Aesthetic

There are two different types of aesthetic theories to judge artwork: Formalism and Romanticism. Formalism is the purpose of art is ideas that represent reality and guide our behavior. Romanticism is the art of expressing non-rational emotions. Romanticism emotions are more mysterious and deeper than one we normally relate to.

           

Out of the two theories, I think Romanticism is more plausible than Formalism. Romanticism has more dept to the beauty of art rather than Formalism. Romanticism looks deeper in the meaning of the art; it focuses on more of the significance behind the work. However, formalism emphases the color, shape, and texture, not the significance of the artwork.

           

Explanatory Breadth- Romanticism explains more of the artwork than Formalism. Romanticism talks about how it expresses emotion that makes us aware of deeper meaning. It talks about what the art is trying to represent.

           

Explanatory Depth- Romanticism goes into greater detail when it talks about the beauty is sublime. The beauty of Romanticism theory is overwhelming, rather than Formalism is represented figuratively or in an abstract manner.

           

Simplicity- Formalism is more simplistic than Romanticism. Romanticism goes more into depth about the work behind the art. Formalism only looks at the piece of art by the way it looks, not a deeper meaning of it.

Conservatism- Romanticism has more conservatism than Formalism. I believe that Romanticism has a more modern theory of art. When we look at art, we don’t only look at the structure of the piece, but what it has behind it. We try to figure what it’s trying to represent.

1.     Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanations of art.

2.     Romanticism has much more explanatory depth, breadth, and conservatism, whereas Formalism has a little more simplicity.

3.     Therefore, Romanticism is the best explanation of art. 

Romanticism

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.

Aesthetics

       According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, art can be defined as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings." While this is certainly one definition, many people look more critically at the origin of art, its essence and purpose within society. It is this impalpable definition which has set the stage for one of the greatest debates in philosophy. On the one hand, formalists argue that the value of art is found in its ability to accurately replicate a real thing. For example, a painting or sculpture is "good art," if it closely resembles the model. Romantics, on the other hand, argue that the value of art is found in the overall message or meaning conveyed through the artist's work. For example, although Picasso's paintings do not look much like the original forms it is representing, there is a more authentic value found in the artist's interpretation of the world, and the underlying moods of the artwork. 
       While art is a useful tool to be used to record history and preserve images of our past, its true merit can be found in the intentions of the artist, or the interpretations of the audience. The classical beauty, presented by the arts as formalists see them, is a much less valuable characteristic than the more obscure emotions and irrational feelings presented by the arts, as romantics see them. Furthermore, the value of a piece of artwork can almost invariably be found in what it provides to the society as a whole, and while it is pleasing and uplifting to gaze upon beautiful landscapes. sculptures, or enjoy the theater or a symphony, unless the artwork goes beyond this formal beauty to offer a look into the emotions or irrational thoughts of the artist, the audience does not benefit from it. 
 A. The explanatory breadth of the two viewpoints differs in that romantics accept a great deal more art forms than the formalists. For example, while the formalist view limits art to that which is rationally beautiful, and presented in a way which does not inspire an emotional reaction from the audience, the romantics accept all forms. Romantics see art as a rational presentation of beauty, but also about inspiring reactions and presenting emotions through a work of art.
 B. The formalist argument does have more explanatory depth than the romantic, however. As far as the presentation of rational beauty, formalists have a much more deliberate and thorough method to identifying a good representation and a bad one. Romantics are much less concerned with the accuracy and skill set of the artist, and therefore have fewer qualifications and a less detailed argument for the merit of a work of rational beauty.
 C. The romantic view of art is a far simpler way to find the value in a piece of artwork. Rather than identifying specific techniques and mediums used to present a subject, romantics focus more on the emotions provoked by the art. That being said, you can fairly judge a work of art simply from the feelings and ideas perceived by the audience or, equally important, presented by the artist. 
 D. It is safe to say that the art world is pretty fairly split between these two major views on the value of artwork. They are equally conservative because,, depending on your sample group, you would find a fairly evenly split group of romantics and formalists. Obviously, the institutionally educated art critic is more commonly a formalist, while the freelance or progressive artists would typically fall under the romantic umbrella.

1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most logical methods of interpreting art.
2. Formalism has more explanatory depth, whereas Romanticism has more explanatory breadth and simplicity.
3. Therefore, Romanticism is the most logical method of interpreting art. 

