On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Monday, October 1, 2012
What are the advantages and disadvantages of viewing the world aesthetically? Due Wednesday, October 3
After reading the Formalism chapter, I realized that Formalist art requires of the viewer knowledge of art history, art theory, and notions of artistic progress. The advantages of viewing the world aesthetically is that it gives sole importance to a purely compositional level, paying exclusive attention to arrangements of visual elements such as line, shape, color, regardless of their expressive content. It is art for the sake of art. Aesthetically looking at the world gives on a sensation to ignore all the negativity involved in the world. It promotes one to live in the moment, and not dwell. It creates raw emotion that will only exist in that one moment. It appears that human beings are not in like with their way, they are not letting the situation control them; rather, they are attempting to maneuver every situation encountered. We are supposed to get lost, struggle, cry and laugh. We are not supposed to live in a constant paralysis of joy. If we did that in the wild, we would be extinct by now. Seeing the world aesthetically opens the mind to the past, present and future. It allows us to live again in a way that counteracts our genetic disabilities. It is the way life should be.
Seeing the world aesthetically can be negative. Form is not necessarily, as Kant said, "all that is required for something to be judged beautiful." We must use our mind and connect our experiences to work. We must take into consideration history, and patterns of human consciousness. This is all part of progression. We must not reject subject matter, pictorial illusions of three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional surface, atmospheric light any other artistic device that Formalism denies. It is ill fated in ways to see the world purely aesthetically because we demote progress and intention. Suppressing our cognition can lead us to disaster. -Peter
Formalism is to view art for its formal elements exclusively, like the Barrett mentions “Art for the sake of Art.” Peter pointed out that a viewer must understand art history, theory, and the notions of artistic progress, to fully understand Formalist Art. This is because to have a successful ‘aesthetic attitude’ when viewing works, the viewer must understand how objects or the subjects relate to each other and might be able to see connections to pass trends from the art world in a specific work. To view the world in just an aesthetic manner, is to take away any extra meaning or theories—‘disinterestedness’. Having an aesthetic experience is great; you can see the beauty and appreciate that work. Like Hume says, you can ‘take pleasure in experiencing an object.” Although, I feel that only having an aesthetic view limits the viewer. I agree with the quote from Kent that Peter writes, “Form is not necessarily all that is required for something to be judged beautiful.” For me, beauty comes from both aesthetics and meaning. If something as a deep meaning I can connect to, the aesthetics do not have to be the absolute best.
Formalism emphasizes the formal elements of a work. As Nikki and Peter said, this approach requires the viewer to understand theories of art and "artistic progress." Thus, the focus on the aesthetic qualities allows the viewer to learn about the art's context and the way its composition is influenced by the ever-changing art world. Critic Greenberg expressed that art should be looked upon as a whole in itself, instead of looking for deeper meanings. Although I do not completely agree with Greenberg's view, I do believe the beauty within formal qualities are often overlooked in the search for an underlying reasoning for the composition. During our art exercise on Monday, I was drawn to Alexander Calder's "Little Spider" by the formal elements--the balance, repetition, use of color, structure. When I tried to conjure a meaning based upon the title, I was thrown off and found that I appreciated the work more for its aesthetic qualities.
Working off my gut reaction to the aesthetic qualities, I uncovered my own meaning for the work. If I only worked off the aesthetic and objective (like title and date) qualities of the work, I would have been limited to my interpretation. So, I believe art should be directed by subjective, emotional responses, too. A valuable aspect of the human experience resonates in emotional expression, and an interest purely in aesthetics can take away this from this human essence. Overall, an individual should soak up the process of interpreting the art and should neither be caught up by the formal qualities nor the search for meaning; the two should reference each other. While appreciating and being directed by aesthetic qualities to make sense of the work, a viewer should allow his or her interpretations to be influenced by his or her past experiences, emotions, and personal perspective.
Formalism is the theory that a work of art’s value is based on its formal qualities, the way it is made, composition, medium, etc. Viewing “art for the sake of art” is beneficial in that it allows the viewer to enjoy the aesthetics of a piece and not be distracted by artist’s personal psychologies, traumas, social issues, etc. I found Wassily Kandinsky’s concept of the spiritual of art to be quite interesting in that “art could awaken the capacity to experience the spiritual in material and abstract phenomena…[and] formal qualities of light, color, and shapes were more important in a painting than the subject matter they may represent.” There is a certain freedom in formalism and enjoyment that one does not have with other theories of art.
