Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The posthumous legacy of Khlebnikov versus Mayakovsky sub specie Avant-Garde performance of scandal

Debating the semiotic pragmatics of Avant-Garde behavior and life-creation

  • Published:
Neohelicon Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper addresses the issue of the posthumous legacies of the two main Russian Avant-Garde revolutionary poets Vladimir Mayakovsky and Velemir Khlebnikov and draws largely on the memoir accounts available in this regard. The essay examines the pragmatics of operation of the post-Futurist public scandal which contributed to establishing/undermining the “symbolic value” of each poet’s debated legacy. The paper brings into discussion various methods of cultural analysis that include Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital, theory of speech-acts and different apprehensions of public memory. Some inconsistencies in the strategic maneuvering of each author are brought into attention, dwelling upon the possible reasoning for their respective successes and failures. The complex issues that may be seen responsible for this process are analyzed in the essay along with additional Russian avant-garde figures who exploited the same pragmatics of performing practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On the context of this see Parnis (2002). See also Parnis (2007); see as well Katanian (1975).

  2. On the general landscape of the contradictory Utopian discourses of the 1920s see a good overview in Stites (1989). For the perplexed picture of all the literary fights of the 1920s see Sheshukov (1970), and Belaia (1989).

  3. Halbwachs (1980).

  4. Assmann (1992).

  5. Young (1993).

  6. See Maxim Shapir’s pioneering essay for that topic: Shapir (1995). See also Ioffe (2006–2007), Ioffe (2007).

  7. See Shapir ,“Esteticheskii opyt XX veka: avangard i postmodernism,” pp. 143–145.

  8. On performativity in particular see for a good introduction such studies as: Robinson (2006), and Grundy (2008).

  9. Among the recent general studies on pragmatics see Adolphs (2008), Burton-Roberts (2007), Bonhomme (2005), Szabó (2005).

  10. For the interdisciplinary context see Cummings (2005).

  11. On this see Martin (1974); and several contributions in Weinert (ed.) (2007).

  12. See Austin (1967).

  13. See Searle (1965).

  14. See DiGiovanna (1989); see also some discussing entries in Fann (1969); and more recently Vanderveken and Susumu (eds.) (2002), Greimann and Siegwart (eds.) (2007).

  15. The addressee’s identification of an utterance on the evaluative true/false vector has no defining significance here. That is to say for confirming the semiotic act it is sufficient to indicate if the act was “noted” and “understood” in the context of a determinate signifying event. The ability to achieve a “true” (intentional) semantic meaning of this act of utterance becomes less important. The city dwellers of St. Petersburg walking along the Nevsky Boulevard did not know and did not understand what was the exact meaning of the peculiar facepainted messages conveyed by Larionov, Zdanevich and Goncharova. This does not prevent us from recognizing the function of semiotic expression of this group of Russian Avant-Garde. The man in the street, who did not possess an exact awareness of Larionov’s and Zdanevich’s concrete semantic intention understood and identified the communicative act transpiring in front of him as significant and worthy of attention. Discussion of “communicative acts” of this kind allows one to remove the traditional true/false opposition in dealing with the semiotic nature of illocutionary in any communicative action. Developing the ideas of Shapir, I conclude that there would seem to be no “empirical truth” for the Avant-Garde aesthetical Pragmatics. There exists only “sign” and “non-sign” in a semiotic sense.

    The radical intention of destroying the addressee’s automated function of speech reception that may be recognized as the primary goal of avant-garde Pragmatics as such. Not by coincidence, this phenomenon inspired the Russian Formalists who in a similar manner (Shklovsky) viewed the artistic sign above all else as intended for the elimination of inert automatization and for the creation of a “defamiliarization” effect.

