Why might it be helpful to view Andy Goldworthy's work through Formalist theory and what might be the disadvantages of doing so? You may want to research his work a bit further before answering.
Your response is due Wednesday, October 5th at 12 noon along with two journal pages. Also, please remember to bring questions for Diana Folsom to our Wednesday meeting with her.
As expressed pretty clearly in the name, formalism is all about the forms in a work of art. It places extreme emphasizes on the compositional elements of a piece of art. Such elements include color, line, shape and texture and these elements are favored over things such as realism, context, and content. Andy Goldworthy fits into formalism because he creates abstracted shapes out of natural materials. Each of his artworks is first and foremost dealing with the formal elements of design. The experience of looking at pieces by Goldworthy is almost like entering a meditative state. Your mind is completely centered on what you are looking at. There are definite themes and concepts behind Goldworthy’s art. That is why there are disadvantages to looking at Andy Goldworthy’s through only the lens of formalism because concepts such as time, impermanence, and the environment are such key themes that need to be addressed. So, when interacting with Goldworthy’s work, you should use many different lenses.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is helpful to view Andy Goldsworthy's art as formalist because he shows a less strict form of formalism. He relies heavily on how his art is viewed aesthetically while also having some content. When talking about his work he always refers to the form and how the form makes him think of other images and relates back to them but the aspects of these things that he likes are their form. He is not usually talking about an emotional pull to the work it is more a need to make the art because he feels a physical pull to the form. However the issue with this is the message that his work inevitably sends to the audience. Nature is not permanent and his work shows how everything beautiful must have an end and be destroyed and that nature is something beautiful that is being destroyed everyday. He must understand that this is something his audience may infer whether or not he meant to do send this message.
ReplyDeleteAs my peers have stated already, Andy Goldsworthy's work can be part of the formalist theory as he deals a lot with the aesthetics of it, the form, the composition, the lines, the colors and balance. Also, while creating his work he puts emphasis on these elements in order to create a pleasing work to the his and the viewers eyes. However, when listening to him talking about his work, it is obvious that he has purpose and puts a meaning behind it. In his documentary he talked about the energy of the land, about his connection and obsession with water, of both rivers and the sea and how these flow, and this flow is connected to the flow of life and energy. Also, he creates work that is not permanent and is usually destroyed by natural phenomena. He specifically said that the same forces that create it, also bring it to an end. Therefore, he is dealing with some deep meaning behind it which includes the cycle of life and how time is something that is inevitable. So at a first glance, someone could say that it is formalist, but looking into it deeper and listening to him talk about it with all his passion and emotion, I believe take it further into the more general category of expressionism.
ReplyDeleteAndy Goldsworthy uses natural objects to construct his work. He manipulates his material to form different shapes and design that could be appreciate solely for their aesthetic quality. By ignoring the content of the work the viewer is immediately forces to focus their attention on the material and the technique that the artist uses as well as appreciate the physical labor that has been put into the work (despite the fact that they look effortlessly done or look like part of nature creation). However, despite the benefit of looking at his work with a formalist perspective, it would be a pity to leave out the content of his work. Most of Goldsworthy’s work is built not to last. The idea of impermanent and the passage of time are very important to his work. By ignoring all these facts and focus only on the formal element will greatly impact the overall experience that the viewer will get from looking at his work.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Goldsworthy’s work I believe naturally draws attention to its form because of his use of geometric shapes, but when you take into consideration the materials that he has chosen to use for his art it is hard to imagine that his intent would go no further than form. When roaming through Goldsworthy’s web site, he has a section devoted to philosophy. Here the artist does talk about the importance of space and form but he also reveals his desire to express the way he feels about nature and the elements. Formalism does emphasize spirituality in the form, but Goldsworthy’s spirituality seems to go much deeper than just the form itself, but the creation of the form, what it is that inspired him to create the form, even the eventual decay of the form is important to him. I can understand the desire to categorize him as a formalist, but even just a little digging into his work will reveal this to be untrue.
ReplyDeleteFormalism is obviously all about the forms within a piece of art. Essentially it emphasizes the elements of art - line, color, shape, texture, and so on over more expressive content.
ReplyDeleteAndy Goldsworthy essentially has no meaning behind his piece of work. Sure, something may inspire him to create a piece (like his friend's death), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the piece has that idea as an overall motif. When Andy Goldsworthy makes art, I can just see how into nature he is. This of course makes an interesting problem to me: If Goldsworthy were a "true" formalist, then he wouldn't have overarching themes. Of the formalist pieces that I've seen, a majority of them were just making art to be making art and just enjoying whatever comes out. This process is very similar to what Goldsworthy was doing, so it would essentially make sense to group him in with the formalists, however I don't think its an absolutely perfect fit.
Goldsworthy does talk in detail about spirituality in a few of his books and how he wants to express emotions through nature, which to me goes leaps and bounds past basic formalism. It seems like he puts more into his pieces than just the elements of design- he puts in a piece of himself into each piece which (to me atleast) gives it that extra 'oomph' that basic formalism just doesn't have.
