Melissa Tkacs

Professor Gilliland

Philosophy

Blog Post 4

2 December 2014

Starry Night: a Biblical Twist

The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh was painted in 1889 only one year before his death. It is stated that van Gogh composed this work of art during his stay at a mental institution after the incident of him cutting off his ear. It is said that this depicts the view that he had outside of his window there. His paining depicts a scene in the night overlooking a small town in the night. The painting shows a very swirled sky with all of the colors of the sky, moon and stars blending into each other.

            The interpretation of the Starry Night that I have chosen I believe is particularly insightful. Vincent van Gogh was a painter in a time that believed that paintings should portray an accurate representation of the scenery that is being painted. However, van Gogh’s paintings were more abstract, it is said that he used his exaggerated and non life like brush strokes as a way to portray the way that he was feeling inside. This painting of his may have originally been inspired by the darkness that he was feeling while in the institution, therefore explaining why the town was painted as a night scene. But, author of this interpretation says that the starry night may have a religious meaning to it. Backed up from the bible verse saying “Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, saying, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” Genesis 37:9” because, within van Gogh’s painting, he portrays eleven stars and the moon. The bible verse has to do with the biblical character Joseph who was thrown into a pit and sold to slavery under the watch of his eleven brothers. Therefore explaining the quotation of the eleven stars shining over him as he was in the darkness not being good enough. This is said to be how van Gogh felt about the critics and other artists of the time shining over him and not appreciating his work.

            This interpretation has a great deal of explanatory breadth, it explains both the darkness of the town that van Gogh was in, and the lights of the critics and people who were believed as better artists shining over him.

            There is a lot of explanatory depth also. The explanation goes into saying why van Gogh was feeling this way in the mental asylum and the religious backing behind it all.

            When it comes to simplicity, it is complex to jump to this conclusion based on the fact that van Gogh was religious and may have painted this because of the verse in genesis. It has a lot of structure to the argument, with many explanations towards why van Gogh would paint it this way, so I would not classify this as a simple explanation.

            I would say that this view is conservative with our current views towards art. I would say this because it had a solid reasoning behind why he painted this, and not just an assumption that he painted this way just because he was in a certain state of mind.

There is evidence that van Gogh was religious and was being criticized poorly as an artist, so this points to there being great predictive power pointing towards this explanation being accurate.

1. The religious theory is an interpretation of the meaning of artwork Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night.

2. Though the religious theory is complex, it has a great deal of explanatory breadth and depth and predictive power with a moderate amount of conservatism.

3. Therefore, the religious theory is a good interpretation of Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night.

http://legomenon.com/starry-night-meaning-of-vincent-van-gogh-painting

Blog Post 4

Neli Pani

Professor Rex

PHI 100

2 December 2014

Blog Post 4

Formalism is the purpose of art that represents ideas that create a structure a reality and shows the behavior. Romanticism is a major part of art because it’s able to express nonrational emotions.

Formalism is the most plausible than romanticism. Art is most known for the beauty people create it. Art is internal beauty and it will always there. From year to come, people will appreciate it. Romanticism wouldn’t be plausible because it doesn’t explain the beauty of the world. It only talks about emotions and how experiences are unrelated.

For explanatory breadth, romanticism shows more works of art than formalism because with the romanticism it shows emotions and the reason why art is important. It makes us aware that the expressions of the art are deeper and more mysterious than what we usually relate to.

For explanatory depth, formalism shows greater detail because the theory represents the formal beauty through senses, emotions and pleasures. From nature to the abstract objects the observer will appreciate the artwork. The difference between formalism and romanticism is that romanticism is dealt with emotions and the mystery of the art, it is also about us being out of touch with nature and us but formalism is the purpose of art and its beauty.

For simplicity, romanticism has fewer parts and is more complicated because its only deals with emotions and the theory is that we are unaware of reality and ourselves. It is complicated because romanticism supposedly makes us aware of a mysterious transcendent reality that we relate to. Also that art isn’t limited but the complication of the theory is that formalism makes more sense and has more parts because it deals with the beauty and the nature and the importance of art.

Conservatism, romanticism theory is more consistent with our current beliefs than formalism. Romanticism is more consistent because it represents the emotions that art give us that we can relate to. Without romanticism life would be complete and not worth living.

1.     Formalism is the most plausible explanations of art.

2.     Formalism has a little more explanatory depth, whereas romanticism has much more explanatory, simplicity, and conservatism.

3.     Therefore, formalism is the best explanation of art.

Aesthetic Theory Debate

Sarah Costa

Art is the application of creative skill and imagination created to be appreciated and judged. One way to judge art is through aesthetics. Aesthetics studies the philosophical foundation of the arts through different theories such as formalism and romanticism. Formalism is the belief that the purpose of art is to represent the ideals that make up reality, and that also guide our behavior and actions. In formalism, the observer of the art appreciates formal beauty in an abstract manner through an aesthetic sense or disinterested emotion to experience a rational type of pleasure. However, romanticism is the belief that art is not limited to rational emotions as a significant part of the function of art is to also show non-rational emotions in order to allow us to get in touch with a transcendent reality. Romantics believe that rational beauty is too narrow of an aesthetic standard and that it needs to supplemented with something large and powerful.

