In the course of this essay the terminology that was applied by the Russian Formalist theoreticians shall be investigated (many terms were even invented and introduced by the Formalists themselves). More precisely, a careful look will be taken at how the literary critics, Medvedev and Bakhtin in The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship and Hansen-Löve in Der Russische Formalismus examine the Formalist terms. In order to evaluate Formalist terminology accurately and objectively, the mentioned critics’ theories shall be underpinned by and contrasted with the opinion of other critics in this field.
Two of Shklovsky’s articles, The Resurrection of the Word and Art as Device are taken as a starting point for paving the way for a detailed analysis of the formal terminology.
The major focus lies on the term ‘ostranenie’ that was firstly introduced by Shklovsky (1991) and is most commonly translated as ‘estrangement’, ‘defamiliarisation’ or ‘making it strange’. The essay shall not only analyse the origins of this concept, but furthermore, compare the different interpretations the term entails. Hansen-Löve’s evaluation of the concept of ostranenie as well as Medvedev and Bakhtin’s assessment of Shklovsky’ analysis of Tolstoy’s
Kholstomer in the view of estrangement reveals the critical approach on which this essay is based on.
Moreover, the Russian term of ‘obnazenie’, the ‘laying-bare’ of the work (Hansen-Löve, 1978) and ‘oveshchestvlenie’, the process of materialisation (Medvedev & Bakhtin, 1978), shall be regarded throughout this essay, since both concepts go hand in hand with the idea of ostranenie.
In the last part of the essay, the formal theory of shutting out subjective consciousness from the work (Medvedev & Bakhtin, 1978) and the effects of this concept are in the centre of the attention. This shall lead to the final evaluation of the quality in the formalist concept of perception.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Ostranenie, Obnazenie and Oveshchestvlenie
3. Formalism’s Contribution to Scholarship
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this essay is to investigate the terminology utilized by Russian Formalist theoreticians, specifically focusing on the concept of 'ostranenie' (defamiliarisation). The paper aims to evaluate the Formalist contribution to literary scholarship by contrasting the perspectives of key critics—Medvedev, Bakhtin, and Hansen-Löve—with the original theories proposed by Shklovsky.
- The origin and interpretation of Formalist terminology like 'ostranenie', 'obnazenie', and 'oveshchestvlenie'.
- A comparative analysis of how literary critics evaluate Formalist concepts.
- The intersection of artistic devices and moral/ideological significance in literature.
- The role of Russian Formalism in the historical development of literary theory.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Ostranenie, Obnazenie and Oveshchestvlenie
In order to analyse major components of the concept of Russian Formalism, firstly, Shklovsky’s article The Resurrection of the Word shall be considered. With resurrecting the word, the Formalists sought the independence of the word from any meaning and significance. Thus, as suggested in The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship, other components of the word, such as its phonologic and structural elements, that are autonomous from the meaning, are essential in motivating the artistic process. By emancipating the word from its essence, more precisely by eradicating its sense, a new idea of the term is constructed, a word that looks unfamiliar (Medvedev & Bakhtin, 1978).
In that sense, it was the Formalists’ aim of displaying the familiar in an unusual way, so that it is perceived in a new light. This showing of an object in a distorted way is regarded as the process of ‘breaking down the barrier of automatic perception’. By ‘tearing the object out of its habitual context’, which is referred to as ‘de-automatisation’, we are pulled into experiencing the naked sensory structure of the object.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research focus on Russian Formalist terminology and establishes the methodology of contrasting Shklovsky’s primary texts with the critiques of Medvedev, Bakhtin, and Hansen-Löve.
2. Ostranenie, Obnazenie and Oveshchestvlenie: This chapter analyzes the specific Formalist concepts of estrangement, laying-bare, and materialization, discussing their role in de-automatizing perception and the resulting scholarly debates.
3. Formalism’s Contribution to Scholarship: This chapter evaluates the long-term impact of Russian Formalism, acknowledging its internal contradictions while recognizing its foundational role for subsequent literary movements.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, asserting that despite heavy criticism and theoretical shifts, Russian Formalism provided an essential basis for the evolution of modern literary theory.
5. Bibliography: This chapter provides a comprehensive list of primary and secondary sources used to support the critical analysis presented in the essay.
Keywords
Russian Formalism, Ostranenie, Defamiliarisation, Shklovsky, Literary Criticism, Medvedev, Bakhtin, Hansen-Löve, Obnazenie, Oveshchestvlenie, De-automatisation, Poetics, Literary Theory, Aesthetic Concept, Artistic Device.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay explores the specific terminology developed by the Russian Formalists and investigates the theoretical effectiveness and historical contributions of these concepts within literary scholarship.
Which central topics are discussed in the work?
The core topics include the definition of art versus non-art, the mechanics of perception, the role of artistic devices, and the interplay between literary form and ideological meaning.
What is the main research question?
The essay aims to evaluate how Formalist terminology—particularly 'ostranenie'—functions as a literary device and to critically assess the movement's contribution to scholarship by analyzing diverse academic perspectives.
Which research methodology is applied?
The methodology consists of a critical literature review, comparing primary texts by Victor Shklovsky with analytical assessments by scholars such as Medvedev, Bakhtin, and Aage Hansen-Löve.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body examines the origins of Formalist terms, evaluates them against philosophical and aesthetic criticisms, and discusses the movement’s influence on later structuralist and New Criticism schools.
How would you characterize the primary keywords?
The keywords center on the terminology of Russian Formalism, the critical discourse surrounding it, and its lasting impact on the formal analysis of poetic works.
How does the author define the concept of 'ostranenie'?
It is defined as an artistic device used to make the familiar look unfamiliar, thereby 'breaking down the barrier of automatic perception' and returning sensation to the reader.
What is the significance of the critique by Medvedev and Bakhtin?
They provide a philosophical critique, arguing that the Formalist attempt to strip away meaning leads to an 'ideological vacuum' and a distortion of the original moral value intended by authors like Tolstoy.
How does the author reconcile the movement's contradictions?
The author concludes that while the movement’s theories may not be scientifically tenable in their entirety, they were crucial in shifting literary analysis toward the text itself, thus facilitating progress in literary research.
What is the link between the 'laying-bare' theory and Socratic philosophy?
The author notes that while there are minimal parallels between the Greek concept of speech as a device and the Formalist 'obnazenie', the Formalists specifically applied these techniques to distinguish artistic from non-artistic work, unlike the political aims of the Greeks.
- Quote paper
- Robert Stolt (Author), 2009, Russian Formalism, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/145245
