recognize the literariness of literature and hew to the patterns and laws they discovered. On the other hand, the Formalists applied these literary patterns to their own writing, creative or not, which is why Shklovsky wrote that he was both a fish zoologist and a fish. Hence the Formalists’ desire to make their scholarship and criticism performative. The conflict between rigor and performativity could be resolved only in a periodical, and while the Formalists, as this article explains, had a problem with issuing one fully of their own, Shklovsky’s literary magazine
was a short-lived exception. This magazine is as little studied as it is largely important—for both the history and theory of Russian Formalism, as well as journalism per se, which in 1920s Russia was recognized as a new modus vivendi of literature in the Formalists’ theory of factography (
). The leading genre of factography was the feuilleton, and it is from this genre’s standpoint that the article analyzes Shklovsky’s Petersburg, and, in the second part, compares it with another literary magazine—the famous
, run by Osip Senkovsky, one of the prominent feuilletonists of the nineteenth century. The comparison of Shklovsky with Senkovsky as editors of these magazines makes it possible to appreciate both not as vivid exceptions but the very rule—a particular canon with its unique approach to culture that became relevant with the advent of fragmentation in our civilization and remains so to this day.
Since the concept of “literary evolution” proposed by Yuri Tynyanov could not be applied to the late Soviet official literature, Sergei Averintsev using this concept examined the relationship between ...philosophy, sophistry, rhetorics and everyday consciousness in classical Greece. Tynyanov's theory of “parallel series” turned out to be productive for the reconstruction of the tasks of the ancient philosopher and for the interpretation of Plato's dialogues. According Averintsev, Plato acted within the sophistic field, creating irreducible terminology and untranslatable phrases as a moment of the entire further evolution of Western literature. Consideration of Russian formalism as the context of Averintsev's thought proves his contribution to the discussion of Platonism as a tool for posing philosophical problems and of the perspective of philosophy in the postcolonial discussion.
One hundred and one years have now passed since the writing of “Art as Technique” by Viktor Shklovsky and ostranenie has become widespread in literary study and analysis around the world. The ...conference organised by the University of Genoa offers an occasion to reflect upon the modernity of Shklovsky’s concept and assess its legacy. What is left of ostranenie today? Can we use it within the field of gynocriticism? Can we read it from a sensory perspective? What does it mean to build a literary canon according to the principle of ostranenie?
Abstract Vygotsky’s article about the psychology of the actor is a good example of continuities and connections between the early and late work of this psychologist and theater critic. Contrary to a ...divide between an “instrumental”, “mechanistic” and “reductionist” phase before 1930 and later a “holistic” phase (Yasnitsky, van der Veer, 2016, p. 92), the discourse about the actor and Diderot’s notion of “artificial feelings” (sensibilité artificielle) proves Vygotsky’s ongoing commitment regarding questions of experience (perezhivanie), catharsis and the status of emotions. The dichotomy of the actor’s emotions as shown by Diderot in Paradox of Acting is a key for Vygotsky to insist on the historicity of emotions and a transformation of psychology’s methods. As part of the creative work, the actor’s emotions are divided with opposing forces. In Vygotsky’s Psychology of Art, the formalist term for such a division is dvoistvennost’ (twofoldness). Only by overcoming naturalist assumptions and by placing emotions in the context of other mental functions, psychology with indirect methods would be capable of dealing with this historicity. This is a “psychology in terms of drama”, as suggested in “Concrete Psychology”. My paper will focus on the connections between early reviews, “The Psychology of Art” (1925), “Concrete Human Psychology” (1929) and “The Psychology of the Actor’s Creative Work” (1932).
