Knowledge of objects as perception is mediated in Shklovsky, I believe, by knowledge of objects as art. Not surprising when you consider that Shklovsky was, after all, a literary critic and not a scientist. Even Shklovsky's original text above demands it. The result would be nonsensical. The perceptual process in art has a purpose all its own and ought to be extended to the fullest.
Art is a means of experiencing the process of creativity.
The artifact itself is quite unimportant . He does not peel off anything as such. Instead, he rearranges. The gravitational center of a translation, I believe, is to be found less in the coded text than in the decoding translator himself. While this subjectivity haunts the translator under more normal conditions, there are times when it moves from the periphery of his concerns and consciousness to center stage.