Aesthetics

       There are two sides someone can judge art ; one being Formalism which takes art in a more compositional view looking at the piece of art through its size, texture or even its orchestrated tone while a Romantics view of art points out the artists emotion and thought process. Formalism in a way has a strict meaning on the rational aspect of art while Romanticism is not only limited to rational elements but also non-rational emotions.

       I would say that Romanticism is the most valid way of judging art. Formalism is just too literal and sometimes art isn't always literal and the person viewing or listening to the art piece should be able take different meanings out of it and Formalism just doesn't allow you to do that.

       Explanatory Breadth- Romanticism explains more facts of art more than Formalism because Romanticism dives into rational elements and non-rational emotions. Formalism only explains the rational aspects.

       Explanatory Depth-  Formalism has more Explanatory depth because it explains and evaluates the compositional elements of art such as, texture, color, contrast and size while Romanticism does not go into depth of the literal sense but only opens up to different views of the work of art.

       Simplicity- I would say they are equally complicated in the sense of how much time it would take for someone to explain the different meanings of the piece of art in a romantics view while taking measurements and judging a work of art on a more physical aspect.

       Conservatism- I believe they're are more works of art being created in a more romantic view than a Formalistic view.

1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanations of  interpreting works of art.
2. Romanticism has more Explanatory Breadth and Conservatism, whereas Formalism has more Explanatory Depth and are equally matched in Simplicity.
3. Therefore, Romanticism is the best explanation of  interpreting works of art.

Aesthetics

            Ever since human beings have been walking on this earth, art has been around. Whether it be paintings, carvings, artifacts, or any other form of art; the concept of art has always been lingering. Two very accepted interpretations of art now a days are Formalism and Romanticism. Formalism argues that the interpretation of art is strictly based upon analyzing and comparing the form and style of different works of art. Essentially formalism is arguing that the interpretation of art should be based upon solely the visual aspect of the art such as color, shape, texture, etc. Formalism has a lot more emphasis on the rational insight of thought processing. Romanticism on the other hand argues the opposite, and has more emphasis on the irrational and allows us to interpret the non-rational side a the work of art. Romanticism places more importance of emotion and the sublimity of art work. As well as the sublimity and emotion, romanticism allows for more open interpretation of art as well as allows us to embrace the unfamiliar and exotic aspects of art. 

           In my opinion, I have to side with Romanticism as the most plausible way of interpreting art. Formalism just does not sound plausible and I don't believe art should be strictly based upon purely visual aspects of the piece of work. Romanticism not only seems more plausible, but makes a lot more sense to me personally when I interpret art. Art should simply be interpreted by the viewer and should not be strictly defined. Art I believe is an expression of emotion or passion shaped into a form of a painting, drawing, or any other form of art. So, if the way art is created is an expression of emotion or passion, the way it is interpreted should be similar to the way the artist created it. 

 Explanatory Breadth - Romanticism has more explanatory breadth than Formalism. Formalism states that the interpretation of art is based upon rational insight and strictly based upon analyzing the abstract form of the work. Romanticism states that formalism goes beyond the rational insight and tunes into more non rational emotions and isn't based solely upon the abstract form. Romanticism is more viable when interpreting all forms of art, since a lot of art isn't solely based on simple abstract forms and rational pictures. A lot of art now a days is more than just portraits and drawings of real objects; it's more irrational forms of art and art that is up for more interpretation that previous decades of art. 

Explanatory Depth - I believe Formalism has a bit more explanatory depth than Romanticism. Although Romanticism does explain more types of art; formalism does go in more depth when it comes to art that it allows one to interpret. Formalism goes more in depth to interpret the art because of the fact it looks at color, shape, texture, style and other perceptual aspects of art. Romanticism is more of an interpretation depending upon individual ideas and emotion. 

Simplicity - Romanticism has more simplicity than Formalism. Romanticism allows the viewer of the art more freedom to interpret the art rather than formalism. Formalism isn't as simple in the fact that art interpretation contains more aspects when interpreting the abstract form of the art. Although romanticism requires more critical thinking, the concept of Romanticism is more simple and isn't as straight forward as Formalism.

