Jakobson goes on to make an all-important observation: Without changing the lexical material, and only shifting the grammar, you allow for a multitude of subjective understandings. To define these subjectivities, Jakobson turns to bentham, who wrote about them as “linguistic fictions” that should not be “‘mistaken for realities’ nor ascribed to the creative fancy of linguists.”

Jakobson, with much creative fancy, then notes that the problem of this “linguistic fiction,” conflicts with grammar’s “indispensable, mandatory role” within the language’s “objective structural dichotomy,” raising a few key concerns. Primary of which, concerns about a “pressure” grammatical patterns put on science and other disciplines that rely on objective “realities” Bentham says grammatical structures should “not be mistaken for.” That is to say, the subjectivity of meaning brings into question Boas’s “obligatory” nature of Grammar. For while grammar is “obligatory” in its “objective, structural” relationship with vocabulary, so too is its subjective understanding with vocabulary’s apparent objectivity. 

Herein Jakobson makes his fundamental point: In light of this discrepancy, the “domain of verbal activities” is fully realized “in fiction, in verbal art.” Grammatical concepts “find their widest applications in poetry.”    Indeed, near the end of his essay, Jakobson notes that his analysis is simply the deconstructed experience of the phenomenon of reading poetry itself. Jakobson quotes Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Worf in his note that the reader of poetry “Feels instinctively the poetic effect and the semantic load of these grammatical appliances ‘without the slightest attempt at conscious analysis.’” When reading poetry, we unconsciously sacrifice our objective understanding of language through grammar, gaining instead an understanding of poetic grammar and the plurality of it’s subjective meanings. And then there

Suprematism & Constructivism

Suprematist art is often seen as a return to form, its name referring to and reminding us of the "supremacy of pure artistic feeling." But what does that mean? What has distracted us from form, and how are we returning to it? When seen through the parallel comparisons that Jakobson himself was such a fan of, we can begin to answer these questions by revealing the Jakobsonian poetry inherent to suprematist art. Namely, by comparing Suprematist pieces to Constructivist art, it becomes evident that visual art contains material and relational elements comparable to those studied by Jakobson. And while the material, lexical nature of the pieces compared are similar, the differing relationally grants Suprematist art a poetic return-to-form due to a freedom from visual grammar. This is true of suprematism as a movement, regardless of the exact artistic medium employed. But for the sake of exploring this poetry of the visual form, we are going to be comparing works of painting, sculpture, and architecture.

1. Painting
El Lissitzky - Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge
Lyubov Popova - Painterly Architectonic

At first glance, these two pieces have similar shapes, shades and apparent style. They both have a predominant red triangle, along with grayscale circles and blocks that make up a sort of backdrop. But after a moment’s considering the parts, you see that they are ordered so as to portray different meanings. 

Lissitsky’s painting shows clear orientation, directionality between the shapes, even so far as momentum and violence. The captions tell you what direction to view the painting, and give it contextual meaning. Meaning that is implied even in the shapes before you know what the captions say. Its political, and has to do with the red/whites of the Russian Civil War. 

Popova's work shares the predominant red triangle, the abstracted geometry, the striking colors. Yet they are placed on top of each other as disparate pieces. They are all stuck, shoved together, with less obvious relation. The exact relation between the objects is ambiguous, as is the angle of observation, the painting’s orientation, and other mediation. Even symbolism is escaped and subverted. And thus, more attention payed simply to the shape, the line, the layering.

2. Sculpture  
Vladimir Tatlin - Counter Relief
El Lissitzky - Proun 19d

Both pieces present projections of depth, three dimensional form and perspective. They work with similar shapes and colors. 

Counter Relief has plenty of vested meanings and intentions, despite its apparent abstraction. It maintains itself on a wall, its parts working in tandem to keep it fixed up on the wall. Its proportioned in a corner, and remains the center of attention, with a fixed angle of perspective. In light of this physicality, there’s an emphasis on functional materials, and their collective physicality, and industrialized sources.

In Proun 19d, like any piece of suprematism, one's perspective is a matter of variable orientation. Its about the use of depth and structure not distracted, by prescribed perspective, or orientation, by symbolism, and most distinctly, by physical space.

3. Architecture
Vladimir Tatlin - Monument to the Third International  
Lazar Khidekel - Floating City

Both of these pieces are speculative works of architecture, never to actually be constructed. However they were both conceived to use architectural structure, physical space and environmental integration as their means of expression. To this extent, they both have similar usage of negative space, and stark, geometric forms. However, that’s where their similarities end.  

Tatlin’s sculpture was called Monument to the 3rd international, and even from the name, there is a hint of politics that only grows stronger. The political nature of the piece is evident even in its structure and material, the tower made up of steel, glass, etc. Rising, phallic.So too did it have an incredibly detailed political intention and purpose, complete with megaphones and cameras. 

Lissitsky’s was different. It’s called a floating city, but only in name. Does this look like a city? Its not burdened with political purpose, or even by purpose at all. More interested in idea than actuality. No focus on materials or their source. Instead, Khidekel’s buildings existing as forms in nature. Not surpassing them, but incorporating them. All was organic, more interest in aesthetic than purpose.
So, what’s going on here? Three examples of Supremitist and Constructivast art with similar constituent parts. Similar lexicality. But, different relationally. Differing grammar. Whereas the Constructivist pieces tended toward constructing representation, both political and symbolic, the Suprematist pieces leaves relationally mostly up to the interpreter. A return to form, away from symbols and objectivity. And towards Poetry, if you ask Roman Jakobson. 

That’s what Jakobson’s call is. Poetry is the utterance for the purpose of expression alone, without need for the mediator of grammar. Suprematism, in contrast to Constructivism, is a return to poetry based on a subversion of visual relationally. Visual grammar. A grammar that doesn’t act as a mediator, so far as it invites multiple subjectivities.  In Suprematist art, these subjectivities are invited by a lack of clear relationality involving object priority, orientation, visual perspective, etc. “Suprematism is about Supremacy of pure artistic feeling.”