Aesthetics

James Carrano

PHI 100 SEC 24N

Blog Post 4 (Aesthetics)

2 December 2014

Aesthetics

As we have seen in the reading, art can be interpreted in many ways. Two particular ways are Formalism and Romanticism. The two views are very different from each other. The way I understand formalism is the view that art is trying to take something we like, and putting it into a different understanding. Basically, the art will let you see something that you might not have seen before. Romanticism is alot different. Romanticism says that art doesn’t have to follow certain rules. It says that it can take any kind of shape or form that it wants. Romanticism says that art is what the person makes of it. There is no such thing as one thing being art and another thing not being art. I agree with the romanticist point of view because I feel that everything is art in some kind of way. I also agree that art doesn’t have rules and can be whatever you make of it.

I think that formalism explains itself better than romanticism does. Formalism says that art reveals itself in a different way than originally understood, while romanticism says that art can do whatever it wants. I think there are many famous works of art that can be looked at through a romanticist mindset. For example, Starry Night, painted by Vincent Van Gogh, shows that art doesn’t have to be a simple picture of something, it proves that art can be whatever you imagine it to be. A formalist painting would be something like a picture that explains something in a different way than one thought of it before. An example of a formalist painting is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. The painting depicts stories from the bible. A formalist way of looking at it would be seeing someone else’s understanding of the stories. I think formalism is better explained than romanticism because it is more specific while romanticism is more general.

I think romanticism is more detailed than formalism. I think so because of how it describes what art is supposed to be. Romanticism is definitely more general than formalism, but described what art is better than formalism. It says that art can be whatever it wants and that no artwork should have rules to go by. This is pretty general, but more detailed than formalism is in some cases. Formalism simply says that art can be telling two different stories at once. I think romanticism does a better job at telling what art is.

I think romanticism is alot more simple than formalism is. Romanticism basically says that art is anything the artist makes it. Formalism says that art can be understood as one thing by someone, but something totally different to someone else. Formalism is more complicated because it can be difficult to understand what the art is telling you in the first place. Once you have figured out what it is saying, then you have to figure out what else it could be saying. There are more steps to formalism than there are to romanticism.

I think formalism is more current with our beliefs than romanticism is. If you go to an art museum today, you have a chance of seeing many works of art that are not easily understandable. People even joke about works of art online that look like they were made in 5 minutes and mean nothing. If you ask the artist, he or she would probably tell you a story about how they made it and what went through their mind as they created the art. This is a form of formalism. The ordinary person would see no value in the art, but the artist could go on for days about how they came up with the idea for it.

1. Formalism and romanticism are the most plausible explanations of understanding what art is.
2. Romanticism has more explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas formalism has more explanatory breadth.
3. Therefore, romanticism is the best explanation of understanding art.