  16. Distinct from the reported by means of speaking—that is, per locution.

  17. On this see the recent study by the German scholar from Tübingen Kallia (2007).

  18. On this see my paper: Ioffe (2008).

  19. See two principal publications on that regard: Paperno and Grossman (eds.) (1994), Schahadat (2005).

  20. On life-creational pragmatics of Khlebnikov see my series of papers: Ioffe (2005), Ioffe (2003/2005).

  21. Weststeijn (2004).

  22. Ibid.: p. 59.

  23. Docherty (1983). See as well the viewpoint expressed by Chatman (1986).

  24. Weststeijn, “Towards a cognitive theory of character,” p. 59.

  25. Ibid.

  26. Mann (2002).

  27. Ibid.

  28. Phelan (2001).

  29. Published accordingly in 1983, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990. Margolin (1983, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990).

  30. “Introducing and sustaining characters in literary narrative: A set of conditions”, p. 117.

  31. For more on this see the work of a Slavic scholar from the University of Haifa Vladimir Papernyi describing how Belyi “played” a certain scene from Dostoevsky’s Demons portraying himself as Shatov. Vl. Paperny (1994). See as well Szilard (1982).

  32. See my recent work devoted to this: Ioffe (2008).

  33. See above all others such valuable collections as Kovalenko (2000).

  34. On Mayakovsky and theatre see in particular: Lemaître (1967), Russell (1988), Listengarten (2000), Rudnitskii (2000).

  35. See Brown (1995). More extensive discussion of this particular issue is beyond the scope of the present study, but this will be examined in future.

  36. On Glagolin see Ivanov (2008).

  37. Ivanov, “Tri zhizni Borisa Glagolina”, pp. 29–37.

  38. A recent fascinating semiotic presentation by Marina Akimova focused on hieroglyphically expressed “dance-ability” (“танцеволизация”) of Valentin Parnakh was devoted to this topic.

  39. “…наиболее органичная (в частности, и в смысле связи с телом, со всем организмом человека) форма творчества, не скованная застывшей понятийной структурой языка”. See her “Jest v poetike rannego russkogo avant-garda”, Kharmsizdat predstavliaet, 1998, pp. 51.

  40. On this see Markov (1968).

  41. Markov, Russian Futurism: a history.

  42. “Мы связали искусство с жизнью. После долгого уединения мастеров, мы громко позвали жизнь и жизнь вторгнулась в искусство, пора искусству вторгнуться в жизнь. Раскраска лица—начало вторжения. Оттого так колотятся наши сердца”. See Larionov and Zdanevich (1999, p. 242).

  43. “…мы раскрашиваемся—ибо чистое лицo противно, ибо хотим глашатайствовать о неведомом, перестраиваем жизнь и несем на верховья бытия умноженную душу человека”. See Ibid.

  44. E. Bobrinskaia, “Futuristicheskii grim”, Russkii avant-garde: granitsy iskusstva (Moskva: NLO, 2006), 150.

  45. For the connection between face painting and pragmatical theatricality of masks, see Iliukhina (2008). On the group’s theatricality see also Bowlt (1990).

  46. See Bobrinskaia (2006).

  47. Ibid.

  48. “Как взвизг трамвая, предостерегающий торопливых прохожих, как пьяные звуки великого танго—наше лицо”. See: Larionov, Zdanevich, “Pochemu my raskrashivaemsia”, p. 243.

  49. See: Bobrinskaia, “Futuristicheskii grim”, p. 157.

  50. “Futuristicheskii grim”, p. 158.

  51. See Gary S. Becker, Human capital (New York, 1964).

  52. His initial ideas on this appeared in Bourdieu (1972).

  53. On this see Coleman (1988).

  54. See Bourdieu (1994), p. 116.

  55. For the entirely different set of examples that is related to Khlebnikov’s “symbolic capital” as perceived by the “unengaged” into Russian Futurism Iranian Sufis who treated him like a “holy man” see: Ioffe, “Budetlianin na obochine islama”, pp. 217–258.

