I offer a few basic questions to get you thinking about our last two readings: the self explanatorily titled "Art as Device," and the gloriously unpronounceable "Pkhents." My objective in having you read these pieces as a pair is to sharpen your critical gaze so that you might apprehend not only the relationship of the theory to the text and the text to the theory, but also that of text and theory to social 'reality' and lived experience. Post your own questions about either or both of these works (or any other we've encountered as a class) below mine.
What does Shklovsky define as the purpose of art and the task of the artist? Against what extant definitions is he working?
- How is art a device? What does it do and how?
- Is “Pkhentz” an allegory? Of what?
- What is the role of reading, writing and words in “Pkhentz”? Mark all the places texts appear in the story.
- How might we compare the description and function of the sexual grotesque in Sinyavsky’s and Baldwin’s stories?
- What do we make of the figure of the alien? In what ways (pl.) do we understand it?
Shklovsky's agenda in "Art as Device" is to change our preconceived notions of what art should be; it isn't "habitual" or "repetitious." Art should not be something that a person can "get" in the shortest time possible. In fact, I believe that Shklovsky would agree that the best art takes great magnitudes of time to fully cherish and understand. Today, it seems our "art" is consumed rapidly by its audiences.
ReplyDelete- What, then, would Shklovsky think of today's "art," and would he value or disvalue the newfound technological advances?
For Shklovsky, the purpose of art is to create a sense of defamilarization with an object in order to create a personal perception of that object instead of seeing it for what it is commonly known as. He believes that art should not be something quickly understood, but instead something that take time. How do you think Nabokov would feel about this notion?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky says that "a work is created 'artistically' so that its perception is impeded and the greatest possible effect is produced through the slowness of the perception". He also relates this defamiliarization with the way riddles are presented, and how they are artistic. He says you should feel accomplished when you see art because you have figured "art" out, just as you would feel accomplished when you get the answer to a riddle right. He quotes Aristotle who says that "poetic language must seem strange and wonderful". So using their definitions, does that mean that a difficult physics question, the answer to life, and the cure to AIDS, can all be considered art, as long as someone perceives it as such?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky says, "habitualization devours works, clothes, furniture, one's wife, and the fear of war." He also mentions that when people live this way, with habitualization, it is like they never lived. Do you agree or disagree with what Shklovsky is saying here? Why? What type of 'people' is he referring to?
ReplyDeleteQuestion from Rebecca Sai: In the article by Shklovsky, it is said that poetry is a way of thinking, and that poetry in a way is thinking in images. This statement confuses me a little bit. I used to write some poetry, but I need necessarily thought in "images." So what exactly does Shklovsky mean by this? Does he mean that poetry can also be a way of thinking about images or occasions in the past?
ReplyDeleteThe story "Pkhents" has many uncertainties, from what Andrei looks like, what he actually is, where he came from, and what his language is. The message that the author is meaning to get across is somewhat ambiguous upon first reading. Because of this, would Shklovsky consider this a superior piece of art because it may take many readings and discussion in order to understand? Because the story is not habitual in the way that some artwork is, and the mind cannot create a full image because the information is not provided, would Shkovsky say it is greater than a more generic piece of art?
ReplyDeleteSinyavsky's writing has many examples of the "art" which Shklovsky writes about. What are some of these examples and how does the narrator's life story contribute to the art of the story?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky states in his article that art must be realized slowly, over the course of several readings and extensive study. Would he approve of the disjointed and confusing narrative style of "Pkhentz?" Additionally, despite Shklovsky's insistence on the contrary, can art be found quickly?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky claims that art is not conveying us the meaning of objects, but rather a "defamiliarisation" of objects; it's to destroy "automated perceptions" in order for us to see beyond what we assume to know. However, does the inverse holds to be true? That is: if "art" does not defamilarize nor destroy automated perception but only serves the purpose to instil an image in our heads, would that still be genuine art?
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the alien's view of sex and what human normally perceptive as erotic organs is written in a way similar to what Shklovsky's theory of destroying automated perceptions and delivering new, artistic perceptions. Is this correct? Is this the intention behind putting these two pieces in a pair ?
In Phkentz, it's clear that the alien is distinguished from the rest of the humans. However, doesn't the alien seem to portrayed as some kind of greater observer, monk, or some messiah like figure?
