In Sara's most recent post she writes, "Formalism happens no matter what intention the artist has, hence why it is really the only fair way to judge art first and foremost." I do have to agree wholeheartedly that formalism is perhaps the most direct and objective way of defining art. If we define how lines, colors, and shapes should exist in great art, then determining whether or not something is art would be simple. I must argue, however, that despite Bell's aesthetic emotion strict formalism seems somewhat lacking in the feeling, diversity and creativity that art is so often associated with. How can art be unique if it is independent of content?
Christopher Lotito's addresses this concern and confirms my critique when he writes, "Neither Formalism nor Neo-Formalism is the defining answer to the questions raised in the nature of art. As before, we are left to wonder, what theories will be created and indeed shot down by the philosophy community in relation to the nature of art next?"
A link to Lotito's Essay
No comments:
Post a Comment