Posts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Other places to find me on the web
I have another website (my official "school" site): CLICK HERE
Here's some music I've listened to recently: CLICK HERE
Here is the course syllabus: CLICK HERE
Here are notes to help you with the readings: CLICK HERE
Here's some music I've listened to recently: CLICK HERE
Here is the course syllabus: CLICK HERE
Here are notes to help you with the readings: CLICK HERE
About Me
- Theodore Gracyk
- Minnesota, United States
- Professor of Philosophy at Minnesota State University Moorhead.
Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock
Listening to Popular Music
I Wanna Be Me: Rock Music & The Politics of Identity
Arts & Letters Daily - ideas, criticism, debate
Themanwhofell- asleep's inevitable blog
The Brick Testament
The Critical Thinker(tm)
Dresden Codak
Anderson Brown's Philosophy Blog
Philosopher's Digest
Followers
-
On page 120 Carroll talks abut John Cage's 4' 33". He asks why is it that we call this composition a work of art even though it is obvious that it lacks form.
ReplyDeleteMy question is if we could call it art under the formalism theory because it intentionally lacks any kind of form (good or bad) and if that is the case does it not show that the artists is well versed in form and by not using it he is using form intentionally making it a work of art.
K.L.
Clive Bell compares "aesthetic emotion" to the state of mind of a mathematician "rapt in his studies"--an emotion which arises "from no perceived relation between them and the lives of men." The comparison further extends, he says, to the "rapt philosopher" whose world exhudes an intensity and significance uniquely its own, and so not related nor comparable to to the real world--the world in which we live.
ReplyDeleteSo much here seems to hinge upon the intellect--not only by virtue of the parallels Bell draws between the arts and science, but insofar as he eradicates the aesthetic experience from the experiences of life. What I wonder, is how much the "aesthetic emotion" capacity can, or must, be fostered. Certain individuals do, it seems, have an innate capacity for intellectual pursuits of various orders--mathematical, philosophical, and so forth--and so it isn't contradictory with Bell's account to say that the capacity for aesthetic emotion is a matter of nature, but can also be "nurtured."
Yet the former now seems less comprehensible since, in the case of intellectual pursuits, there are far fewer cases of "inborn genius" than of talent born of disciplined practice. Rigorous practice however does not seem applicable to Bell's account of aesthetic experience overall, nor does it seem likely that a philosopher could acheive the trascendent enrapture here described, through brute force. The average viewer, like the average philsopher, appears condemned by Bell's view to never break through his given limitations, for the "higher" experience is segrated from him as something beyond this world, as something, therefore, that can neither be learned nor discovered.
So what is it, for Bell? Must one be hard-wired? Or can the capacity for transcendant aesthetic experience be nurtured?
AMS
In formalism, is a work that is intentionally formless in appearance still considered a work of art whether its music, visual art, etc? When I use the word formless i mean a somewhat loosely or unconstructed work that exhibits an abstract quality. And according to formalism a work of art is made up or form and content. What if the content is unrecognizable and form is the dominating factor to the work? Or does this set us up to lean more toward expressionism?
ReplyDeleteBM
Formalism seems to be a tricky definition for work constitutes a work of art. There seems to be to many loop holes in the theory, so the author introduces the neoformalism theory. This theory introduces the third requirement that, the form and the content of x are related to each other in a satisfyingly appropiate manner. The author goes on to discuss the first to requirements of content and form, but never fully defines the third requirement. There are vague examples of satisgyingly appropiate relations, but than the author breaks this requirement down to degrees of appropiateness. Can art be broken down into degrees of satisfying appopriate relations when these terms are not well defined and are open to interpretation? Is this third requirement a last ditch effort to help fill the loop holes in formalism?
ReplyDeleteBRJ
Since photography started and become a more accurate form of imitation, painting and other works were allowed and expected to experiment more with its structure. How does this leave photography as an art form? Stieglitz essay on pg 71 of the course packet has many good points but it leaves a few questions unsolved for todays standards, and although Carroll talks about movies on page 114, there is nothing else in his writings on photography. So basically, since color photography exists and is now the most accurate way to capture someone, does that mean that black and white photography can be considered formalist since its distorting the color of real life? How about digital photography-is it still art despite the fact that it can be manipulated on a computer, betraying Steiglitz point that "their maker must be quite as familiar with the laws of composition as is the landscape or portrait painter"(75)?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Clive Bell's argument is valid, structurally. I question it's soundness though. I don't know if I can accept an argument based around an inexplicable ability of "aesthetic sensitivity". Inexplicable as in Clive Bell seems to be the only one possessing it. Can anyone explain to me how his argument makes sense in a form that doesn't rely on Bell's superior artistic sensibility?