  56. On the important role of Khlebnikov in Russian Futurism see the classic monograph: Vladimir Markov, Russian Futurism: a History.

  57. The translation, as everywhere in the paper is of the author of this article, unless specified otherwise. “Широкая железная осока / Перерезала воды его жизни, его уже нет… / Поводом было уничтожение / Рукописей злостными/ Негодяями с большим подбородком / И шлепающей и чавкающей парой губ.” See Khlebnikov (1986, p. 504).

  58. One cannot forget the early Futurist euphony of Mayakovsky “the Flute of Sewer Pipes” (флейта водосточных труб) and “appeals from new lips” (зовы новых губ).

  59. I use this expression in the sense of such Khlebnikov’s ‘sound portrayals’ like “Вне протяжения жило Лицо.”

  60. Burliuk (1993).

  61. Shalamov (2001). See also the corresponding publication: Velemir Khlebnikov. Vsem. Nochnoi bal; Al’vek. Nakhlebniki Khlebnikova: Maiakovskii—Aseev (Moskva, 1927).

  62. Riabova (1993).

  63. On Khardzhiev see in English: A Legacy Regained: Nikolai Khardzhiev and the Russian Avant-garde, ed. John E. Bowlt and Mark Konecny (St. Petersburg: Palace Editions, 2002).

  64. Slavinskii (2007).

  65. Jangfeldt 1992), 45; 67; 129. See also Grigor (2000a, b), and “Maiakovskii v zerkale sud’by Khlebnikova,” in Budetlianin, pp. 550–559.

  66. See Jakobson (2000).

  67. Maiakovskii, “Velemir Khlebnikov,” in Mir Velimira Khlebnikova, pp. 153–156.

  68. Ibid.: p. 155

  69. Ibid: p. 156.

  70. In the words of Maiakovskii: “Практически Хлебников неорганизованнейший человек. Сам за всю свою жизнь он не напечатал ни строчки. Посмертное восхваление Хлебникова Городецким приписало поэту чуть не организаторский талант: создание футуризма, печатание ‘Пощёчины общественному вкусу’ и т. д. Это совершенно неверно”. Ibid.: p. 156.

  71. Ibid.: p. 156.

  72. As Maiakovskii described this entire issue: “После смерти Хлебникова появились в разных журналах и газетах статьи о Хлебникове, полные сочувствия. С отвращением прочитал. Когда, наконец, кончится комедия посмертных лечений?! Где были пишущие, когда живой Хлебников, оплёванный критикой, живым ходил по России? Я знаю живых, может быть, не равных Хлебникову, но ждущих равный конец. Бросьте, наконец, благоговение столетних юбилеев, почитания посмертными изданиями! Живым статьи! Хлеб живым! Бумагу живым!”. See Ibid.: p. 156.

  73. For that theme see a number of “accusing” essays rendered in a collection Vladimir Majakovsky: pro et contra, ed. Vladimir Djadichev (Moskva: RChGI, 2006).

References

  • Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Assmann, J. (1992). Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. (1967). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belaia, G. (1989). Don Kikhoty 20kh godov. Pereval i istoriia ego idei. Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrinskaia, E. (2006). Futuristicheskii grim. Russkii avant-garde: Granitsy iskusstva (pp. 142–157). Moskva: NLO.

  • Bonhomme, M. (2005). Pragmatique des figures du discours. Paris: Champion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle. Genève: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlt, J. (1990). Natalia Goncharova and Futurist theater. In S. A. Mansbach (Ed.), From Leningrad to Ljubljana: The suppressed avant-gardes of East Central and Eastern Europe during the early twentieth century. A special issue of Art Journal, 49, 44–51.

