Aesthetics

            Human beings are exposed to various forms of art everyday: paintings, music, and poetry, just to state a few; this particular philosophical debate goes into depth about how to distinguish true art from non-art. Aesthetics, in the realm of philosophy, studies the foundation of the arts. A common question about aesthetics examined in philosophy surrounds the idea of what is good art and what is bad art; or more unambiguously, what characteristics individualize art from non-art.

There are two main sides in this debate that categorize themselves as Romantics and Formalists. Romanticism surrounds the idea that art is not restricted to simply rational elements; rather, it can also express non-rational emotions in order to help the viewer comprehend a transcendent reality. In other words, Romantics attempt to express a greater diversity of emotions through art. Formalism is the view that the sole purpose of art is to present formal beauty in an abstract or figurative manner in order to evoke disinterested emotions. Formalists simply believe that art should merely focus on pleasure and beauty while lacking most emotions; otherwise, it is not classified as art.

            I personally side with Romanticism in this debate over what characteristics classify true art. In my opinion, art should embrace all emotions that human beings experience throughout their lives. During a lifetime, one feels emotions such as pleasure, pain, fear, anger, and sorrow, just to name a few. With that being said, art should include all of these emotions since art should represent life and everything that it entails: the positive and the negative. Formalists simply focus on pleasure and beauty; by doing so, they lack much of the emotions we experience. There is more to life than the positive; everyday human beings experience a wide range of emotions, and not all of them are positive or pleasurable. In order for art to be completely relatable, which I believe is a major aspect or goal of art, it should encompass a multiplicity of emotions that human beings feel as though are ‘true to life’. Therefore, I side with Romanticism as I personally find it to be more accurate since it essentially encompasses all of the emotions that life causes us to experience, rather than simply focusing on pleasure.

            In terms of explanatory breath, Romanticism definitely has the upper hand in this debate. Romanticism is able to identify a wider variety of art as being true art because they focus heavily on emotion. Whereas Formalism simply focuses on art that is beautiful and pleasurable, which cuts out much of the art that we appreciate today. Not all art surrounds, or should have to surround the concept of beauty and pleasure. Formalism neglects any art that is not beautiful in an abstract manner that provides the viewer with pleasurable emotions. They lack the ability to explain art that evokes emotions.  Much of the art we appreciate today does not focus on pleasure; rather much of art encompasses a wide variety of emotions. Many of the art forms we view focuses on experiences that we will most likely never have; experiences such as war can be turned into an art piece, for example. To me, art should allow us to experience emotions that others have felt in situations we will probably never be in. In a way, art is educational. The concept of Formalism lacks the ability to explain art forms such as these that display emotion. Formalism does not focus on a wide variety emotions conveyed through art; thus, they neglect much the current art we view, giving it less explanatory breadth.

            Romanticism explains aspects of art in greater detail than Formalism; therefore, it has more explanatory depth. Romanticism attempts to express a wide variety of emotion with the ultimate objective of including a wider variety of art in their rationalizations, as well as explaining art in greater detail and with more clarity. Merely stating that art only embodies beauty and pleasure, lacking most emotions, is very confusing and grey-scale, per say, because life involves more emotions than just the positive ones. Focusing solely on pleasure is very bewildering because art should be relatable and “true to life”. Many people state that they connect with a particular art form because it is relatable to their life and personal experiences; if art only encompasses the positive, it is clearly less relatable, and rather perplexing as a result. Formalism lacks the ability to be truly applicable, as it does not recognize emotions displayed through art; thus, it explains art in very little detail and with much misunderstanding. In attempt to be as well-defined and “black-and-white” as possible, Romantics include art that emphasizes a wide range of emotions, as well the sublime; Romantics include a wide variety of emotions with the logic that states that art should incorporate all characteristics of human life, not just pleasure since life is not always gratifying. In order for art to be truly significant to ones life, it should encompass all human emotions. Since the concept of Romanticism is able to explain the debate over what is true art with much more precision and clarity, it holds more explanatory depth.

            Simplicity insinuates the theory that has the least amount of parts or assumptions, leading to less room for error and confusion. In this case, Formalism has fewer parts or assumptions, and ultimately, a greater amount of simplicity. Simply put, Formalism solely focuses on pleasure and beauty as being characteristics of good art. Whereas Romanticism focuses on many more emotions, including undesirable emotions such as fear and despondency, as well as positive emotions. Since Romanticism encompasses a number of different emotions, it therefore has more parts or assumptions leading to more room for error, and therefore less simplicity than Formalism.

            In reference to conservatism, I believe that Romanticism has the upper hand. This can be rationalized with the fact that most people agree that art should encompass human emotions rather than just pleasure and beauty, Romanticism is more consistent with our current, commonsense beliefs about art. I feel confident in saying that most people want to relate to the art that they are viewing, therefore art should encompass a wide gamut of emotions that humans experience everyday. Art should epitomize life, and life is not always beautiful or seamless; we are always experiencing emotion. Life is full of war and discrimination, but it also involves love and joy; I find truth in saying that most people want art to represent all aspects of human life, including human emotions, not just the sublime. I believe that it is absurd to say that human beings are so narrow-minded that they view true art to only be pleasurable and beautiful, while lacking emotion. I find that I relate to art the most when it does not merely represent the beautiful, and I believe most people might agree. Even though life is beautiful, we all experience a wide range of emotions, positive and negative; when I view emotions depicted through art, I find it to be the most raw and relatable because when the artist was creating the art, they were in a very vulnerable state as they were most likely experiencing these emotions. Art should be considered sublime and powerful by encompassing every single aspect of our lives, especially our emotions; when this is the case, art is at its purest, most relatable form.

            In my personal view, art should not be excluded to figures of beauty that bring us pleasure when we view them, or what the theory of Formalism states. Rather, art should be true and wholesome to life by displaying human emotions that we experience in our day-to-day lives. When this is the case, art is powerful and authentic. It is uninformed, in my opinion, to believe that art should only encompass the sublime, because our lives involve a large variety of emotions that are ever-changing. In short, in order for art to be true and relatable, it should encompass human emotion.

1. Romanticism and Formalism are both plausible explanations for the debate over what is true art.

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

3. Therefore, Romanticism is the best explanation when differentiating art from non-art.