DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2020.8.33616

Abstract: The subject of this research is the corpus of auto-reflexive texts of the contemporary poet Vyktor Ivaniv – his research, essayistic, literary-critical writings. The goal consists in reconstruction of V. Ivaniv’s poetology, which implies the system of representations on ultimate characteristics of poetry, poeticity, and poetic. It is established that poetological system of V. Ivaniv can be described as an example of radicalization of “magic” intentions of historical avant-garde. The novelty of V. Ivaniv consists in reassessment of the ideas of transformation of the world using such term as “utopic”. Having determined the genetic affinity of the constructs of Russian avant-gardists with the ideas of Nicholas of Cusa, Rene Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ivaniv highlights their rootedness in the traditions of European rationalism. The novelty of the research lies in the comprehensive analysis, which allows restoring a universal system of representations on poetry based on the comparison of texts belonging to different types of discourse. Formulation of aesthetic principles in Ivaniv’s works is inseparable from philological reflection over the nature of symbol and its typology. Analyzing the principles of the construction of image at different stages of the establishment of avant-garde mentality, V. Ivaniv creates the concept of iconic symbol as a substitute of the event and a semantic operator, which replaces false meanings with true ones. According to Ivaniv, transgressive introduction to the truth of being – ecstatic and dangerous – comprises the essence of the poetic.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2019.1.28519

Abstract: The theory of Russian formalism views literariness as a set of features that distinguish a literary text from all other texts and has always been the topic of acute discussion. Viktor Shklovsky's researches of the 1920s-1930s were focused on literariness as a result of his interest in the marginal forms of the literary process in the XVIIIth century as well as the phenomenon of mass literature. Noteworthy that his ideas closely related to the realities of that period and involved discussions about the 'social order' and 'literary life', thus presenting the writer's views on the creative writing, status of a writer and creative goals. The methodology of the research combines various methods such as comparative history, hermeneutical and phenomenological approaches as well as individual provisions of the 'history of terms' concept. The scientific novelty of the research is caused by the author's attempt to view Viktor Shkolvsky's works on the literature of the XVIIIth century and such authors as M. Koramov, V. Levshin and M. Chulkov as a specific form of self-reflection aimed at overcoming the author's creative crisis and creating opportunities for using the methodology of the Russian formalism in the analysis of the literary life of different eras.