Aesthetics

Formalism

Came out of 18 & 19th century fascination of beauty (and other aesthetic qualities  like awe or sublimity). More precisely from the seeking of an Enlightenment/scientific understanding of beauty.

They came to believe that there were principles behind beauty and that these were formal principles.

Presupposes the existence of an unique class of human experiences which can be termed "aesthetic."

Some posited an "aesthetic sense" which is stimulated by certain formal arrangements; can see perspective, balance, movement, in paintings. ( In music were respond almost automatically to the 8th, the 5th and third 3rd.  We recognize harmony, chords and discords and all these are formal qualities.)

Some claim that we can induce such experiences by adopting a special frame of mind
(disinterestedness or psychical distance) or by utilizing a special form mode of
perception (uniquely aesthetic attention or "seeing as").

Formalism says that art is the construction of aesthetically fascinating objects or events and that good art constructs objects that are genuinely aesthetically fascinating and bad art fails to construct objects of formal interest.

Formalism posits an unique pleasure aesthetic pleasure (or what Clive Bell calls the "Aesthetic Emotion") which they distinguish from other pleasures of emotions (what Bell calls the "Emotions of life").  This is the sort of pleasure that you get when looking at art or a thrilling sunset for instance; it is a disinterested pleasure.  It is characterized by immediate gratification.   It is contrasted with practical gain.  Kant put it this way;  we do not care whether the object before us is real, imitation or wholly and illusion when appreciating it aesthetically or "disinterestedly."

Kant also talks about being able to appreciate a purposeful-ness to things without being aware of their actual purpose.  Also talks about the mind engaging in "free-play" the product of which is not useful judgments, but a sort of fanciful musing from which we derive satisfaction.  He talks more about natural things (flowers, sunsets, mountains) than art.

Formalism is often what they teach to appreciate art;

Clive Bell posits Significant Form as the feature by which an object is able to elicit an Aesthetic Emotion  (as opposed to the Emotions of Life).  It is that arresting "Ah!" that some works of art are able to achieve;

Purpose is not to teach us messages, purpose is to be aesthetically fascinating.

The wrong thing to do is ask "What it is about?" or "What is it supposed to be?"  Just look at it; art for art's sake;

Pros:

1 Theory claims that one should not judge art by its moral work but judge art by its own unique value; art is to be appreciated for itself; aesthetic experience is a value onto itself; art is a vehicle for this aesthetic pleasure and that is all.

2. The theory is a way of approaching any and all works of art, of talking about and critically assessing any art (in a formal/compositional way).  This is why this is the route they go in art appreciation classes;

3. This theory can help explain the lasting attention we pay to "great" works in term of properties of the work itself.  "Great Art," it would seem, remains great even after the culture they came from passes away.  Formalism can explain that.

4.  This theory sets up art as sort of a value onto itself

As the result of Formalism, we have a wide variety of new kinds of art forms; anything can be looked at in an aesthetic way (air vent).

Problems:

1. There does not seem to be a strong distinction between anything and works of art; the role of intention seems lost

2. It seems no good at accounting for some works of art (the Blues, Rock Music, Highly Mimetic or Representative Art)

3. It would imply that very close copies of works of art are as good as the originals.

4. "Significant Form" is defined in terms of "Aesthetic Emotion" while "Aesthetic Emotion" is defined in terms of "Significant Form."

5.  Unclear that there is any unique "Aesthetic Experience" or "Aesthetic Attention" etc.