Osip Brik Research Articles

Notes onAutoanimals

A journalist, novelist, and documentary photographer specializing in the Orient, Sergei Mikhailovich Tretiakov (1892–1939) received his first recognition as a member of the Siberian Futurist organization Tvorchestvo (Creativity), active from 1919 to 1921. In 1923, he was a founding member of LEF (Left Front of the Arts), the Moscow journal of literature, criticism and art, whose editorial staff included the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky and the critic Osip Brik. LEF was published from 1923 to 1925 and published as Novyi LEF (New LEF) in 1927 and 1928. Tretiakov took over the position of editor-in-chief of Novyi LEF from Mayakovsky for the last five numbers issued in 1928.

Soviet Semiotics and Literary Criticism

VOLUTION, wrote Tynyanov, does not go by plan but by leaps and bounds; it is not a development, but a dislocation. For nearly a generation from the end of the 1920s there was no speculative or theoretical thinking about literature in the Soviet Union. The great debates of the twenties were stilled. The formalist theoreticians turned to textual scholarship (Eikhenbaum, Tomashevsky, Vinogradov), to the cinema and journalism (Shklovsky, Osip Brik), or to the novel (Tynyanov). Socialist realism had won the day, and its doctrine lay like a heavy stratum over the once rich and varied seams of independent speculative thought. The decade up to the war did, however, produce some isolated works of originality and brilliance (from the scholars who worked with the linguist N. Ya. Marr), and the great tradition of stylistics continued, putting into the practice of Pushkin scholarship the theoretical insights of the previous decade. Bakhtin, too, worked on, though his major works of this period were not to see the light until many years later. Evolution, said Tynyanov, is an interrupted line. The evolution he had in mind, the sudden flowering of Russian literature in the nineteenth century, was an organic process that owed little to outside pressures. The evolution of Russian literary theory in the twentieth century, however, has suffered its jolts, interruptions, and dislocations at the hands of a Stalin, a Zhdanov, or a Suslov; it is a process deliberately thwarted and, for a time at least, wholly suppressed. The reemergence of literary theory in the early sixties came about in a quite unexpected and uniquely Soviet way. If certain areas are sensitive to investigation, or even taboo, the energy of speculative thought will be deflected into areas which are neutral, perhaps scientific, or even technologically useful. It was by such a deflection into science and technology that a whole new and original school of literary semiotics came into being in the Soviet Union. In the vacuum left in Soviet intellectual life after the death of Stalin

Mayakovsky and the Literary Movements of 1917-30 (Material towards a literary biography)

Mayakovsky and the Literary Movements of 1917-30 (Material towards a literary biography) Get access Osip Brik Osip Brik Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Screen, Volume 15, Issue 3, Autumn 1974, Pages 59–81, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/15.3.59 Published: 01 October 1974

On Khlebnikov

Journal Article On Khlebnikov Get access Osip Brik Osip Brik Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Screen, Volume 15, Issue 3, Autumn 1974, Pages 104–109, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/15.3.104 Published: 01 October 1974

From the Theory and Practice of a Script Writer

From the Theory and Practice of a Script Writer Osip Brik Osip Brik Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Screen, Volume 15, Issue 3, Autumn 1974, Pages 95–103, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/15.3.95 Published: 01 October 1974