  • Brown, G. (1995). Speakers, listeners, and communication: Explorations in discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burliuk, M. (1993). Nachalo bylo tak daleko. In V. V. Katanian (Ed.), Sovremennitsy o Maiakovskom (pp. 45–49). Moskva: Druzhba narodov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.). (2007). Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, S. (1986). Characters and narrators: Filter, center, slant and interest-focus. Poetics Today, 7, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiGiovanna, J. J. (1989). Linguistic phenomenology: Philosophical method in J.L. Austin. Bern: P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Docherty, Th. (1983). Reading the (absent) character: Towards a theory of characterization in fiction (p. 224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fann, K. T. (1969). Symposium on J. L. Austin. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greimann, D., & Siegwart, G. (Eds.). (2007). Truth and speech acts: Studies in the philosophy of language. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigor’ev, V. P. (2000a). Maiakovskii v zerkale sud’by Khlebnikova. In Budetlianin, Moskva: IaRK 2000, pp. 550–559.

  • Grigor’ev, V. P. (2000b). Poeziia, politika, politikantstvo. In Budetlianin, Moskva: IaRK 2000, pp. 594–602.

  • Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. London: Hodder Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory, trans. Francis J. Ditter, Jr., and Vida Yazdi Ditter. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Iliukhina, E. (2008) Maski Larionova i Goncharovoi. In G. F. Kovalenko (ed) Avantgarde i teatr 1910–1920 godov. Moskva: Nauka, pp. 357–402.

  • Ioffe, D. (2003/2005). Budetlianin na obochine islama. Philologica, 8, 217–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioffe, D. (2005). Zhiznetvorchestvo russkogo modernisma sub specie semioticae. Kritica i semiotica, 8, 126–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioffe, D. (2006–2007) Modernism in the context of Russian ‘life-creation.’ Observations on the theory of ‘life text’ sign systems with regard to the ‘lebenskunst’ phenomenon and its immediate comparative setting. New Zealand Slavonic Journal, 40, 22–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioffe, D. (2007). The concept of the ‘text of behavior’ in the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics. Amsterdam Journal for Cultural Narratology, 5 (2007). Accessed 21 June 2011. http://cf.hum.uva.nl/narratology/a07_loffe.htm.

  • Ioffe, D. (2008a). Russian and European modernism and the idea of life-creation. In S. Brouwer (Ed.), Dutch contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, September 10–16, 2008 (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Ioffe, D. (2008b). The discourses of love: Preliminary observations regarding Charles Baudelaire in the context of Brjusov’s and Blok’s vision of the ‘urban woman. Russian Literature, LXIV, 19–47.

  • Ivanov, V. (2008). Tri zhizni Borisa Glagolina. G. F. Kovalenko (Ed.), Russkii Avant-Garde i teatr, 1910–1920 (pp. 4–19). Moskva: Nauka.

  • Jakobson, R. (2000). Iz vospominanii. In Mir Velimira Khlebnikova (pp. 83–89). Moskva: IaRK.

  • Jangfeldt, B. (1992). Jakobson-budetlianin. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallia, A. (2007). Politeness and implicature: Expanding the cooperative principle. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katanian, V. (1975). Ne tol’ko vospominaniia. Russian Literature Triquarterly, 13, 477–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khlebnikov, V. Tvoreniia, eds. M. Poliakov, V. P. Grigor’ev, A. E. Parnis, Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1986.

  • Kovalenko, G. F. (Ed.). (2000). Russkii avant-garde i teatr, 1910–1920. Dmitrii Bulanin: Sankt Peterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larionov, M., & Zdanevich, I. (1999). Pochemu my raskrashivaemsia. In V. Terechina, et al. (Eds.), Russkii Futurism. Moskva: IMLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemaître, M. (1967). Le Théâtre futuriste italien et russe. Paris: Centre de créativité.

