Method Formal

Russian Formalism seems to coincide with the aim of Suprematism to reveal the hidden truths of our world. How "literature" pertains to "art" is haphazardly communicated by Viktor Sklovskij in his earliest desconstruction of literary theory. I think he is proposing how certain devices can give order to a chaotic superfluous of meanings (a concept that is familiar with us, how architectural elements impose order upon nature). By administering intention upon these variables they are shaped into a new form. For an example consider the musical composition of the Suprematist theatrical performance "Victory Over the Sun." In music, there are certain notes that should never follow other specific notes in a sequence because it would sound "bad", or discomforting, as I think we all experienced. But in making a sequence out of notes that should never be allowed in sequence, they are given form. Now think of these rejected notes as materials; that would have no significance if not for their equal and enthusiastic contribution to the creation of form. This treatment of material as nothing but an unavoidable means to an end deprives them of their natural, familiar characteristics, but then allows them to reconstruct and assume new identities and new meaning in the unique form that is created from their relationship to each other. This is the purpose of art.
Now the relation between Formalism (concerning literature) and Suprematism (concerning art) can be drawn more clearly. The classical interpretation in the study of literature is focused on reconstructing aspects of identifiable human cultures by revealing continuities in various pieces of literature. This approach is completely reliant upon chronological data, making literature inseperable from history, just as art is inseperable from nature. But, literature is not an account of history, just as art neither is nor should be an imitation of nature, because the attempt to capture something supreme by a lesser means than how it has naturally come to exist deprives that thing of its magnificance. So art remains as an end that has still yet to be clearly defined.
According to this doctrine, if art should not be used to imitate nature, nor literature used to communicate history, then theory should not be used to explain either of them, nor anything else. In what realm theory dwells, I do not know, but it seems to me like the instant we attempt to verbalize art, we have already lost sight of its true purpose, and moved away from the profound, metaphysical experience it creates. But if it weren't for theory, I would have never been able to understand the black square, nor Suprematism, nor been able to write what I am writing now. And yet, maybe we weren't meant to understand art, and there inlies its power to create; things are novel when we do not have an understanding of them. What Suprematism offers is this profound acknowledgement of this purpose of art, and if you can grasp it, then take it and move forward, and tomorrow we will spit on Suprematism, and everything else we know, just as Malevich had encouraged.