Literary Response: Exploring Shklovsky's 'Art as Technique' Concepts

This literary response critically examines Viktor Shklovsky's essay 'Art as Technique.' The student agrees and disagrees with Shklovsky's viewpoints on the nature of art, imagery, and the role of the poet. The essay explores Shklovsky's ideas on defamiliarization, the arrangement versus creation of images, and the impact of habitualization on perception. The author supports Shklovsky's perspective on the purpose of art, which is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived, and the importance of defamiliarization in creating a special perception of objects. The response also differentiates between ordinary speech and literary language and concludes by emphasizing the soothing and image-building qualities of poetry.

Running head: Literary Response
Literary Response
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LITERARY RESPONSE
The Technique of Art
It is pertinent to note that Viktor Shklovsky states that art is not about thinking in images. He
argues that “poets are more concerned about arranging images that are given to them rather than
creating them.” According to Viktor Shklovsky, artistry that is attributed to a piece of art depend
on the perception viewing that work of art.
One tends to disagree with Viktor Shklovsky when he argues that art is not about
thinking in images because art is indeed about thinking in images and without imagery, there
would be no art. Thinking in images is the chief characteristic of poetry because one visualizes
something in one’s mind and only then attempts to write it. (Askin, 2016) Without a vivid
imagination, and a creative bent of mind, it is difficult to write a poem (Askin 2016). One cannot
agree with Viktor Shklovsky’s point of view that poets are more concerned with arranging their
images rather than with creating them. Poets do not arrange images in their mind. They think
about a particular subject and images come to their mind on their own. Images flow in
ceaselessly and are dependent on the imagination of the poet (Askin, 2016). One disagrees with
Viktor Shklovsky that “images are given to poets” and that the ability to remember them is far
more important than the ability to create them, for poets do not memorize images as implied by
the author.
It is noteworthy that Viktor Shklovsky writes that “a change in imagery is not essential to
the development of poetry” and that a work of art, which was meant to be prosaic, is thought to
be poetic and a work that was meant to be poetic is viewed as prosaic. One agrees with Viktor
Shklovsky on this line of thought and also when he writes that the artistry that is attributed to a

2LITERARY RESPONSE
given work depends on the way a person perceives it. It depends on the perception and outlook
of that person (Miall, 2015).
It is pertinent to note that according to Viktor Shklovsky “poetic imagery is a means of
creating the strongest possible impression that surpasses even words”. While poetic imagery
undoubtedly creates a strong impression, it does not surpass words, for words create the strongest
possible interpretation in the minds and hearts of people (Duff, 2014).
Viktor Shklovsky states that “habitualization indeed devours life” because habitualization
takes away the essence of life as human beings fall into a rut and carries on with their lives
without a sense of purpose and meaning. One agrees with Viktor Shklovsky on this line of
thought and also on the fact that the purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are
perceived and not as they are known (Duff, 2014).
One agrees with Viktor Shklovsky’s point of view that the purpose of defamiliarization is
“not to make us perceive meaning but to create a special perception of the object.”
However, one disagrees with Viktor Shklovsky when he writes that “ordinary speech and
literary language have changed places and that poetry has become attenuated, tortuous speech."
There will always be a difference between ordinary speech and literary language (Miall, 2015).
Poetry is most soothing to one’s ear, builds up a plethora of images in one’s mind, and is
definitely not attenuated tortuous speech.

3LITERARY RESPONSE
REFERENCES:
Duff, D. (2014). Modern genre theory. Routledge.
Miall, D. S. (2015). Literariness. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity (pp.
213-227). Routledge.
Shklovsky, V. (2015). Art, as Device. Poetics Today, 36(3), 151-174.
Viktor, S., & Marion, R. (1965). Art as Technique. Russian Formalism Criticism: Four Essays.