Page:Knight (1975) Past, Future and the Problem of Communication in the Work of V V Khlebnikov.djvu/204

196 of mechanical speed. Language had to be hurried—up for this purpose, by removing from it the delaying.devices of conventional grammar, such as adjectives, adverbs and punctuation. It was as if the machine-age, having subordinated man himself to the rhythms of the machine, were now to do the same to his language.

Two of the most perceptive contemporary commentators on Russian futurism–Benedict Livshits and Roman Jakobson-both appealed to the example of Khlebnikov in contrasting the Russian to the Italian movement. In the case of both critics, it was the Italians' lack of respect for the "material" of their art which drew the heaviest criticism.

When Livshits, in a discussion with Marinetti during the Italian's Russian visit in 1914, dwelt at some length on the accomplishments of Khlebnikov, the response was mere incomprehension. Shrugging his shoulders, Marinetti asked:


 * Why is this archaism necessary? Is it really capable of expressing the whole complexity of the tempo of contemporary life?

To which Livshits scathingly replied:


 * Your question is extremely characteristic. It is only added proof of your indifference to material, an indifference which you are vainly attempting to conceal by loud phrases about the lyrical obsession with material. In fact, in the name of what do you propose to eliminatepunctuation marks? In the name of the beauty of speed, isn‘t that so? Well, we, excuse me, don't give a rap for this beauty.

That last remark was not quite true. Khlebnikov himself (not to speak of Kamensky, Mayakovsky and others) became extremely