maybe for public education

I appreciate that the Formalists were thinking artists. Their movement was not a unanimous decision, but rather a constant dialogue. It is fascinating to me that a country can experience the pain of insufficient government and the build up of a second revolution at so many levels, including literature, art and architecture. It makes perfect sense; these are mediums of expression - passive and instigative, reactionary and revolutionary. What I find so interesting is that they debated over technique! In the midst of world war and ground up social, political and economic change, theorists, writers and other artists literally put aside thought of their general well-being (food, work, etc.) to discuss the technique of criticizing poetry and literature. I wonder then if they had any larger aims than to specify methodology for studying (and creating?) literature. It might all seem ridiculously selfish if their intentions were purely academic. If they intended to develop public education, for example, then I might understand the justification for such debate.