Resumo O artigo de Vigotski sobre a psicologia do ator é um bom exemplo de continuidades e conexões entre a obra inicial e final desse psicólogo e crítico teatral. Contrário à divisão entre uma fase “instrumental”, “mecanicista” e “reducionista” antes de 1930 e uma fase “holítistica” (Yasnitsky, van der Veer, 2016, p. 92), o discurso sobre o ator e a noção diderotiana de “sentimentos artificiais” (sensibilité artificielle) comprova o compromisso permanente de Vigotski quanto a questões da vivência (perejivânie), catarse e o status das emoções. A dicotomia entre as emoções do ator, como mostrado por Diderot e “Paradoxo do comediante”, é a chave para Vigotski insistir na historicidade das emoções e em uma transformação dos métodos da psicologia. Como parte do trabalho criativo, as emoções do ator são divididas em forças opostas. Em Psicologia da arte, o termo formalista para tal divisão é dvoistvennost (duplicidade). Apenas ao superar as suposições naturalistas e colocar as emoções no contexto de outras funções mentais, a psicologia seria capaz, por meio de métodos indiretos, de lidar com essa historicidade. Esta é uma “psicologia em termos do drama”, como sugerido em “Psicologia concreta”. O presente artigo se concentra nas conexões entre as resenhas iniciais, Psicologia da arte (1925), “Psicologia concreta humana” (1929) e “Sobre a questão da psicologia da criação pelo ator” (1932).
This article provides a general overview of the theoretical foundations of formalism to assess their usefulness for the study of videogames and thereby establish grounds for a more robust approach. ...After determining that formalism has been used as a go-to term for a variety of ontological and methodological approaches in game studies, this article draws more specifically from Russian Formalism to use the label for a functionalist approach interested in how formal devices in videogames work to cue aesthetic responses. Through an exploration of three pillars of Russian Formalism, a videogame formalism emerges that focuses on the workings of the game as a machine while still taking the aesthetic player response as the methodological starting point and acknowledging the importance of synchronic and diachronic historical perspectives in establishing the functioning of game devices.
In this paper, we look into the theoretical and aesthetic conceptions of Russian formalism and the way in which these were applied to the specific field of translation studies. The functions of ...translation are examined in the theoretical and historical-literary studies published by Víktor Shklovsky, Yuri Tynyanov and Boris Eikhenbaum between the years 1913 and 1928. As a result of this analysis, we find that two key terms in formalist considerations about translation are those of system and parody. Throughout the theoretical evolution of the school, we see the continuity of certain theoretical constants: systematic, dialectical and dynamic understanding of literary systems and a persistent discussion about the nature of the relationships between translation and writing. From this realization, the conclusion is drawn that Russian formalism has not been sufficiently assimilated by contemporary scholars working in the field of Translation Studies, and that its fundamental ideas might still exert an enriching influence on research carried out today.
Neste artigo analisamos as concepções teóricas e estéticas do formalismo russo e a forma como estas foram aplicadas ao campo específico dos estudos da tradução. As funções da tradução são examinadas nos estudos teóricos e histórico-literários publicados por Viktor Shklóvski, Iuri Tiniánov e Boris Eikhenbaum entre os anos de 1913 e 1928. Como resultado desta análise, percebemos que sistema e paródia são dois termos-chave nas considerações formalistas sobre tradução. Ao longo da evolução teórica da escola, vemos a continuidade de certas constantes teóricas: a compreensão sistemática, dialética e dinâmica dos sistemas literários e uma discussão persistente sobre a natureza das relações entre tradução e escrita. A partir desta constatação, conclui-se que o formalismo russo não foi suficientemente assimilado pelos estudiosos contemporâneos que trabalham no campo dos Estudos da Tradução, e que as suas ideias fundamentais podem ainda exercer uma influência enriquecedora na investigação realizada hoje.
Literary Life. Conceptual Delimitations Plamadeala, Ion
Philologia (Institutul de Filologie, Academia de Științe a Republicii Moldova),
12/2023, Letnik:
LXV, Številka:
3(321)
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The article aims to delineate the most important meanings and referents of the concept of literary life, from a sociological, functional-historical and systematic perspective, in the context of the ...evolution of the idea of literature from the anhistorical formalism of New Criticism to the pragmatics of sociosemiotics, whose contributions have been used to support the thesis that the system of literature and literary life function as a dynamic succession of mediation.
PDF