However, like Peter, Nikki, and Nicole point out, viewing the world solely through aesthetics eliminates the enjoyment and experience that connecting with the meaning behind a work of art generates for a viewer. While I find the concept of viewing art for art’s sake beautiful and freeing, I personally enjoy connecting with art by finding meaning in it. While I think that art should combine aesthetics and meaning, some of the most interesting works may not be aesthetically pleasing but its underline meaning is what makes the piece ‘beautiful’.
To view a work of art in the Formalist perspective is to ignore everything about the work save for its form. Having a purely aesthetic view of the world would be to ignore the meaning, emotion, and politics behind everything encountered and simply absorb the world as one perceives it in the moment. The act of viewing the world aesthetically has a positive connotation, as Peter stated, it implies that all negativity will be left behind as beautiful things are taken at face value. However, I also think that a purely aesthetic way of viewing the world is a way of limiting yourself. Disregarding everything save for straightforward form can result in incomplete comprehension. I feel like we miss much by completely ignoring the meaning behind something and that in most cases, meaning works to serve the overall experience. I agree with Nikki when she says that beauty comes from both aesthetics as well as meaning, for me, the two go hand in hand and work to strengthen the visual experience. When looking at Joel Shapiro’s sculptures, I viewed them first in an aesthetic way and admired them for their craftsmanship and minimalist form but after reading the accompanying text about Schapiro’s inspirations like 9/11, I was even more drawn to them and my perception of them became much richer as I viewed the works in context. To possess a purely aesthetic viewpoint comes with the promise of a lighter outlook on life but is balanced by the disadvantage of an anemic understanding of the world overall.
In these blogs, I usually try to play devil's advocate, but there's really no debate to be had on this subject. Like Peter, Nikki, Nicole and Anastasia pointed out, formalist theory states that "form is the only criterion by which art should be judged... and art should have nothing to do with morality, religions, politics, or any other area of human activity." Aesthetic analysis is meant to detach the viewer from having deep emotional connections to artworks and appreciate art solely based on its artistic elements.
The benefits of this detachment are that it forces the viewer to understand the basic building blocks of "art"--line, composition, shape, form, value, etc--and view artwork in a more linear (logical, compartmentalized) way. For artists, this is especially important because it is a radically different approach from our normal way of processing information (since we are innately emotionally creatures and tend to have emotional responses to what we see). The downside is that we enjoy having these emotional connections and often feel stronger about a piece of art once we know some of the artist's backstory. "This is what makes art beautiful to us." That being said, I believe the overlap of both formal and expressional analysis make for the best overall critique.
VIewing the world aesthetically allows the viewer to detach themselves from any emotional response or other type of interpretation that searches for the deeper meaning of a work. Personally, I try to view works of art from an aesthetic standpoint first by analyzing the formal elements and judging them upon their "sensory beauty." As Barrett states with the idea of disinterestedness, ". . . contemplating a grove trees without desiring toet their fruit and contemplating human beauty without the desire for sexual possession." I agree that the idea of disinterestedness and the aesthetic attitude go hand in hand. In order to view the world aesthetically one must be disinterested in gaining anything further from a work of art. The aesthetic attitude is the key component to formalism. While I understand the value of formalism, I find that it is almost a cop out for the weak hearted that don't want to challenge themselves with perceiving the deeper content of a work. I think contemporary art is the natural evolution from modern art and formalism because viewing the world purely off of aesthetics will become boring over a long period of time. I feel like formalism degrades the nature of art because it assumes that artists cannot and should not create something aesthetically beautiful or horribly ugly, without being able to add an often times much more powerful deeper meaning.
Formalism concerns itself only with form, ignoring everything else. Merriam-Webster defines formalism as “marked attention to arrangement, style, or artistic means with corresponding de-emphasis of content”.
Having an aesthetic experience is experiencing something for its own sake, not for utilitarian, moral or economical value. As previously stated, enjoying “Art for the sake of art”. Aesthetic views of art are based purely on the qualities of the picture, and not the emotional or any other experience associated with it. A concept known as disinterestedness fits with the aesthetic viewing of art. It is a actually a heightened interest, and involves appreciating for beauty rather than a utilitarian purpose.
When viewing the world aesthetically, we see the world with no theories and not viewing the artistic process, but to simply see the beauty and appreciate the art. Beauty is a concept that is defined as harmonious, companionability, and calms and absorbs the viewer. It involves enjoying the art with out knowing the meaning behind it. They both have positive and negative sides but either one on its own is a bit ridiculous; in that the best alternative would be to take aspects from both and combine them, as Caty was saying.
