Alright, so since it was said that this does not have to be an organized essay type of blog I’ll just mentions some points that I find interesting, and some that I find a bit confusing.
In Shklovsky’s article “Art as Technique” what seemed like the main point to me was the idea of perception becoming habitual and therefore what we usually perceive loses its impact on us. Which is so true, if you think about it, when coming to class, for example, whither you drive, walk or take the bus, taking the same route becomes so habitual that we start missing things that we would notice in it were our first time seeing them. This is what came to my mind when I started reading the article. A quote that I thought was really powerful, about the importance of perception consciously is: “If the whole complex lives of many people go on unconsciously, then such lives are as if they had never been” (page 16). This quote highlights the importance of artistic/writing techniques which bring consciousness into perceiving/ reading works of art. This is when he mentions the technique of “defamiliarization”, and if we think about this in terms of the driving example, it would make sense because if we take a new route, then we will notice more things around us and we would be driving more “consciously”. Now here’s where it gets a bit complicated in my head, the technique of defamiliarization in literature might capture the reader’s attentions and senses, but if it gets too unfamiliar, wouldn’t it lose the reader? Wouldn’t the reader get bored because of a lack in familiarity? If we take the example that Shlovsky gives, the description of private property from a horse’s point of view, it really interesting because it is describing humans’ values and way of life from an animal point of view, but then if, say, instead of having to read just this short passage we had to read a whole book with the same perspective, wouldn’t the lack of familiarity or association make us lose interest in the reading? I can’t really answer the question myself, because I did enjoy reading this short passage but I’m not sure for how long it would hold my interest. You may call me shallow but I must admit, when I pick a novel to read for fun (something that I haven’t had the time to do for a while now) I tend to prefer reading novels written from a female’s point of view, or mainly about a female (no matter what the topic is). I might be mixing the two notions of defamiliarization and relation/association though.
I hope you’re not as confused as I am by reading my blog, if you have, or you think you have, the answers to my questions please enlighten me :)
See you all tomorrow!
Hello! Your blog is very interesting, especially what you said about the familiarization-defamiliarization process. I’m totally agree, if the work of art is too “unfamiliar” would be impossible to the spectator not only try to understand, but to feel the new aesthetic. A good example of this could be some “experimental” works of art, that in my opinion are just a desperate intent of originality and not a sincere new approach or aesthetic.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I think that for Shklovsky art is not about entertainment... Note his repeated praise of difficulty. In Shklovsky's view, the reader has to do some work; indeed, that work is the whole point, as it's what undoes habit.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Jon's comment,it makes even better sense why Shklovsky gives example of Tolstoy: he's one of the most complicated writers, quite difficult to read, but his writing captivates us (not everybody, I guess, but he still has lots of fans all over the world). This difficulty in his writing makes us turn over the pages. And that same difficulty makes him a great artist/writer.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest my problem isn't really with difficulty, it's more that I like to have things in a writing that I could relate to. But when you think about this way, that art is meant to to undo habits, then yes I do believe defamiliarization would be the appropriate method to go about it, and of course when it's shocking it's bound to capture the attention. But for me, I think, it would have to be balanced because I like to enjoy art and at the same time have it take me away from the habitual way so maybe the answer, for me, is familiarization AND defamiliarization.
But isn't that the whole thing -- take an object with which you are familiar and describe it in a way with which you are un- or de- familiar? Gide wrote : "J'appelle un livre 'manqué' celui qui laisse intact le lecteur » -- what you read must subvert "habitualized" perceptions...I think this is also one of the differences between pop culture and "high" culture... the difference between Philippa Gregory and Atwood. While each has their merits, I feel that when I read The White Queen I am having all my societal and gender roles confirmed to me....whereas when I read A Handmaid's tale I am left deeply disturbed, touched in a way that does indeed alter my perception of those familiar norms around me.
ReplyDeleteYou have a really good point, which is that there is a difference between litterature that's written for the purpose of entertainment and other works that might be written to question what is familiar. I can see how the latter would be what Shklovsky considers like real art, but then I think the notion of "defamiliarization" shouldn't be taken to far, otherwise the reader would be out of touch from the writing. So sure, defamiliarization is great, with a bit of familiarity. That's my personal opinion though.
ReplyDelete