An Overview and Extended Definition of Formalism in Literature and Theory. All literary theory has as its task defining what literature is and how it should be studied. To what degree, if at all, should an author’s life or the historical moment in which a literary work was written be a relevant variable in the analysis and exegesis of the work? What characteristics of a text should be considered most salient in arriving at an interpretation of its meaning? What literary techniques and resources are used to establish the text, its action, and the ways in which it can be read? The different schools of literary criticism each make their own case for privileging certain aspects of a text over other characteristics, and some strains of literary theory have withstood the test of time better than others. This is the case for formalism, which is but one of many branches of literary theory. Unlike several other trends in literary theory and analysis that have emerged within the last century, formalism has remained one of the most steadfast and frequently- employed forms of literary criticism and analysis—partly because unlike feminist, postmodern, and other forms, it is less prone to changes in ideology. As a mode of examining literature, formalism appeared rather early. Formalism emerged after the 1. Revolution in Russia (Bennett 3). Bennett writes that formalism could hardly have been considered a movement, given that the founding “members” of this school were simply a group of like- minded colleagues who met regularly to talk about literature and their particular approach to reading and interpreting texts (1. In other words, they did not necessarily intend to change the way that other people read, though this did, in fact, occur as a consequence of their theoretical production. Unlike some other more modern and contemporary movements in literature and criticism, the formalists did not even name their own movement; it was named by a critic who disagreed with formalism’s aims and arguments (Bennett 1. The key figures of the formalist movement included Roman Jakobson, Viktor Shklovsky, and Juri Tiniyanov; these core group members promoted an approach to literature that was ordered and scientific (Bennett 1. Literature, they argued, should be approached only on its own terms; there should be no external influences or considerations, such as the author’s personal characteristics or the sociopolitical and historical conditions under which the text had been written (Bennett 1. In short, it was a very formal and non- historical or author- specific way of considering works of literature that would not involve the personal history of the author, the consequences of the time period the subject matter was written in, nor the given tastes of the reading public or any other such external influences. With such a way of examining texts, it is worth mentioning that it obviously was a controversial form of criticism, especially since critics up until that point often considered the author and his or her historical and social positioning when offering insights on works. The name of their movement, formalism, was apt because their way of approaching texts was highly structured and formal. The formalists contended that it was possible to devise a methodology that could be applied to any text, and they worked to develop such a method, both individually and as a collective. Any introductory study into formalism relies on looking at the historical and social movements that were shaping such an emergent mode of criticism. Friends PDF Preview; Author and Citation Info; Back to Top; Formalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics.Though considering the historical context of the birth of formalism seems contrary to the movement itself, it is important to signal that formalism was a reaction to and against Marxist literary theory. Marxist theory, consistent with Marxist political thought, was preoccupied with the roles of society in the text and the text in society (Bennett 1. Characteristics is conjoined with an aesthetic view of the nature of art.) Formal and Non-formal Properties Now, what of formal aesthetic. The Story of Art (Gombrich 1950). The anti-formalism is right there in the title! VIKTOR SHKLOVSKY 'ART AS TECHNIQUE' (1917) Shklovsky, Viktor. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1965. Piet Mondrian produced new stile of art philosophy-formalism during the end of 19century to the early of the 20century. 3 The chief reason why art has lagged behind the demands of the epoch arises from the dominance of formalism in art and from the lack of clarity about the path and methods of the artist in the German Democratic Republic. Modernism, Formalism, and Politics: The 'Cubism and Abstract Art' Exhibition of 1936 at the Museum of Modern Art Author(s): Susan Noyes Platt Source: Art Journal, Vol. 4, Revising Cubism (Winter, 1988), pp. Prior to formalism, literature had often been viewed as a product of political or social origins, a product which was always attached to its creator. Formalism departed from the Marxist perspective completely. The formalists did not wish to apply any other theoretical constructs—sociological, historical, psychoanalytic—to the reading of a text; rather, the text should, in their view, stand alone and be able to be understood on its own terms. To this end, the formalists proposed a method for reading a text in such a way; literary works became machines that could be tinkered with and understood if the component parts and their respective functions were known (Shklovsky 5). Shklovsky even considered an algebraic methodology to be an “ideal expression” of the practice of literary analysis (5). In art history, formalism is the study of art by analyzing and comparing form and style—the way objects are made and their purely visual aspects. In painting, formalism emphasizes compositional elements such as color, line. Formalism rose to prominence in the early twentieth century as a reaction against Romanticist theories of literature, which centered on the artist and individual creative. Functionalism Chomsky's competence-performance distinction led to his formal approach (study of competence). The formal approach focuses on the structure of the language, emphasising the deductive properties of. To understand a text on its own terms, it was important to understand words. In turn, in order to understand words, the formalists believed that it was crucial to understand the relationship between the symbol and the object, experience, or emotion being signified. A sentence could be parsed into its respective words in order to arrive at meaning; in this way, an entire text could be understood (Bennett 1. Again, the question, what is formalism? Interestingly, the formalists were also deeply interested in the poetic properties of language. While this might seem contradictory, given their mechanical tendencies, the formalists argued that the use of poetic words and images could, if deployed effectively, cause the reader to see a familiar object or experience from a completely new perspective. In this way, language had the power to disrupt common perceptions or images taken for granted by replacing them with fresh associations. Bennett offers the following example to illustrate this point: “Take, as a brief example, the following sentence. What Bennett explains is that the reader has a fixed assumption about and association with the sky being blue. Yet, written in this creative, poetic way, the reader is forced to stop and reconsider the quality of that blue, and link the color to other, fresher associations. In this way, the formalists achieved the identification of “devices through which the total structure of given works of literature might be said to defamiliarize, make strange or challenge certain dominant conceptions . In this respect, formalists were deeply interested in the subjects of semantics and linguistics, aspects of form more than content. While the formalist movement only lasted for approximately thirty years, their arguments and areas of interest eventually became the principal features of the theorists known as structuralists, who followed the formalists in the development of a mechanistic literary theory. The formalists also influenced a group of literary theorists who are subsumed under the title of “New Criticism,” which also separated the author from the text and privileged the content of the work as the only worthwhile area for interpretative focus (Dawson 7. Ultimately, the formalists addressed all of the questions that are of interest to all literary theorists, though there are obviously those who reject the formalists’ particular set of arguments and approaches. Nonetheless, and despite the brevity of their movement, the formalists’ questioning of some of the basic and most fundamental assumptions of literary theory had a lasting impact on literary studies in general. With respect to literary production, the formalists introduced the notion of art for art’s sake, as opposed to art as a political, social, or cultural tool with specifically articulated goals. With regards to literary interpretation and theory, the formalists offered a framework for decoding and understanding texts based on the information that they contained. Various schools of literary theory continue to debate whether the formalists were justified, so to speak, in their assertions; however, the fact that these two aspects of literary theory continue to be points of unresolved contention signifies that the formalists identified fundamental literary concerns that will continue to be examined and debated for some time to come. Other essays and articles on related literary topics can be found in the Literature Archives at Article. Myriad . Formalism and Marxism. New York: Routledge, 2. Dawson, Paul. Creative Writing and the New Humanities. New York: Routledge, 2. Shklovsky, Viktor. Chicago: Dalkey Archive Press, 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |