Formalism is a view of art that compares its features to realistic attributes. It puts things in a a way that it is about morality in some way or form. It cannot explain most parts of art because modern art puzzles formalists who do not believe it to be a form of art because it is introspective.
Whilst the Romanticist view of art art is one where art is to express a non-rational emotions. Without the full range of emotions we are out of touch with ourselves and nature and the belief that it can lead us to deeper reality. They overall believed that the rational should be with the sublime.Though this is quite vague it allows for greater range like Picasso and others.
Formalism also has more detail than that of romanticism which has not. It aligns all to rational ideas leaving out the sublime. Yet it is more out of line with current art which is often as simple as a soccer ball log which in one perspective looks like one soccer ball. Formalist would not regard this as art as all.
Romanticism however is more simple and aligns more with today's art. It can allow people to judge an art's meaning with introspection rather than trying to put it in some kind of moral framework. Overall, I believe that Romanticism is the truer idea and describes art in the more plausible way.
Good job, however you're missing a few things, you didnt write the explanatory depth and breadth, simplicity and conservationism. As well as the two theorys at the end. But good idea.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Romanticism is the more plausible than formalism, but you need to add Explanatory Breadth and Depth, Simplicity, and Conservatism. You could've added more about why you believe Romanticism is more plausible. You're definition of Formalism isn't that clear, i think you could've worded it differently so it explained it more clearly.
ReplyDelete