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.

Formalism VS Romanticism

Formalism is the study in which you compare form and style, and romanticism states that art cannot just be viewed as just rational element, it has to express emotion in us as well.  These are just the two ways of many to views of art, and out of these two, I think that romanticism is definitely the most plausible.

1. Romanticism definitely has more explanatory breadth, because it expresses art in more than one way.  Formalism unlike romanticism lacks the ability to express emotion in art, and in many people’s opinions emotion in the reason why they are interested in art.  Therefore having the ability to express art with rational element and emotion, puts romanticism above formalism.

2.      Romanticism has more explanatory depth than formalism does, because once again romanticism has the emotion value in art.  Emotion makes all the difference in art, it attaches the person to that art piece, and that is what makes it that much more special.  Formalism lacks the act of emotion therefore people aren’t really having a deep connection with the art piece.

3.      Formalism has more simplicity than romanticism does.  Formalism lacks emotion, therefore just attaching the person to the art piece with looks and as just an element.  Where romanticism attaches the person through their emotion and soul, therefore formalism is simpler, it lacks one of the factors that romanticism has.

4.      Romanticism has more conservatism than formalism does.  In today age people when looking to buy art they want to be emotionally attached to that art piece, so it is worth for them to purchase it.  Once again formalism lacks the ability to attach a person to the art piece through emotion therefore it plays no conservatism role in our society.

1.      Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explanation of art.

2.      Romanticism has much more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas formalism has a little more simplicity.

3.      Therefore Romanticism is the best explanation of art.

Formalism and Romanticism

Formalism and Romanticism

Art is an imitation. It is supposed to capture something significant about reality. It represents particular things, or formal traits shared by multiple things. There are two different theories of art, Formalism and Romanticism.

Formalism states that the purpose of art is to represent the forms or ideas that structure reality and guide behavior. Philosopher, Plato, claimed that that aesthetic beauty is an intelligible form, and a universal archetype. Figurative formalism and abstract formalism are the two forms of Formalism. Figurative Formalism is represented indirectly in the guise of a particular thing, which is used as an example of a symbol or form. Abstract Formalism represents the form directly, abstracted from particular things. In both versions of Formalism, the observer appreciates formal beauty through a special aesthetic sense or motion. Rationalists believe that experiencing a purely rational type of pleasure comes from art. They also believe that the proper attitude toward artwork is being “disinterested.”

In Romanticism, the major function is to express non-rational emotions. And why, you ask? One reason is because without a full range of experience, life is incomplete, and we are out of touch with ourselves and nature. The second reason is because these emotions can make us aware of a mysterious transcendent reality, deeper than one we relate to. Romantics argue that rational beauty is too narrow an aesthetic standard, and should be supplemented with sublime, or overwhelm.  The art theory that I think is most plausible is Romanticism.

(A) Romanticism has more explanatory breadth than Formalism. It does this because when you’re looking at a work of art you interpret it with emotion. In romanticism, art work should be expressed through emotion. In formalism, the proper attitude toward artwork is being disinterested.  

(B)  Romanticism has more explanatory depth than Formalism because of the emotion romanticists put into art. The emotion really makes all the difference. It makes the art seem more realistic and meaningful.  Those are things people connect to when they see the artwork. Formalism lacks emotion, therefore, people can’t have the same deep connection to that kind of art.

(C)   Formalism has more simplicity or has fewer parts than Romanticism because with Formalism, art it is presented without emotion, but in Romanticism, art has emotion and, therefore, everyone will have a different interpretation when they look at it, whereas, with formalism, they seem disinterested. There aren't as many interpretations that it can be looked at. So, Formalism is definitely simpler than Romanticism.

(D)  Romanticism has more conservatism because it is more consistent with our common sense beliefs because it expresses emotion and is realistic. Everyone will always have emotions and different things will touch different people, no matter what. Formalism art is the art of formal beauty that not very many people can connect with, like romanticism art is.

1. Formalism and Romanticism are the most plausible explanations for the theories of art.

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

           3. Therefore, Romanticism is the best explanation of the theory of art

Romanticism vs Formalism

For the task of viewing or judging art, art aficionados have come up many ways to judge art. One of way of viewing art comes from the formalism theory, this theory believes that art should be judged purely on form and rationality, art should not be judged on any emotional level, nor any historical or social context. Romanticism, another theory on how we should judge art, believes that art should be viewed as an expression of a feeling or a particular emotion. I personally have to argue with the romanticism theory, I believe it is the more plausible theory.

Explanatory breadth- Romanticism has more explanatory breadth than formalism because romanticism acknowledges the emotional aspect of works of art. They look at how artwork can emotionally affect each individual that views it. Formalism does not look at this aspect because they believe that art work should be judged or viewed solely on form or technique. They do not take into consideration the emotional aspect of works of art.

Explanatory Depth- Romanticism has more explanatory depth than formalism because it delves deeper in to art. Rather than looking at art in an abstract manner, completely rational, they look at art from a more emotional aspect. Romanticism believes that art can appeal to everyone through the emotional effect that an art piece can have on an audience. Each individual reacts differently to a piece of art, for example, some look at Van Gogh’s ‘The starry night’ painting and interpret from it a new life as the sunrises, others may see it as, not being alone in the world with all the stars in the sky. Emotion is an important part of viewing art, yet formalism neglects this emotional aspect of art. Formalism only skims the top part of works of art it does not go in depth to truly understand the importance of somewhat capturing an artist essence and not to look at art in an abstract manner. Romanticism goes into greater detail about the emotional aspect of art and how it important it is to an artwork being judged.

