What Is Formalism?

What Is Formalism?. Part of the series: Modern Art History. Formalism refers to a way of creating, viewing and interpreting art that focuses on the visual elements and principles of design, disregarding politics, historical context, content and the artist. Use the formalist approach to evaluating various artworks with information from an art historian, critic and curator in this free video on art. Read more: www.ehow.com/video_4755757_wha...

[@Storethis]

thanks i needed this for a car review

[@dieselphiend]

formalism is also- reading a book without asking yourself what the author's intent was.

[@janovesakkestad7097]

This is my religion formalism concentration on the thing I do without any context, content or outer influence seeking perfection

[@pend_pal9794]

Oh ya ya

[@BasileLvoff]

This interpretation is rather misguided. Formalism doesn't speak about "components"--its approach is holistic. Formalism believes that instead of form and content, we ought to speak of form and material. Form is the unique way in which a work is created. That is its real message. The work's material, like facts, ideas, etc., is important but not predominant. Aristotle, too, considered form as the realization of material.

[@aaron2709]

No, her description is correct. What you've written is unclear and contradicts itself. First you say Formalism speaks to "form and material" (rather than form and content, even though she said Formalism emphasizes form REGARDLESS of content) and then you say material "is important but not predominant." ?

[@BasileLvoff]

I beg to disagree. Moreoever, I don't see a contradiction in what I have written. Formalism does not emphasize form regardless of content-for Formalism the two are one, as in Leo Tolstoy's famous saying about "Anna Karenina": when asked what it was about, he said he'd have to write it again to answer. Ideas are obviously important, but the essence of Tolstoy's work is not in them (taken separately) but in the experience of the characters, the nuances of consciousness, etc. etc.--and that is formal in literature; that has to do with how the given a work is written. That’s why you may dislike Tolstoy’s ideas but still admire his novel-or the other way round. Another example of form and material are the plot (syuzhet) of a story and the events of which the plot is made. The events as such (material) acquire their aesthetic meaning when arranged in a certain way, in a certain form (plot). The Formalists spoke about form and material similarly to a sculptor. The shape of the sculpture, the thing portrayed in a unique way is what’s most important. Though the material you use (clay or paper) also puts a limit on what you're going to do, how you are going to do it, etc. The Formalists preferred discussing form vs. material instead of form vs. content to avoid the naïve understanding of form as a glass and material, as water in it.

[@aaron2709]

Still twisted and confusing. Perhaps you are conflating literary Formalism with Formalism in the visual arts. Formalism in the visual arts emphasizes the 7 formal elements: line, shape, form, texture, color, value and space.

[@BasileLvoff]

I do not know what you see as twisted. Formalism is not that simple; neither is Aristotle, who anticipated various formalists in their claims-so the fact you see it as confusing does not discredit it. It is likely that the woman in the video discusses some purely practical, reductionist, understanding of formalism, the one widely spread among “practitioners” of art. However, Formalism, when capitalized, has to do with certain schools of art theory, in the West as well as in Russia and some other Eastern European countries. Formalism did not study literature alone but visual art as well-so your distinction does not help avoid confusion. Consider Oskar Walzel: www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=887/tocnode?id=g9780631207535_chunk_g97806312075359_ss1-15 My point is not to argue. I respect disagreement. I am even ready to accept that others use the term the way they find convenient-it’s their business. My main point is that, when one names the video this way (What is Formalism?), one is likely to delude those willing to learn about Formalism as it is primarily understood in aesthetics. Either one ought to do Formalism justice, or one ought to point out what is at issue before enlightening others.

[@aaron2709]

You refer to purely practical "practitioners" of art. You mean artists? Why are you using quotation marks... as through you would not want to sully yourself with people who actually use the idea concretely rather than just talk about it as more rhetorical, dissertation-speak. That says it all. You even included a footnote so your school advisor will know you read the requisite literature. The title "What is Formalism" needs to be understood in context. If you watch the video, the context of image-making "practitioners" is clear.