This was such an intriguing presentation because I had no idea there were theories like this--and it changed my elevator speech for good; I'm definitely not a figurative formalist like I thought!
Essentially, there are four theories... let's see if I can do this without peeking!
1) Formalism - all about the form, all else (question about the piece of art from a content standpoint) is irrelevant
2) Expression - all about content (idealist), because content only has form in the human brain
3) Family Resemblance - art is about the variations that create a pattern (art is changing)
4) Institution - art is insider art and about the theory and artifact of its art world
So, I don't fit into any of these camps directly. How intriguing. But, I did do some thinking, which is always good. Rachel, this is good stuff! Thanks so much.
So, what I came up with was the idea (from Professor Chan) of the analytic philosophy of aesthetics: i.e. mathematical ways of defining art. We've found that art cannot be fully analyzed in a mathematical way. It loses so much in translation (if subject fits a, b, c . . . and a few others, then it's art). The subtleties of the abstraction (art) are lost.
There's another camp, though, and we didn't discuss it, so I researched--the continental philosophy.
Continental philosophy deals with these ideas--science is inadequate to fully understanding art; elements of context, time-period, language, culture, and history around the art are valid descriptors; related to personal, moral and political changes (as opposed to strictly interpretative works of analytic philosophy); and, there is an emphasis on the big picture--metaphilosophy (above philosophy). The thing to remember with continental philosophy is--reflection is the key.
I think that art, always spoken of in terms of form and content, can be an equation from these two entities--form and content. While it may be possible to divorce content from form (I don't know how true this can actually be, because a friend of mine is strictly a formalist, but their work involves content, even if subtle--this just goes to show the phenomenology that takes place in our brains, which tries to make something out of nothing) . . . it is not possible to divorce content from form (this content without form is just an idea, and art, I believe, is more than just an idea).
So, can there be a marriage that cannot be divorced? Because, it is evidence that these two need each other, even if an artist says otherwise; a viewer will always impose some sort of content (what does this mean?) on a form because our minds function this way, scientifically. So, if we're looking at the analytics here, the analytical philosophy has been stabbed by its own device--the scientific function of the brain when faced with a non-representational picture is to create meaning out of it--impose a recognizable shape/picture/idea onto the picture.
So, can there be a marriage that cannot be divorced--these two, form and content . . . Well, it may be that content multiplied by form is what art is all about. Multiplied. Why multiplied? Because, multiplication creates a compound that is not simple anymore. I don't believe art is simple. But, it requires the first variable (content) to be thought up--philosophized, theorized, idealized--and then married to some sort of body (form and formal functions).
So, art would transcend descriptive/prescriptive/aesthetic/non-aesthetic/externalist/internalist theories.
[And, yes, don't worry--I am watching the game... ;) AH! Come on, boys.]
Essentially, there are four theories... let's see if I can do this without peeking!
1) Formalism - all about the form, all else (question about the piece of art from a content standpoint) is irrelevant
2) Expression - all about content (idealist), because content only has form in the human brain
3) Family Resemblance - art is about the variations that create a pattern (art is changing)
4) Institution - art is insider art and about the theory and artifact of its art world
So, I don't fit into any of these camps directly. How intriguing. But, I did do some thinking, which is always good. Rachel, this is good stuff! Thanks so much.
So, what I came up with was the idea (from Professor Chan) of the analytic philosophy of aesthetics: i.e. mathematical ways of defining art. We've found that art cannot be fully analyzed in a mathematical way. It loses so much in translation (if subject fits a, b, c . . . and a few others, then it's art). The subtleties of the abstraction (art) are lost.
There's another camp, though, and we didn't discuss it, so I researched--the continental philosophy.
Continental philosophy deals with these ideas--science is inadequate to fully understanding art; elements of context, time-period, language, culture, and history around the art are valid descriptors; related to personal, moral and political changes (as opposed to strictly interpretative works of analytic philosophy); and, there is an emphasis on the big picture--metaphilosophy (above philosophy). The thing to remember with continental philosophy is--reflection is the key.
I think that art, always spoken of in terms of form and content, can be an equation from these two entities--form and content. While it may be possible to divorce content from form (I don't know how true this can actually be, because a friend of mine is strictly a formalist, but their work involves content, even if subtle--this just goes to show the phenomenology that takes place in our brains, which tries to make something out of nothing) . . . it is not possible to divorce content from form (this content without form is just an idea, and art, I believe, is more than just an idea).
So, can there be a marriage that cannot be divorced? Because, it is evidence that these two need each other, even if an artist says otherwise; a viewer will always impose some sort of content (what does this mean?) on a form because our minds function this way, scientifically. So, if we're looking at the analytics here, the analytical philosophy has been stabbed by its own device--the scientific function of the brain when faced with a non-representational picture is to create meaning out of it--impose a recognizable shape/picture/idea onto the picture.
So, can there be a marriage that cannot be divorced--these two, form and content . . . Well, it may be that content multiplied by form is what art is all about. Multiplied. Why multiplied? Because, multiplication creates a compound that is not simple anymore. I don't believe art is simple. But, it requires the first variable (content) to be thought up--philosophized, theorized, idealized--and then married to some sort of body (form and formal functions).
So, art would transcend descriptive/prescriptive/aesthetic/non-aesthetic/externalist/internalist theories.
[And, yes, don't worry--I am watching the game... ;) AH! Come on, boys.]
No comments:
Post a Comment