After reading the Formalism chapter, I realized that Formalist art requires of the viewer knowledge of art history, art theory, and notions of artistic progress.
ReplyDeleteThe advantages of viewing the world aesthetically is that it gives sole importance to a purely compositional level, paying exclusive attention to arrangements of visual elements such as line, shape, color, regardless of their expressive content. It is art for the sake of art.
Aesthetically looking at the world gives on a sensation to ignore all the negativity involved in the world. It promotes one to live in the moment, and not dwell. It creates raw emotion that will only exist in that one moment. It appears that human beings are not in like with their way, they are not letting the situation control them; rather, they are attempting to maneuver every situation encountered. We are supposed to get lost, struggle, cry and laugh. We are not supposed to live in a constant paralysis of joy. If we did that in the wild, we would be extinct by now. Seeing the world aesthetically opens the mind to the past, present and future. It allows us to live again in a way that counteracts our genetic disabilities. It is the way life should be.
Seeing the world aesthetically can be negative. Form is not necessarily, as Kant said, "all that is required for something to be judged beautiful." We must use our mind and connect our experiences to work. We must take into consideration history, and patterns of human consciousness. This is all part of progression. We must not reject subject matter, pictorial illusions of three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional surface, atmospheric light any other artistic device that Formalism denies. It is ill fated in ways to see the world purely aesthetically because we demote progress and intention. Suppressing our cognition can lead us to disaster.
-Peter
Formalism is to view art for its formal elements exclusively, like the Barrett mentions “Art for the sake of Art.” Peter pointed out that a viewer must understand art history, theory, and the notions of artistic progress, to fully understand Formalist Art. This is because to have a successful ‘aesthetic attitude’ when viewing works, the viewer must understand how objects or the subjects relate to each other and might be able to see connections to pass trends from the art world in a specific work. To view the world in just an aesthetic manner, is to take away any extra meaning or theories—‘disinterestedness’. Having an aesthetic experience is great; you can see the beauty and appreciate that work. Like Hume says, you can ‘take pleasure in experiencing an object.” Although, I feel that only having an aesthetic view limits the viewer. I agree with the quote from Kent that Peter writes, “Form is not necessarily all that is required for something to be judged beautiful.” For me, beauty comes from both aesthetics and meaning. If something as a deep meaning I can connect to, the aesthetics do not have to be the absolute best.
ReplyDeleteFormalism emphasizes the formal elements of a work. As Nikki and Peter said, this approach requires the viewer to understand theories of art and "artistic progress." Thus, the focus on the aesthetic qualities allows the viewer to learn about the art's context and the way its composition is influenced by the ever-changing art world. Critic Greenberg expressed that art should be looked upon as a whole in itself, instead of looking for deeper meanings. Although I do not completely agree with Greenberg's view, I do believe the beauty within formal qualities are often overlooked in the search for an underlying reasoning for the composition. During our art exercise on Monday, I was drawn to Alexander Calder's "Little Spider" by the formal elements--the balance, repetition, use of color, structure. When I tried to conjure a meaning based upon the title, I was thrown off and found that I appreciated the work more for its aesthetic qualities.
ReplyDeleteWorking off my gut reaction to the aesthetic qualities, I uncovered my own meaning for the work. If I only worked off the aesthetic and objective (like title and date) qualities of the work, I would have been limited to my interpretation. So, I believe art should be directed by subjective, emotional responses, too. A valuable aspect of the human experience resonates in emotional expression, and an interest purely in aesthetics can take away this from this human essence. Overall, an individual should soak up the process of interpreting the art and should neither be caught up by the formal qualities nor the search for meaning; the two should reference each other. While appreciating and being directed by aesthetic qualities to make sense of the work, a viewer should allow his or her interpretations to be influenced by his or her past experiences, emotions, and personal perspective.
Formalism is the theory that a work of art’s value is based on its formal qualities, the way it is made, composition, medium, etc. Viewing “art for the sake of art” is beneficial in that it allows the viewer to enjoy the aesthetics of a piece and not be distracted by artist’s personal psychologies, traumas, social issues, etc. I found Wassily Kandinsky’s concept of the spiritual of art to be quite interesting in that “art could awaken the capacity to experience the spiritual in material and abstract phenomena…[and] formal qualities of light, color, and shapes were more important in a painting than the subject matter they may represent.” There is a certain freedom in formalism and enjoyment that one does not have with other theories of art.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like Peter, Nikki, and Nicole point out, viewing the world solely through aesthetics eliminates the enjoyment and experience that connecting with the meaning behind a work of art generates for a viewer. While I find the concept of viewing art for art’s sake beautiful and freeing, I personally enjoy connecting with art by finding meaning in it. While I think that art should combine aesthetics and meaning, some of the most interesting works may not be aesthetically pleasing but its underline meaning is what makes the piece ‘beautiful’.
