The philosophical study of art, otherwise known as aesthetics, is a deftly debated topic that concerns ones individual interpretation of beauty. Does one define an artworks beauty by its color schemes, geometric symmetry, or historical context? Do they seem to focus on its formal, abstract meaning and seek to invoke a rational interpretation? If so the aesthetic theory of formalism most closely relates. However if one decides to interpret art with not only a rational explanation, but instead allows the viewer to transcend common emotion and imagination, then they could establish themselves as a romantic critic. So romanticism and formalism are two contrasting theories that attempt analyze art, which proves an immensely difficult task. It is like analyzing the artist’s soul on the canvas.
That being said, and drawing from the cliché saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, I must certainly side with romanticism. Art should not be judged superficially. There is not one, specific, figurative meaning that every each person sees. The experience is different and unique depending on the viewer—and it is most often transcendent. It goes beyond a formal, disconnected, viewpoint. Art inspires emotion and creativity that sets the mind apart from reality. There are also no boundaries when dealing with romanticism. One person can find a picture of a storm chaotic and uncertain while another is awed and inspired from it. It is all relative, mysterious even.
When taking into account which theory explains more facets or works of art than the other, or which has a larger explanatory breadth, romanticism would be most plausible. Not only does romanticism apply to many forms of art including literature, poetry, films, and music—but it is able to interpret so many more pieces than formalism. Not every picture is painted because it looks pretty—it is left open for interpretation. Romanticism allows for that where as formalism neglects to include these open and irrational painting analyses. Only a select few pieces will be in a gallery purely for the way it looks, even it if it has a metaphorical meaning, it is much too simple. They do not invoke a larger feeling. Also it must explain each and every individual’s interpretation.
Additionally when taking into account which goes into greater detail, or which has more explanatory depth, it must also be romanticism. Romanticism must include the viewer’s feelings and explain their complicated irrational thoughts, while also taking into account texture, shape, concavity, lighting, color, depth, detail, etc. Romanticism does both jobs.
So in contrast romanticism defies simplicity, leaving formalism with a much less intricate approach. Romanticism refuses to let one explanation describe a painting. The point is for there to be endless ways to explain how the painting makes us feel-depressed, happy, lonely, and amazed. It may even possibly pull you back into the memories of childhood, your college graduation, or your wedding day. The formalistic approach, whether abstract or figurative, allows for little “thinking” to be done.
Finally, what theory that is used most in today’s society would have to be romanticism. Not only is it taught in schools across America, but romantic works are remembered and praised. For example Van Gough’s The Starry Night is a piece of art that invokes feeling and emotion out of the viewer. In ancient and medieval times the basis of artwork only had to do with outward beauty. Now, however, art is meant to be analyzed and looked into. There is no wrong answer anymore, back then they were not as accepting to difference. Thus this makes romanticism the more conservative theory of our era.
1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanations of the interpretation of art.
2. Romanticism has more explanatory
breadth, Explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas Formalism has more simplicity.
3. Therefore, Romanticism is the
most plausible explanation of the interpretation of art
Angie,
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of the formalism vs. romanticism debate is thorough and thoughtful. However, you fail to fully deconstruct the formalism point of view, and this weakens your overall argument. For example, you claim that formalism applies only to the visual arts while romanticism has a broader scope. Do we not use formalism to judge works of fiction, or even symphonic productions. Formalism is something inherent in the study of every art because it is easier for us to evaluate a work if we have certain attributes to look for. Furthermore, I must disagree with your claim that formalism is a simpler method of interpreting art. There are many rules, elements, etc. which we look for when formally evaluating a piece of art. Overall, formalism is incredibly intricate and complex and this is why some students spend years learning how to properly analyze just one art form. Overall, bold piece of writing. A real pleasure to read.
-Will