The reading for Week Seven is a famous work by Clive Bell:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r13.html
This week, we fast-forward to the early twentieth-century. Art was discussed by philosophers before this time. (Kant, Hegel, and others discussed art, for example.) But formalism, as presented in this well-known work by Bell in 1912, has been far more influential on artists and the art world in general than those earlier philosophers. Clement Greenberg, a formalist critic writing in the 1950s and 60s, has also been enormously influential in this century.
The formalists urged that we focus only on the formal properties of art -- the "form" not the "content." Those formal properties might include, for the visual arts, color, shape, and line, and, for the musical arts, rhythm and harmony. Formalists do not deny that works of art might have content, representation, or narrative -- rather, they deny that those things are relevant in our appreciation and understanding of art.
Bell was writing in an era when the artworld was exploring "abstract" art, rejected by many in the viewing public as not really art. So Bell's writing had a "heuristic" (teaching) role in trying to re- educate the art audiences of the day to consider art quite differently -- to focus on the formal properties and not complain that the paintings don't "look like" anything.
HOW TO START: As always, let me suggest that you read the discussion questions at the end of the article first. You will see there questions going to all the major points in Bell's writing here.
FOR OUR DISCUSSION GROUP: I'd like us to focus this week on examining a few of the key concepts and ideas in Bell's theory:
Questions 3 & 4: Bell is an "essentialist." The essence of art, for Bell, is the "aesthetic emotion" provoked by the "significant form" of all art. Look at the questions raised in these questions (3 & 4). What does he mean by "aesthetic emotion"? "significant form"? What is persuasive about his proposals? What is problematic or unacceptable about these proposals?
Question 11: Let's consider Bell's defense of his theory on the basis of its explanatory power. Does his theory explain art adequately? why or why not?
Question 12: Consider his discussion of what he calls "descriptive painting" -- what we might call a theory of "representation."
Question 16: What are the differences between "aesthetic emotion" and "the ordinary emotions of life"?
(Please read the other discussion questions to understand his overall argument, and feel free to comment on others that interest you.)
You'll note that almost all of Bell's examples are from visual art, his area of expertise. It would be interesting for the students from music, dance, and theater to consider whether his theory extends to explain those artforms as well.
Formalism does not merely claim to "describe" what art is. It also offers a "prescriptive" definition -- what art ought to be, what artists ought to do, what art audiences ought to focus on, what art critics should use to evaluate art. It has remained a very influential theory throughout this century, although it seems to come in and out of fashion at different times.
Formalism is sometimes characterized as synonymous with "modernism" in art. Although they overlap considerably, the connotations of the terms do not seem identical. (This would be an interesting debate, though, to compare and contrast how those terms have been used in the 20th century.) Modernism promotes "art for its own sake," art that explores art's potential in and of itself. The modernist explores the medium of art as being of interest in itself, and rejects the idea of art as useful FOR something else -- whether to represent things or express things or promote political or religious ideals.
Continue to Lecture Notes for Week Eight (posted 3/16/98)
Return to Lecture Notes Table of Contents
Return to Class Home Page: PHIL 361/599 (Spring 1998)
Questions and comments are welcome: jvancamp@csulb.edu
This page written and maintained by Julie Van Camp
Copyright Julie C. Van Camp 1998
Last updated: March 8, 1998