To view a work of art in the Formalist perspective is to ignore everything about the work save for its form. Having a purely aesthetic view of the world would be to ignore the meaning, emotion, and politics behind everything encountered and simply absorb the world as one perceives it in the moment. The act of viewing the world aesthetically has a positive connotation, as Peter stated, it implies that all negativity will be left behind as beautiful things are taken at face value. However, I also think that a purely aesthetic way of viewing the world is a way of limiting yourself. Disregarding everything save for straightforward form can result in incomplete comprehension. I feel like we miss much by completely ignoring the meaning behind something and that in most cases, meaning works to serve the overall experience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nikki when she says that beauty comes from both aesthetics as well as meaning, for me, the two go hand in hand and work to strengthen the visual experience. When looking at Joel Shapiro’s sculptures, I viewed them first in an aesthetic way and admired them for their craftsmanship and minimalist form but after reading the accompanying text about Schapiro’s inspirations like 9/11, I was even more drawn to them and my perception of them became much richer as I viewed the works in context. To possess a purely aesthetic viewpoint comes with the promise of a lighter outlook on life but is balanced by the disadvantage of an anemic understanding of the world overall.
In these blogs, I usually try to play devil's advocate, but there's really no debate to be had on this subject. Like Peter, Nikki, Nicole and Anastasia pointed out, formalist theory states that "form is the only criterion by which art should be judged... and art should have nothing to do with morality, religions, politics, or any other area of human activity." Aesthetic analysis is meant to detach the viewer from having deep emotional connections to artworks and appreciate art solely based on its artistic elements.
ReplyDeleteThe benefits of this detachment are that it forces the viewer to understand the basic building blocks of "art"--line, composition, shape, form, value, etc--and view artwork in a more linear (logical, compartmentalized) way. For artists, this is especially important because it is a radically different approach from our normal way of processing information (since we are innately emotionally creatures and tend to have emotional responses to what we see). The downside is that we enjoy having these emotional connections and often feel stronger about a piece of art once we know some of the artist's backstory. "This is what makes art beautiful to us." That being said, I believe the overlap of both formal and expressional analysis make for the best overall critique.
VIewing the world aesthetically allows the viewer to detach themselves from any emotional response or other type of interpretation that searches for the deeper meaning of a work. Personally, I try to view works of art from an aesthetic standpoint first by analyzing the formal elements and judging them upon their "sensory beauty." As Barrett states with the idea of disinterestedness, ". . . contemplating a grove trees without desiring toet their fruit and contemplating human beauty without the desire for sexual possession." I agree that the idea of disinterestedness and the aesthetic attitude go hand in hand. In order to view the world aesthetically one must be disinterested in gaining anything further from a work of art. The aesthetic attitude is the key component to formalism. While I understand the value of formalism, I find that it is almost a cop out for the weak hearted that don't want to challenge themselves with perceiving the deeper content of a work. I think contemporary art is the natural evolution from modern art and formalism because viewing the world purely off of aesthetics will become boring over a long period of time. I feel like formalism degrades the nature of art because it assumes that artists cannot and should not create something aesthetically beautiful or horribly ugly, without being able to add an often times much more powerful deeper meaning.
ReplyDeleteFormalism concerns itself only with form, ignoring everything else. Merriam-Webster defines formalism as “marked attention to arrangement, style, or artistic means with corresponding de-emphasis of content”.
ReplyDeleteHaving an aesthetic experience is experiencing something for its own sake, not for utilitarian, moral or economical value. As previously stated, enjoying “Art for the sake of art”. Aesthetic views of art are based purely on the qualities of the picture, and not the emotional or any other experience associated with it. A concept known as disinterestedness fits with the aesthetic viewing of art. It is a actually a heightened interest, and involves appreciating for beauty rather than a utilitarian purpose.
When viewing the world aesthetically, we see the world with no theories and not viewing the artistic process, but to simply see the beauty and appreciate the art. Beauty is a concept that is defined as harmonious, companionability, and calms and absorbs the viewer. It involves enjoying the art with out knowing the meaning behind it. They both have positive and negative sides but either one on its own is a bit ridiculous; in that the best alternative would be to take aspects from both and combine them, as Caty was saying.