Conservatism - Romanticism has more conservatism than Formalism does. I believe in the generation we live in today, the majority of art is strictly up to interpretation of the viewer which sides more with Romanticism. Therefore, if the majority of art has to be interpreted by the viewer by not limiting the viewer to the rational, as well as allows them to express the non rational emotions...the concept of Romanticism has been adopted a lot more in today's society. Art in this generation still contains some strictly abstract figures which formalism comes into better use, but not as prominent as it used to be in passed generations. Therefore, since more art is more about the irrational now, formalism isn't as conservative to our common beliefs. 

1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanations of the interpretation of art.

2. Romanticism has more explanatory breadth, simplicity and conservatism, whereas Formalism has more Explanatory depth. 

3. Therefore, Romanticism is the most plausible explanation of the interpretation of art. 

Aesthetics

        Art, whether it be visual like paintings or audible like music or poetry, can be looked at in two ways.  Formalism is the idea that art is present to give us structure or guide us in our thoughts, usually with rational ideas.  Romanticism says that art can convey both rational and irrational ideas, and that the meaning of the art is entirely in the hands of the beholder, giving us a sense of connection with it that lets us further interpret in unique ways.
        I agree with the idea of Romanticism because it allows for infinite options of interpretation; that is, everyone who looks at it has the ability to find a different meaning or beauty in it.  On the other hand, Formalism is only concerned with the real life aspects such as how it looks or sounds.  In other words, Formalism is lazy and does not allow freedom of interpretation.

Explanatory Breadth:  Romanticism explains art more deeply than formalism.  Romanticism makes it possible to treat anything and everything in the world as art: if someone can look at an object in an abstract way and form an idea that had not been thought of before, they can say that to them it is art.  Formalism would shoot down that idea and say art must be designed for the purpose of being visually or audibly pleasing.
Explanatory Depth:  Romanticism explains art in more ways.  Formalists look at a painting because it is visually stunning or pleasing to them; they are focused only on the material aspects of the art.  Romanticists look at a painting for the visual pleasure, but also to attempt to delve into the mind behind the painting.  Their love for art forces them to analyze it until they have formed their idea of what that painting is attempting to illustrate.
Simplicity:  Formalism has much more simplicity because it is only viewing art for its beauty or the pleasure in which it brings, without trying to analyze and form an idea of what that artist was getting at like Romanticism does.
Conservatism:  Personally I believe that in today's society, people as a whole enjoy art for what it is and means.  Most people who look at art or listen to music, either intentionally or not, will immediately begin to analyze it in their head.  When a sad song comes on or we see a depressing picture, the majority of people will have thoughts racing through their head as to what caused the sadness.

1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanations for the purpose of art.
2. Romanticism has much more explanatory breadth, depth, and conservatism, whereas Formalism has much more simplicity.
3. Therefore, Romanticism is the best explanation for the purpose of art.

Aesthetics

Art is an amazing thing that allows people to create and perceive things in their own way. There are two aesthetic theories called Formalism and Romanticism. Formalism is the view that arts purpose is to present formal beauty and guide people by using ideals that are seen in reality. Romanticism is the view that arts purpose is to show something unique and has deeper meaning.
I believe that romanticism is more plausible than formalism. Romanticism is more plausible because it allows art to have a deeper meaning than just the way it looks or sounds. There is more of a story behind the art in romanticism. Romanticism allows there to be a basis on why a work of art was created and what is the message that the creator was trying to get out. Formalism doesn't show that and fails to provide reasoning behind the artwork.

Explanatory Breadth- Romanticism goes into more types of art than formalism. Most pieces of art have a story behind it and have a story to tell, which formalism overlooks. Art isn't only about how our senses percieve it, but also about the deeper meaning we get out of it.

Explanatory Depth- Romanticism has more explanatory depth than formalism. There is more meaning to the art in romanticism and it takes more understanding. On the other hand formalism only focuses on how the art looks rather than focusing on the meaning.

Simplicity- Formalism has more simplicity than romanticism because it only takes into account one factor of art which is the way it looks.

Conservatism- Romanticism is more conservative than formalism. People want a work of art to have a story behind it, not just look beautiful. They want and accept art that has a deep meaning behind it and want to look at ways they can relate to it.

1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanations of art.
2. Romanticism has more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth, and conservatism, whereas formalism has more simplicity.
3. There for Romanticism is the best explanation of art.