Finale

                              As we head into an era that is shaped less by literature, I believe that the form of what we call literature will adapt, mold, but also remain extremely important to meaning and implications of a work. Indeed, the Formal method works on other, non-textual ideas.

               

                For example, architecture can be analyzed and is pervaded by the ideas of Formalism. Just how Stravinsky used different forms to help create a neoclassical piece of music, Robert Adam and Benjamin Latrobe used architectural forms to help create the neoclassical school of architecture. Planes are used, instead of sculptural volumes. Large columns are used, recalling Greek and Roman architecture. Finally, grid street planning became much more popular, recalling the logical and orderly designs of Rome. All of the forms of classicism were recalled to make the architectural genre of neoclassicism. The formal method goes beyond the specific, however- we can view architecture more broadly, as Formalism intends to do. Look at the buildings that were designed in Neoclassicist styles- Symphony halls, museums, etc. All of these have to do with spiritual or artistic concerns that hearken back to the classical era and the indulgence of the Pax Romana. None are entirely function-based, instead it is more of an aesthetic statement. This fact reveals the truth behind Neoclassicist architecture, which it is searching for a higher, Platonic, truth.

               

Latrobe's Baltimore Basilica.

                Video games interestingly also present an opportunity to apply our Formal method. The large genres of video games inherently decide many things about what the content and mechanics of the game will be. If a game is in a team-shooter style, expectations are created based off of that form and previous games which have come before it to determine what the game will be like and how it will be received by the audience. For example, turn-based simulators all pay homage to Civilization, the pioneering game in the genre. One of the tenets of Formalism is how works in a genre depend extensively on previous works. Following this philosophy, essentially all new turn-based simulators use some sort of grid system like Civ, units, and multiplayer simulation. Even though this genre is not really literature and it extends out way beyond the realm of art, it still can be seen through the mold and the lenses of the Formal Method.

                Finally, following the abstract route I’ve taken so far, we can view something as far out as mathematical proofs through the Formal lens. Let’s return to the tenets of Formalism:

• Creation of an objective science of literature (“Poetics”)
• The use of linguistics as a foundation of that objective science.
•  Literature exists externally from outside influences. As such, literary language is inherently different from regular language, which is mostly concerned with just communication.
• The history of literature is the history of the creation of formal structures. It is not determined by material history.
•   The form of a work is inextricable from its meaning.

First, mathematics is inherently objective, and we can view it from such an objective lens. Secondly, math is in its own bubble and own community which exists essentially protected by a sphere of confusion from the outside world. If we start reading a paper, the only thing that matters is the content and the veracity of the work inside, not what we bring to the paper. It doesn’t matter whether the reader agrees or disagrees, it has no effect on the inherent truth (yes, I am taking another Platonic approach, where I’m assuming there is some definite truth.) The history of math has not been dictated by outside sources, by economic factors or by society. It has been a search for truth and a cooperative building of a framework. Finally, the form of a proof is probably the most important thing. It starts with assumptions that are already known and proven to be true, or axioms. These axioms are played with, logic and math are used to work towards new assumptions, everything builds, until finally Q.E.D. we have what the proof set out to do. This building and quasi-hierarchical structure is intrinsic to the mathematics- the building on top of one another mimics math as a whole. Each new discovery, like each step in a proof, works towards a truth. The form of a proof, in that it works towards a final goal, is intrinsic to the meaning.

Now, as it is time to say adieu, I can finally step back from the Formal mode and view everything through my own lens. This is necessary for evaluation of reality- what do you have if not your own truth? As I worked along trying to understand, I got to see the large amounts of truth in Formalism, but also ran into problems. It works in many ways that are often quite gratifying to see come to fruition, but sometimes fails to get to the heart of a work, something a bit more ascetic. What is the beauty in Stravinsky? It’s there, but what is it? That question, I believe, fails the Formal Method. We can break it down to see what the motives of composition, the methods, and the purpose are, but what exactly makes it a timeless work that can be listened to again and again? No scientific method can give us the answer. Is it something that even can be answered, or is that too objective? Once again, at the capitulation, I find myself with more questions than answers. That is the mark of a successful inquiry.