Thoughts from Shklovsky’s Art as Technique

Well, I didn’t have to wait too long before I stumbled upon some technical-heavy, formalist related writings. Shklovsky’s piece is actually one of the more accessible pieces I’ve read of this nature, and serves as a very fascinating entry into the world of Russian literature. I will be the first to admit that I am no expert, that’s part of why I am taking this class. Needless to say, this was helpful.

Shklovsky explains that “art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important.” In other words, he is emphasizing an importance on the features of common objects and defining them by characteristics, rather than downplaying their beauty with simple classifications. For example, a chair is a chair to most of us, but to those that are uninformed to the concept of a chair, it is something far more complex. We are taught at a very young age what items are, in a way we are simplifying the complexity of life. I am reminded of a quote from the (in)famous experimental filmmaker Stan Brakhage, “How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of ‘green’? How many rainbows can light create for the untutored eye? Imagine a world alive with incomprehensible objects, and shimmering with an endless variety of movement and innumerable gradations of color. Imagine a world before the ‘beginning was the word’.”

Shklovsky attributes this form to Tolstoy, who refers to this deconstruction process as defamiliarization – which, for the record, is not recognized as an English word. The term itself was first coined by Shklovsky as ostranenie. In the case of Brakhage’s quote, we would have to forget what “green” is. We realize how reoccuring and/or “common” an element of life is, it becomes less remarkable. When most full grown adults see a field of grass, they may be impressed by its aesthetic qualities, but it be a shock to see anyone overwhelmed by it.

Since the theory was first suggested by Shklovsky, it has taken on a life of its own. Many see a connection with the “alienation effect” theory of the infamous playwright, Bertolt Brecht. Brecht’s own influence is immense, especially on filmmakers, particularly fellow countryman Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Getting back on topic, Shklovsky’s theory was to embrace the subtleties of life, ones that are often overlooked in simple observations of everyday life. We see things in a new light when they are presented in a new life, which is something that the author stresses. To quote author John Willett on Brecht, “[the distancing effect] which prevents the audience from losing itself passively and completely in the character created by the actor, and which consequently leads the audience to be a consciously critical observer.”

I have yet to substantially dive into Tolstoy’s work, but from Shklovsky’s piece, I get the impression that the “slowing down of reality ” (so to speak) isn’t so much naturalistic as it is a poetic device. Again, this is sort of a prediction and it’s one that I intend on checking back on, but I think the whole “slowness of perception” does not emphasis the mundane-ness of reality, but rather making everything more conscious. It’s potentially academic and perhaps even “robotic” which I think is a very important line to draw when it comes to my own taste. I love simple, slow-moving humane dramas, but stylistically slow metaphoric pieces are not exactly my cup of tea. I’m very eager to see how this semester turns out, whether the former or latter comes true will probably have a direct impact on my appreciation of the works we visit in this class.

For those interested in participating in a conversation regarding Shklovsky’s piece can access it here.

Advertisement