Simplify- Formalism has fewer parts than romanticism. Romanticism believes in emotion and feelings which varies from person to person. Anyone can release a painting or drawing and call it ‘art’ because they believe in the emotional aspect of art. For example a person can poorly draw their handprint on a piece of paper and it art. They might have an emotional attachment to it but can it be really viewed as art? Formalism gives a clear definition of how art should be viewed, in a purely abstract manner, all about form. Romanticism is a bit more complicated because it deals with such a subjective topic as emotion.

Conservatism- Romanticism is more current with our beliefs. Our society today is very much obsessed with emotion, a review of a music album is less about formal beauty or how the album is in an abstract manner but more about how it makes you feel. Same applies with art, most people critique art based upon how the artwork makes them feel versus critiquing it rationally. Formalism is not consistent with our current beliefs because the world of art has evolved so much, no one unless educated in the arts really critique an art purely in an abstract manner.  

1. Romanticism and formalism are the most plausible explanation of judging art.

2. Romanticism has much more explanatory depth and breadth whereas formalism has more simplicity.

3. Therefore, Romanticism is the best explanation of judging art.

Formalism vs. Romanticism

Art can be seen in two aesthetics theories: formalism and romanticism.
Formalism is to represent art in forms or ideals that structure reality and guide our behavior. Romanticism is to express art in non-rational emotions. Art and many other things can be viewed in these two different aesthetics theories. I believe it personally depends on the person itself and how they view art. In my opinion, I can agree more with romanticism.

Romanticism has more explanatory breadth than formalism. Formalism have one specific way of expressing the art. Art is looked at by just our behavior. The art isn’t looked at with any emotion. Romanticism, however, get emotions from art. One can provide more information on how and why it makes us feel that way. It won’t always have the same reaction.

There is more explanatory depth in romanticism. Formalism lacks emotion. Formalism cannot provide a connection because they focus more on the reality the work gives. Whereas romanticism connect more to the art. One gets a whole different feel when connecting to it. Romanticism seem to appreciate the work more. The two are very different.  

Formalism has more simplicity. They experience things such as art in a more rational way. Formalism has only one way of reacting to things. Which is by noticing what they need to. Romanticism are much more open making them more complicated. They cannot stick to one simple response. You don’t really know what they are going to say about the work. But with formalism you already know that the reaction will be more structured.

Romanticism is more conservative. Each theory can be followed by people. But romanticism is more consistent with our current and common sense. Our feelings constantly change depending on what is going on around us. Which means it is always included with our current and always changing our common sense to be more aware. Though for formalism it may be a lot hard to maintain consistent with the two. They are used to only one specific way of experiencing things.

Inference to the Best Argument:

1. Romanticism and formalism are the most plausible explanations of art.

2. Romanticism has much more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas formalism has a little more simplicity.

3. Therefore, romanticism is the best explanation of the cause of art.

Blog 4: Formalism vs. Romanticism

As known today there are two different ways in which art is viewed. The two ways are known as Romanticism and Formalism. Romanticism is the more plausible of the two, its states that art should be viewed with more than just rational elements and it can express emotions within people. Formalisms states that the purpose of art is for it to be viewed in a formal way that does not include emotion.

a)      Romanticism has more explanatory breadth because it has a wider explanation of how art works. For example, the way everyone views art in a different way, so when viewed different emotions surface because it is interpreted differently. Romanticism art includes emotion as interpretation. Formalism arts don’t focus on emotion, which doesn’t include people using emotions to express themselves.

b)      There is a greater amount of explanatory depth in romanticism than there is in Formalism because of the emotion romanticism showcases. Emotion is important because it gives art a more realistic and feasible sense also allows a connection between the people and the art itself. Formalism doesn’t include emotion which doesn’t allow connections.

c)      Formalism has more simplicity than Romanticism because of the fact that there aren’t any emotions within this form of artwork.

d)     Romanticism has a more constant connection with our common sense because it can be realistic with the different emotions. Formalism doesn’t have a meaning in which people can use to connect so it can be considered free will.

1.      Formalism and Romanticism are most plausible cause of art.

2.      Romanticism has more explanatory depth, breadth and conservatism than Formalism; but formalism has more simplicity than romanticism.

3.      Therefore Romanticism is the best plausible cause of art.

Formalism vs Romanticism

In the world today, they’re several different ways that people view art. Art can be viewed in formalism or romanticism. Formalism view of art is to represent the forms or ideas that structure reality and guide our behavior. Romanticism view of art isn’t rational elements but should be expressed in nonrational emotions. Therefore, I believe that Romanticism is more plausible.

  

-       Explanatory Breadth – Romanticism has more explanatory breadth because it has more meaning to art and people can express more emotions, rather than just staring at the painting with no emotions (formalism). Everyone has their form of expression to that leads to different interpretation of emotions and formalism neglects that emotion.

-       Explanatory Depth – Romanticism has more explanatory depth because romanticism has more emotion and more realization. Making art more emotional has more significant which formalism doesn’t have the connection to the people how romanticism have.

-       Simplicity – I feel that Formalism has more simplicity than romanticism because formalism does not have to address emotion and expresses art in a formal way. Therefore formalism has more simplicity than romanticism.

-       Conservatism- Romanticism has more conservatism with our common sense belief than formalism. In life there are more emotions put into our everyday life and touches people differently. Formalism art is free drawing that has no meaning or emotions in which people can not connect to it.

1.     Formalism and Romanticism are most plausible cause of art.

2.     Romanticism has more explanatory depth, breadth and conservatism than Formalism; but formalism has more simplicity than romanticism.

3.     Therefore Romanticism is the best plausible cause of art.