ReplyDeleteLP
So what I have gotten from chapter three is that Clive Bell appreciated more visual art, something that was more appealing to the eye and something that wasn't representation since the invention of the camera, representation wasn't as appealing. I agree with Bell's ideas in the sense that art is meant to be attractive and that it doesn't need an artists emotions involved to be art. Does Bell agree or disagree that art that isn't physically attractive really art at all? Basically does Bell only think art is worth something if it is an attractive piece and doesn't necessarily need anything else but attractiveness? AS
ReplyDeleteOn page 111, in the first paragraph Carroll explains formalism as to how it works with music. Saying, "..it all possess form. Could it even be music, the formalist might ask rhetorically, if it did not have form? Formless sound, so it might be said, just is not music." My question is the "formless nature" of music. Is it if it's not written out? Or if it is not having the "recurring themes and variations and the sequencing of audio structures" because if you take into consideration of impromptu jazz artists, they don't have a form written out until they've played through. Unless their form is in their head. So then, does it now consider as formless as it has no set structure until the piece is over? What makes certain music formless?
ReplyDeleteIM
According to Bell, the appreciation of formalism comes from a higher understanding of the artwork through our aesthetic experiences of art. He discuses how people need personal experiences of art to have, and be able to have, aesthetic experiences of art, yet he's trying to find what is a universal quality that allows art to be correctly interpreted by all. If there should be something universal which all art has in common so that all people can experience art, such as form, is it not a contradiction to say that only those who have had experience or have been exposed to aestheticism can access art in this way? If you need aesthetic experiences to understand art (which could be taken to mean a sort of informal training), doesn't this go against the idea that art should have common qualities so that it can be universalized? He also seems to think that aesthetic experiences of art take us to another level of higher appreciation which cannot be reached by all, so does Bell actually think that what counts as art is not selective in the sense that as long as it can give rise to an aesthetic experience it is art, but that who can appreciate and understand art is a select few?
ReplyDeleteTAG
On page 110, Carroll says that the formalists “maintained that formalism revealed the secret of all art for all times.” He also states that works that are representational should be dropped from the canon (according to formalists). My question is, with each new theory that emerges, we are forced to re-draw the lines of what is or isn’t art. Should we really come up with theories that must exclude specific works as art, or should we try to understand different works for what they are, rather than saying “this is art, and anything that doesn’t fit neatly into this definition is not art”? I know that this idea runs into problems with modern art and abstraction, but it doesn’t exclude them, rather seeks to understand what they are saying/doing.
ReplyDeleteA.H.
We all have our own categories of what is good art and what is bad art. We are told though that there is a criterion to follow that achieves significance to what art actually is. But being bad art, not following the criteria is still considered “art.” In formalism on pg 115 they state that art that claimed as bad art with the intention of being good art, still is art. If I understood that correctly, but isn’t all art an intention of being good leading to no such thing as bad art? Or did I miss what was trying to be said.
ReplyDeletelc
In response to lc, "Isn’t all art an intention of being good leading to no such thing as bad art?" I'm not sure is all art is intended to be "good art", I think at times some artists want art to be intentionally bad, maybe to prove a point or to set some sort of an example. I am sure that every piece of art, whether is is in film, music or a painting etc... hold some sort of aesthetic beauty to someone so it really is an open question that is hard to answer, I guess it's all in the opinion of who is thinking it. Quite honestly I am with you in a way, I feel like I am missing parts of these rules to art, I'm still trying to understand why art has to have so many rules, I grew up believing that art was free to be whatever you wanted it to be..... AS
ReplyDeleteOn page 121:
ReplyDeleteIn a gesture of desperation, the formalist may say "let's stop talking about significant form and just talk about form," understood loosely as any relation between the parts of a whole. Something is art, only if it possesses and exhibits form.
Going off of this... Would you think that the formalist's theory has a few major flaws? What would you consider the major flaws?
jah
This is response to IM’s question:
ReplyDeleteThe sound of instruments without form is just noise. An improvising jazz artist may be making up the direction of the song as s/he goes, but s/he still has things about the song in mind that would constitute ‘form’. Some of these are what key the musicians are playing in, what chords the song is based around, the timing of the song, the tempo, etc. and all these things make up ‘form’. The progression of notes of the song may be new, but it still has some sort of form. It may be the terminology that is confusing, as you say “they (jazz artists) don't have a form written out until they've played through”, but just because it isn’t written does not mean that it has no form. There have been experiments by musicians in noise and its potential for atmospherics, but they are tenuously considered music.