    Google Scholar 

  • Listengarten, J. (2000). Russian tragifarce: Its cultural and political roots. Cranbury: Associated University Presses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, Y. (2002). Zametki o neevklidovoi geometrii Gogolia. Voprosy literatury, 4, 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, U. (1983). Characterization in narrative: Some theoretical prolegomena. Neophilologus, 67, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, U. (1986). The doer and the deed: Action as a basis for characterization in the narrative. Poetics Today, 7, 204–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, U. (1987). Introducing and sustaining characters in literary narrative: A set of conditions. Style, 21, 107–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, U. (1989). Structuralist approaches to character in narrative: The state of the art. Semiotica, 75, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, U. (1990). The what, the when, and the how of being a character in literary narrative. Style, 24, 453–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markov, V. (1968). Russian Futurism: A history. Berkley: California University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. M. (1974). Toward a systematic pragmatics. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paperno, I., & Grossman, J. (Eds.). (1994). Creating life: The aesthetic utopia of Russian modernism. Paolo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paperny, V. (1994). Iz nabliudenii nad poetikoi Andreia Belogo. Slavianovedenie, 3, 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnis, A. (2002). Velimir Khlebnikov: Moskva–Santalovo, Mai- Iun’ 1922. Zhurnal Biblio-Globus, 6, 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnis, A. (2007). Esli by gnev ne zastilal glaza…. Informprostranstvo, 5 (2007). Accessed 21 June 2011, http://informprostranstvo.ru/N5_2007/polemik_N5_2007.html.

  • Phelan, J. (2001). Why narrators can be focalizers and why it matters. In W. Van Peer & S. Chatman (Eds.), New perspectives on narrative perspective (pp. 51–64). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riabova, N. (1993). Kievskie vstrechi. In V. Katanian (Ed.), Sovremennitsy o Maiakovskom (p. 234). Moskva: Druzhba narodov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (2006). Introducing performative pragmatics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudnitskii, K. (2000). Russian and Soviet theater, 1905–1932, translation from Russian by Roxane Permar, edited by Lesley Milne. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, R. (1988). Russian drama of the revolutionary period. Totowa: Barnes & Noble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schahadat, S. (2005). Das leben zur kunst machen: lebenskunst in Russland vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundent. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

  • Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act? In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221–239). London: Alien and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalamov, V. (2001). Vospominaniia (pp. 52–53). Moskva: Eksmo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapir, M. (1995). Esteticheskii opyt XX veka: avangard i postmodernism. Philologica, 2, 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheshukov, S. I. (1970). Neistovye revniteli. Iz istorii literaturnoi bor’by. Moskva: Moskovskii rabochii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavinskii, V. (2007). Poslednee vystuplenie. In L. Bykov (Ed.), Moi Maiakovskii (pp. 351–359). Ekaterinburg: Ufaktoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stites, R. (1989). Revolutionary dreams: Utopian vision and social experiment in the Russian revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabó, Z. G. (Ed.). (2005). Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szilard, L. (1982). Ot Besov k Peterburgu. In N. A. Nilsson (Ed.), Studies in 20th century Russian prose (pp. 80–107). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderveken, D., & Susumu, K. (Eds.). (2002). Essays in speech act theory. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, R. (Ed.). (2007). Spoken language pragmatics: An analysis of form-function relations. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weststeijn, W. (2004). Towards a cognitive theory of character. In L. Fleishman, C. Gölz, & A. A. Hansen-Löve (Eds.), Analysieren als Deuten: Wolf Schmid zum 60 Geburtstag (pp. 53–65). Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. E. (1993). The texture of memory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge his gratitude to Henryk Baran for the useful comments expressed with regard to the current essay. The author is also indebted to Frederick H. White and Yuri Leving for their invaluable critical reading of the preliminary manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universiteit Gent, Vakgroep Slavistiek en Oost-Europakunde (LW 16 V), Rozier 44, 9000, Gent, Belgium

    Dennis Ioffe

Authors
  1. Dennis Ioffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Ioffe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ioffe, D. The posthumous legacy of Khlebnikov versus Mayakovsky sub specie Avant-Garde performance of scandal. Neohelicon 39, 453–473 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-012-0149-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-012-0149-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation