please note:
- the content below is remote from Wikipedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{more citations needed|date=May 2018}}
LEF ("
ÐÐФ") was the journal of the
Left Front of the Arts ("ÐевÑй ÑÑÐ¾Ð½Ñ Ð¸ÑкÑÑÑÑв"{{spaced ndash}}
"Levy Front Iskusstv"), a widely ranging association of
avant-garde writers, photographers, critics and designers in the
Soviet Union. It had two runs, one from 1923 to 1925 as LEF, and later from 1927 to 1929 as
Novy LEF ('New LEF').MAGAZINE,
weblink Screen Volume, Soviet Film 1920s: Translations from LEF, Novy LEF, Brik, Kuleshov, Shklovsky, Vertov. Mayakovsky Film Scenarios. Politics and Production: The work of Godard. Marinetti and Mayakovsky, 12, 4, The journal's objective, as set out in one of its first issues, was to "re-examine the ideology and practices of so-called leftist art, and to abandon individualism to increase art's value for developing communism."
Productivism
Although
LEF was catholic in its choices of writers, it broadly reflected the concerns of the Productivist left-wing of
Constructivism. The editors were
Osip Brik and
Vladimir Mayakovsky: fittingly, one a
Russian Formalist critic and one a poet and designer who helped compose the 1912 manifesto of
Russian Futurists entitled, "A Slap in the Face of Public Taste". The covers were designed by
Alexander Rodchenko, and featured photomontages early on, being followed by photographs in
New LEF.
Varvara Stepanova also designed covers.BOOK, Yablonskaya, M. N., Women Artists of Russias New Age: 1900-1935, Rizzoli, 1971, Parton, Anthony, New York, 153, Among the writings published in
LEF for the first time were Mayakovsky's long poem
About This, and
Sergei Eisenstein's
The Montage of Attractions, as well as more political and journalistic works like
Isaac Babel's
Red Cavalry. The journal had funding from the state, and was discussed critically, but not unsympathetically by
Leon Trotsky in
Literature and Revolution (1924).
Factography
The later
New LEF ("ÐовÑй ÐÐФ"{{spaced ndash}}
"Novy Lef"), which was edited by Mayakovsky along with the playwright, screenplay writer and photographer
Sergei Tretyakov, tried to popularise the idea of '
factography': the idea that new technologies such as photography and film should be utilised by the working class for the production of 'factographic' works. In this it had a great deal of influence on theorists in the West, especially
Walter Benjamin and
Bertolt Brecht. Linked journals also appeared such as the Constructivist architectural journal
SA (edited by
Moisei Ginzburg and
Alexander Vesnin) and
Proletarskoe Foto, on photography. The
New LEF closed in 1929 over a dispute over its direction between Mayakovsky and Tretyakov, and under pressure for its 'Formalism', which jarred with the incipient
Socialist Realism.
Some Contributors to LEF and Novy LEF
The "Lenin issue"
After
Vladimir Leninâs death on January 21, 1924, LEFâs first issue of the year dedicated its critical section to the Soviet leader (though the publicationâs artistic prose and poetry were not Lenin-themed). These critical articles mainly focused on an analysis of Leninâs writing and his oratory: this is because the Formalist critic
Viktor Shklovsky independently organized the project JOURNAL, Eisen, Samuel, Whose Lenin Is It Anyway? Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum and the Formalist-Marxist Debate in Soviet Cultural Politics (A View from the Twenties)., The Russian Review, 1996, 55, 1, 68,
weblink and presented it to LEF.
Vladimir Mayakovsky did, however, contribute an unsigned editorial to the issue, in which he criticized the newly-forming habit of Soviet authorities to âcanonizeâ Lenin by mass-producing commercial objects with his portrait or likeness on them. The editorial argued that this practice would undermine Leninâs significance for future generations. In Mayakovskyâs words, âDonât take away his living gait and human traits, which he was able to preserve as he guided history. Lenin is still our contemporary. He is among the living. We need him alive, not dead.â [CVS 148]BOOK, Mayakovsky, Vladimir, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 148, The other articles do not explicitly develop this point, although they do focus on certain unusual, âhumanâ particularities of Leninâs style. In total, six writers contributed articles to the critical section of the issue. Their names and the titles of their works follow:
- 1. Shklovsky - "Lenin as Decanonizer" («Ðенин, как деканонизаÑоÑ»)WEB, Shklovsky, Viktor, Ðенин, как деканонизаÑоÑ,weblink
- 2. Boris Eikhenbaum - "Basic Stylistic Tendencies in Lenin's Speech" («ÐÑновнÑе ÑÑилевÑе ÑенденÑии в ÑеÑи Ðенина»)WEB, Eikhenbaum, Boris, ÐÑновнÑе ÑÑилевÑе ÑенденÑии в ÑеÑи Ðенина,weblink
- 3. Lev Yakubinsky - "On Lenin's Deflation of the High Style" («РÑнижении вÑÑокого ÑÑÐ¸Ð»Ñ Ñ ÐенинаWEB, Yakubinsky, Lev, Ð Ñнижении вÑÑокого ÑÑÐ¸Ð»Ñ Ñ Ðенина,weblink »)
- 4. Yuri Tynyanov - "Lenin's Lexicon as a Polemicist" («СловаÑÑ Ðенина-полемиÑÑа»)WEB, Tynyanov, Yuri, СловаÑÑ Ðенина-полемиÑÑа,weblink
- 5. Boris Kazansky - "Lenin's Speech - An Attempt at Rhetorical Analysis" («РеÑÑ Ðенина: ÐпÑÑ ÑиÑоÑиÑеÑкого анализаWEB, Kazansky, Boris, РеÑÑ Ðенина: ÐпÑÑ ÑиÑоÑиÑеÑкого анализа,weblink »)
- 6. Boris Tomashevsky - "The Construction of the Theses" («ÐонÑÑÑÑкÑÐ¸Ñ ÑезиÑов»)WEB, Tomashevsky, Boris, ÐонÑÑÑÑкÑÐ¸Ñ ÑезиÑов,weblink
All of these men either belonged to one of two Formalist collectives,
OPOJAZ (The Society For the Study of Poetic Language) and the
Moscow Linguistic Circle, or were associated with them. Accordingly, their contributions to this issue of LEF focus on Leninâs specific rhetorical techniques, and not on his broader historical or social importance, which is only alluded to in passing in the articles.BOOK, Tomashevsky, Boris, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 264, Since these authors share certain theoretical assumptions about language and rhetoric, moreover, the articles often overlap in the specific topics of their investigations, and produce a stable group of core conclusions about Leninâs style.
Defamiliarization: Defamiliarization, which can broadly be defined as the idea that the power of a work of art depends on how effectively it defies norms and subverts audiencesâ expectations, is one of the most important and long-standing ideas in Formalist theory. It emerges as early as 1916, in Viktor Shklovskyâs manifesto âArt as Device.âBOOK, Shklovsky, Viktor, Theory of Prose, 1990, Dalkey Archive Press, 1-15, It is therefore unsurprising that several of the articles explain Leninâs ability to communicate ideas effectively, an end he achieved through successfully âdefamiliarizing,â or disrupting, stale, established revolutionary language. As Shklovsky writes, âHis style consists in downplaying the revolutionary phrase, in replacing its traditional words with workaday synonyms.â BOOK, Shklovsky, Viktor, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 152, Tynyanov also pays attention to this aspect of Leninâs style, arguing that Lenin was always intently focused on whether or not the words that he was using at a given moment were âin syncâ with the material realities that they were meant to describe, and that this attention to specificity was more important for Lenin than pretty-sounding turns of phrase. BOOK, Tynyanov, Yuri, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 212,
Lowering language: As a result of Leninâs defamiliarization, his speeches and writing begin to seem âartlessâ in their straightforwardness. Kazansky, along with others, acknowledges this explicitly: âLeninâs discourse always comes across as direct, artless, even colorless and indifferent⦠but this is not so.â BOOK, Kazansky, Boris, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 226, The Formalists do not intend this to be a criticism of Leninâs rhetoric: they instead argue that his atypical style was a pragmatic and effective rhetorical device itself, one that both set Lenin apart from his contemporaries and rivals (e.g.,
Leon Trotsky) and convinced his audience of his sincerity: âNobody suspects Leninâs discourse of artificiality and pretentiousness: it is utterly pragmatic.â BOOK, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 156, 227, Eikhenbaum and Shklovsky suggest that Lenin shares this quality with established writers, such as
Tolstoy and Mayakovsky. BOOK, Eikhenbaum, Boris, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 170-1, In his article, Yakubinsky uses the word âdeflationâ to describe Leninâs antipathy to the traditional high style of Russian oratory.
Polemics and parody: Another essential element of Leninâs success was his willingness to openly mock his enemies, both in print and in his speeches. Eikhenbaum and Tynyanov suggest that Leninâs constant criticism of writings from tsarists and those socialist parties that were opposed to the
Bolsheviks helped him develop a unique, striking rhetorical voice, since he was careful to oppose his opponents both ideologically and stylistically: âLeninâs polemic itself was a significant shift in the tradition and realm of Russian oratory and Russian journalism. In his analysis of his opponentâs lexicon, Lenin supplies all the typical traits of his own lexicon.â BOOK, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 157, 215, Lenin not only avoided âflowery,â cliché phrases in his work, but also actively strove to introduce ârude,â everyday words and ideas into his writing. This was extremely uncommon at the time, and therefore made him more memorable as a rhetorician: âThey appeal to everyday life, and link up with everyoneâs daily, ubiquitous speech. Consequently, they extend the most solid, quantitatively and qualitatively mundane associative ties between speaker and listener.â BOOK, Tynyanov, Yuri, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 216, Tynyanov is especially interested in this aspect of Leninâs style: it is connected with his own interest in parody, which he believed to be the artistic device that spurred literary evolution and the development of new forms of art.BOOK, Tynyanov, Yuri, Permanent Evolution: Selected Essays on Literature, Theory and Film, 2019, Academic Studies Press, 294-328,
Poetic devices in âprosaicâ speech: Although the Formalists were sometimes accused by their opponents of being pure aesthetes, who were attempting entirely to separate art from reality, BOOK, Trotsky, Leon, Literature and Revolution, 2005, Haymarket Books, their work on Lenin reveals that this charge was not entirely accurate. After all, Leninâs journalism and speeches were not art, as Eikhenbaum readily admits: âthe realm of so-called practical language is extremely broad and varied⦠As for such forms as oration, despite its seemingly practical character, it is quite like poetic speech. Poetic speech is typified only by a particular attitude to discrete discursive elements and their specific use, especially in poetry.âBOOK, Eikhenbaum, Boris, Boynik, Sezgin, Coiled Verbal Spring: Devices of Lenin's Language, 2018, Rab-Rab Press, 155, In this sense, the Lenin issue represents a turning point in Formalist thought. They are applying concepts originally devised for poetic analysis to âprosaicâ work, which furthers their project by demonstrating that Formalismâs theoretical concepts, like defamiliarization and parodic evolution, need not be restricted to the study of art. Shklovskyâs original interest in analyzing Lenin may have been prompted by the ongoing polemic between the Formalists and more orthodox Marxist critics, like Leon Trotsky.JOURNAL, Eisen, Samuel, Whose Lenin Is It Anyway? Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum and the Formalist-Marxist Debate in Soviet Cultural Politics (A View from the Twenties)., The Russian Review, 1996, 55, 1, 68,
weblink The overall effect of LEFâs Lenin issue is that Lenin is presented as deeply pragmatic, more interested in the day-to-day questions of maintaining Bolshevik power than in any larger ideal. Moreover, by presenting Lenin as an ironic, flexible thinker, the Formalists subtly appropriated the Soviet leader for themselves. For as Ilya Kalinin writes, âtheir engagement with the figure of Lenin, which was only beginning to be canonized but already possessed an exceedingly powerful symbolic significance and social charge, for the sake of providing themselves with additional, political legitimation for their conceptions about the nature of poetic language, led to far-reaching theoretical consequences.âJOURNAL, Kalinin, Ilya, Kak sdelan yazyk Lenina: material istorii i priem ideologii, Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literatura, 2018, 15, 4, 607-8, Reactions to LEFâs interpretation of Lenin have varied. Within the
Soviet Union, it was received positively by the
Futurist poet
Aleksei Kruchenykh, who went on to write and publish his own analysis of Leninâs language in the following year, heavily citing the LEF critics in his work. The emigre poet
Vladislav Khodasevich, conversely, stridently criticized the issue, claiming that it proved Shklovsky and his compatriots to be sycophants for the Communist government. However, although he found the criticsâ language to be evasive, he admitted that their theoretical observations were justified.BOOK, Khodasevich, Vladislav, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 8 tomakh, vol. 2, 2010, Russkii put, Moscow, 306-9, The issue has received relatively little mention in the West: Victor Erlich refers to Leninâs rhetoric as an âessentially bleakâ topic that did not merit the attention lavished upon it.BOOK, Erlich, Victor, Modernism and Revolutionâ¯: Russian Literature in Transition, 1994, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 220, More recently,
Boris Groys mentioned the issue in his book
The Total Art of Stalinism, claiming that it served as an example of how the Soviet avant-garde inadvertently helped canonize Lenin after his death.BOOK, Groys, Boris, The Total Art of Stalinism, 1992, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 68, He does not, however, discuss the actual content of the articles.
See also
References
{{Reflist}}
Sources
- Victor Osipovich Pertsov (1954), 'Mayakovsky and LEF', News of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Department of Literature and Languages, 1954, Volume 8, Issue 4
{{italic title}}
- content above as imported from Wikipedia
- "LEF (journal)" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
- time: 8:21pm EDT - Wed, Apr 24 2024