A.H.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIsn't art truly art in the eyes of the beholder?
ReplyDeleteNathan Bergeson
On page 109 it says that Significant form is comprised of arrangements of lines, colors, shapes, volumes, vectors, and space. With this understanding would one say that dance or music would not be considered art or would it be something that we just enjoy as a past time? TD
ReplyDeleteTo TD's post-According to Carroll, dance would definitely be considered. Looking at page 111, Carroll acknowledges that "The tenets of formalism were also extended to dance, due to the influential criticism of theorists like Andre Levinson" and the human body is made up of shapes, so in those regards I feel that dance could be considered art. As for music, it would typically be considered art under formalist theory, with the exception of random bursts of noise once again on page 111 where it is thought, "Formless sound, so it might be said, just is not music." With some pieces like John Cales "4:33" where the lack of direct sound is present, it can be considered art under a neo-formalist viewpoint. So in those regards, both dance and music can both be considered for the formalist theory.
ReplyDeleteMM
In reply to Nate,
ReplyDeleteWell technically, yes, but if art theorists thought it should remain there (in the eyes of a beholder or a few beholders) they wouldn't be art theorists.
If I understand your question's intent correctly, as to doubt the notion that any single theorist or school of theorists have the authority to tell us qualifies as good art, my response would be that your intuition is accurate. Because art and our reception of it is to a great degree subjective, its purpose so multifarious, it seems unlikely that any theory--formalism, or other--could be fully comprehensive. Nor should we consider it the be all end all of art appreciation and criticism.
However, our skepticism regarding the infallability of art theory should not prevent us from valuing and engaging therein. Contingent or not, art theories function to validate art in general--even the formalists locutions preserving some corner of the art world, in the eyes of some beholders.
Moreover, possible or not, that art theory is a collective effort to present a "bigger picture" in terms of movements, history, and for lack of a better word, progress--should make evident the importance of the art theorists task. To sum up: I think I see, and agree with, what you're getting at--but would warn against skepticism.
'tis all. :)
AMS
In response to AH. Each new theory that we come across has its limitations and criteria to show what was important in the history of art at the time… as we see art grows and changes constantly… and using these theories shows the elements that may have been more important to that “time” of art. I will state though that with all these theories that we come across, to say one is right is not the case. We can’t put limitations on art. There are always flaws to a theory and always will be. So as you stated how we should understand different works for what they are rather then saying” this is art, and anything that does fit neatly into this definition is not art” is in my opinion is what we are doing, but we have guidelines and criteria from all different stages of creation to show us different elements to focus on and show importance to a specific piece.
ReplyDeleteLC
In response to JAH.
ReplyDeleteYes I do believe that formalism has some significant flaws in it's theory. One of the flaws is also one of the points the author makes in analyzing formalsim. How can artwork be bad since it has a satisfyingly appropiate form for the content? If the requirements are met under the defintion then there shouldn't be bad art. The term satisfyingly used to describe the appropiate form of the art is very questionable. People have different interpretations of what satisfies for appropiate form. Who should we base our defintion of satisfyingly appropiate form on? Why would someones interpretation of satisfyingly appropiate content be weighed any different then someone else? With such a lose term it is hard to come to an appropiate defintion that would be readily acceptable by everyone. The major flaw of the theory is that it is losely based and defined, so that almost anything can be considered art. The theory seems to be an attempt at coming up with a vague definition to include works that were not considered art in previous theories, but does a poor job.
BRJ
In response to BM:
ReplyDeleteTo me even if art is formless it can still be considered art. Although this would more than likely fall into the realm of expressionist artwork. To fall into the formalist art category it seems to need some form to say the least.
JAH
In response to AS
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Bell is trying to give us the one underlying theme need to be considered art. While all art for him has to be aesthetically pleasing he does not say that they are all great works of art. Even some bad art can have aesthetics but i think Bell would agree that to be considered great or good art it would need more than just aesthetics it needs emotion as well.
K.L.
Since photography started and become a more accurate form of imitation, painting and other works were allowed and expected to experiment more with its structure. How does this leave photography as an art form? Stieglitz essay on pg 71 of the course packet has many good points but it leaves a few questions unsolved for todays standards, and although Carroll talks about movies on page 114, there is nothing else in his writings on photography. So basically, since color photography exists and is now the most accurate way to capture someone, does that mean that black and white photography can be considered formalist since its distorting the color of real life? How about digital photography-is it still art despite the fact that it can be manipulated on a computer, betraying Steiglitz point that "their maker must be quite as familiar with the laws of composition as is the landscape or portrait painter"(75)?
ReplyDeleteMM