ReplyDeleteJust as the example Shklovsky used of the story written through a horses perspective, "Pkhentz" uses the view of an alien or a complete outsider to observe human culture. What does the line about the fish's death being more tragic than that of Jesus due to its lack of understanding mean? What is it trying to say about our culture? Does the fact that the main character is something very foreign to us diminish the integrity of his views or does it simply give a new view and provoke thought, as Shklovsky would have wanted?
ReplyDeleteIn “Pkentz” we see examples of defamiliarization and imagery, two main concepts discussed in Shklovsky’s “Art as Device.” Defamiliarization of the body is found throughout this short story, creating vivid imagery for readers to make sense of. Towards the end of the short story, Kazimirovich explains that his hunchback is not actually a deformity but another arm. What is Sinyavsky trying to say through this image that is defamiliarizing the human body? What does Kazimirovich’s whole physical appearance, described almost like that of a tree, really symbolize? Does his appearance allude to elements to life in Russian concentration camps, or rather, that nothing is ever what it appears to be?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky talks about the importance of describing things in a way that deautomatizes your natural perception and helps the reader really absorb the image being created. In "Pkhentz," Sinyavsky does this very well. In fact, he does it on the first page when describing dirty pillowcases and towels. The narrator/main character in this story turns out to be an alien, so what is the significance in that? In other words, is Sinyavsky trying to say something about this type of imagery and writing style by having such a foreign narrator, an alien, use it? Is he hinting that this artistic writing is as foreign as a being from another planet?
ReplyDeleteAndrei seems to dislike humans. Why does he seem unfazed by Veronica's efforts yet talks about her so much? How can he consider himself not good enough for her yet consider himself better than humans? Why does he talk so casually about her?
ReplyDeleteThere are several references to christianity throughout the text. In many ways, Andrei seems to take on the role of Christ. Is the author portraying religion in a positive or negative manner?
ReplyDeleteIf the law of economy of the creative effort is one of the overarching guiding principles in the creation of art, it is not very evident, at least to me, in much of the art around. Should this law be obeyed or at least an effort be made to conform to it?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the Alien in Pkentz is a god like figure or possibly even god himself ? Is the Authors portrayal of the Alien give the reader any indication that this is what the Author believes god sees in society ? Is there some role reversal between Andrei and a god like figure?
ReplyDeleteHow do you guys think both of these texts relate back to this class and the topic of the Cold War besides the fact that both the authors are Russian? Do you think the fact that Andrei, the main character in Pkhentz, is from space has anything implications to the space race?
ReplyDeleteWhat sort of descriptive language from the text can the reader use to visualize the narrator? What is the significance of such depictions and what is the effect on the story and/or the reader?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky claims that "If the whole complex lives of many people go on unconsciously,then such lives are as if they had never been. And art exists that one may recover the sensation of life; it exists to make one feel things". Therefore, is he saying that with the absence of art, life is not worth living because we can't feel the sensation of life?
ReplyDeleteShklovsky states that "Images belong to no one: they are 'the Lord's.'" Therefore, with images being the chief characteristic of poetry, what effect does Christianity have on the changing of images from century to century?
ReplyDeleteIn Shklovsky's "Art as a Device", it is stated that as we become familiarize and get used to a certain thing or action - such as speaking a language - this action gets gets cut short and can be compared to the algebraic method. Is Shklovsky suggesting that when we read prose, we should focus primarily on the main points or ideas?
ReplyDeleteIn Pkhentz, what is the significance of Andrei's chosen disguise in comparison with his true identity? What does Sinyavsky's background suggest about his writing of this short story?
ReplyDelete"Art as Device" claims habitualization devours works. Does Sinyavsky tell a story from the side of a foreign creature to break the habit of retelling stories of man and effectively direct the reader find deeper meaning in the work? Did using art as a device help those opposed to the soviet rule spread their ideas with less risk of being caught?
ReplyDeleteIn "Pkhentz," Andrei seems to have several have many characteristics that are Christ-like, yet several that aren't very Christ-like at all. Identify the two. Do you think that Sinyavsky exaggerates many of Andrei's Christ-like qualities to make fun of Christianity, or simply to make his point more obvious?
ReplyDelete