Goldsworthy’s work can certainly be looked at though a formalist lens because of its emphasis on form, symmetry, flow, and contemplation. His work invites one to absorb the overall appearance of the work and get lost in the details while pondering the beauty of nature. Certainly his work begs to be meditated upon, and like other formalists we have studied, the process of creating the work is meditative for him as well. His work, although inspired by events in his life, does not have a definite and obvious theme, apart from the stunning beauty of nature. When he creates a piece, he emphasizes the form itself, the symmetry or flow, and the transience of nature itself. When discussing his work, he mentioned “obsessive forms”, which he comes back to over and over, and represents in his work. This harkens back to formalist philosophy, where authors seek to find the universal forms that awaken the “aesthetic emotion”. Certainly Goldsworthy’s work can be looked at though other artistic lenses as well, but it fits very nicely into formalism.
ReplyDeleteThere are advantages but definitely also disadvantages to looking at Andy Goldsworthy's work through a formalist lens. By categorizing his work as formalism, one can fully experience and appreciate the forms he creates. His forms are intricate and include not just lines on a page but areas in space and textures in materials. When everything else is ignored, the work itself can be fully absorbed by the viewer.
ReplyDeleteThe disadvantages to looking at Goldsworthy's work strictly as formalist is it covers up the possibility that the works may be trying to express something. In his philosophy Goldsworthy states, "Movement, change, light growth and decay are the lifeblood of nature, the energies that I try to tap through my work". The energy of which he speaks is very expressive of the life of nature. If viewers were just focusing on the formal elements of Goldsworthy's works they would probably miss this. It is important to look at his work through a lens that is not specific. A a lens that allows for formalism and expressionism is more appropriate.
I think the largest advantage to looking at Goldsworthy's work as Formalist is that it makes you focus on the elemental. Yes I am referencing the elements of art, but also the elements of nature. Both are key formal elements to look at when observing Goldsworthy's work. By focusing on what is there we understand a simplicity and calmness of the works. BUT by only observing this way we also loose a lot. Unfortunately, every person who sees Goldsworthy's work won't know his emotional connection to the work. I would go as far to say that Goldsworthy is an Expressionist. The emotion he has about his work is somehow captured in it. You feel his connection to the land. He speaks of wanting, even needing, to get connected to a place before he feels ready to truly work. He may not intend his work to be expressionism, but this brings up the issue of what comes first artist intent or how the viewer interprets the work?
ReplyDeleteEssentially I am saying I think that multiple ism lens help glean things from his work.
I think viewing Goldsworthy's artwork throigh the veil of formalism would reveal the aesthetically pleasing simplicity to his pieces. It would allow the viewer to recognize the appeal of his work, which is heavily geometric and utilizes shape and color so fantastically. He is a master of the elements of art, creating a magnificent array of texture throughout the use of his rather unsual materials, as well as utilizing color and shape to really unify his designs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to look at his artwork solely through a Formalists' eyes really undermines the conceptual aspect of his work. For example, Goldsworthy's pieces are typically creating abnormality and structure to nature and the organic, ans most often are not permanent. I think these conceptual elements also assist the viewer in fully appreciating what he is acconplishing.
Andy Goldsworthy creates art by looking at forms in nature and transforming them into aesthetically pleasing and abstract sculpture. Even though some might argue his work contains a message and isn’t solely based on form, there is definitely an emphasis on formal qualities. His work is different to what I would consider to be formalism but this simply means his work broadens the scope of what can be labeled under this category. The main thing a viewer usually focuses on is the aesthetics of his work. He thinks a lot about color, light and shape, which are all elements that strongly affect a viewer’s aesthetic response to his work. However, formalists think that art should be based on aesthetic experience and should not have deeper messages. By putting Goldsworthy’s work under formalism, we are stripping any meaning from his work. While the aesthetic beauty of his work is important, my favorite part of his sculpture is the comments it makes about nature and time. I don’t think an artist like Goldsworthy should be confined to be under just one theory. His work does more than simply adhere to one theory and this should be recognized.
ReplyDeleteViewing Andy Goldsworthy’s work as formalist gives both advantages and disadvantages. His work can be classified as formalist by his emphasis on form, symmetry, flow, and contemplation. His work is engaging, full of geometric shapes all created by nature. He approaches the artwork, by manipulating found natural materials and creates new forms and shapes. Formalism does emphasize spirituality in the form; Goldsworthy is interested in the creation of the form. He will get an inspiration, not necessarily meaning but an idea, and then he is interested in connecting with the creation of his form. What is interesting is that he is just as interested in the creation as the decay that will eventually occur because his pieces are temporary. The disadvantage is that is work is not strictly formalist, but could also be expressionist. it is obvious that he has purpose and puts a meaning behind it- He is concerned with the flow of the river and of the ocean. At first glance, one could categorize his work as formalist, but once he explains the passion and emotion he puts into a piece, he can be defined as expressionist (or a mixture.)
ReplyDeleteI have been familiar with Goldsworthy's work for a number for years and the line and actual shape and size of his work is what I encounter first, before emotion. The simplicity of nature as his materials lends itself to the fact that the shape of natural elements is what gives Goldsworthy the satisfaction and purpose in his art work. For example, It is the aerial view of winding water systems that inspires some of Goldsworthy's pieces, thats not something that you can alter for even emotional reasons without leaving formalism. It was evident in the documentary shown in class that he gives much more thought to the 'formal elements' than to the emotional or motive. The disadvantage to excluding his art work from the Formalist school would be that the simple shapes, the tiny and innocent shapes that always come together to form a different organic shape would quickly be looked over and other theory's of art would hone in on Goldsworthy and his processes rather than his work as it stands alone.
ReplyDelete