I side with romanticism as the more plausible explanation of judging artwork because I feel that when creating a piece of art, an artist has the ability to look past the physical world and get in touch with a deeper reality through their feelings that can inspire their work. Looking back on some artists of the past and present, such as Mark Rothko from the 1900's and present-day A. Andrew Gonzalez, we can see that in history, and today, many artists have been inspired by a deeper reality that they feel in touch with through their feelings or emotions. Mark Rothko is a perfect example of this. He created very simple, though ambiguous, paintings, such as shapes with faded out edges, and used them to exemplify revelatory power and spirituality. Rothko purposely created his pieces with revelatory power in mind, meaning that he believed that he could see a deeper reality which he implemented into his work. He called himself the prophet of modern art and used his work to convey the message of what he saw to his audience. Similarly, A. Andrew Gonzalez is another artist who is heavily inspired by revelatory power and what he feels from the deeper reality he sees. Gonzalez describes his work as being first inspired by his experiences and vivid dreams as a child where he had out-of-body experiences which lead him to question our common perceptions of reality. Both of these artists use their relationship with their insight into this deeper reality and use it to create art work that shows not only a physical piece of art, but also non-traditional emotions that allow us to understand the transcendent reality that they see or feel when they create their art. This shows romanticism because it demonstrates how artists are able to contact to their artwork through rational and non-rational emotions, showing the practicalities of the painting as well as the deep reality within it as well.

Formalism has more explanatory breadth than romanticism does because it can explain more works of art than romanticism can. Though there are many artists, such as Rothko and Gonzalez, who do create their pieces with emotion and revelations due to a deeper reality in mind, there are many more artists who create their work with just rationality in mind. Many artists create their pieces wanting their audience to appreciate it for what it is, and to see a rational meaning or insight behind it. More artists do not include non-rational emotions than those who do because they focus more on creating their art to represent structural forms of reality that will guide our behavior and our opinion about the piece.

Romanticism has more explanatory depth than formalism does because it can explain different aspects of pieces of artwork in more ways. Formalism only believes in rational elements, whereas romanticism believes in rational elements as well as non-rational emotions. When judging artwork with formalism, the artist created it with rational elements only which can guide your opinion a certain direction. But with romanticism, the pieces are created with rational and non-rational ideas so you are able to take emotions and a deeper reality into consideration as well. Romanticism could explain artwork with both, rational and non-rational aspects, where as formalism could only explain artwork that is solely based on rational elements. For example, "The Weeping Woman" by Pablo Picasso from 1937 shows a crying women from one of Picasso's epic paintings. Picasso insisted that people look into her eyes and imagine themselves there, saying he wanted the painting to express a deep reality which was that the vision of the painting had forced itself upon him and that he felt it showed that women are suffering machines. This painting not only shows an image from a character of one of Picasso's corresponding pieces of art, but it also reveals the deep emotional meaning behind his feeling toward women, which meant he used rational and non-rational elements and emotions. Formalism would have a hard time explaining both ideas of this painting because it does not use the non-rational emotions that Picasso and romanticism have.

Formalism is more simplistic than romanticism because it only uses rational elements that structure reality and our beliefs and behavior when creating and judging art, whereas romanticism uses rational elements and non-rational emotions. There is less room for error with formalism because there is only one ideal whereas with romanticism there are two. Romanticism is more abstract and therefore less simplistic than formalism is.

Romanticism is more conservative than formalism because many people when viewing art like to believe that it is created with a deeper meaning that what meets the eye. Romanticism is much more current with our common beliefs because people like to implement emotion into their creation and opinion of art. People like to interpret art based on their own emotion and feeling that comes from what the artist was feeling at the time of creation, whereas with formalism the painting is created in such a way to guide our behavior on how we feel and view the piece of art.

1. Romanticism and formalism are the most plausible explanations of judging art through aesthetics.
2. Romanticism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas formalism has a little more explanatory breadth and simplicity.
3. Therefore, romanticism is the best explanation of judging art through aesthetics.

Blog Post 4 Option 1

Tyler Stevens



Formalism is the view that art is a form of expressing beauty by using abstract things to show something in a different way. Using your mind to decide what it is that you are looking at whether it be a painting or sculpture. Formalists believe that art is about what you think it is. Romanticism is the view that art is used to show rational aspects of life and also some irrational aspects. It allows us to wander off into the mysteries of life and can be almost considered as imagination at work.

I think that romanticism is the best way to describe art and is the most plausible. To me, art is a way to escape reality, but can also be a way to stay with the rationality of life in different ways. Romanticism has more explanatory breadth than formalism because it allows us to look at art work with the emotional aspects of it as well as the rational aspects of it. Formalism doesn't allow the emotional side of a persons insight on art to show and that alone gives romanticists more explanatory breadth than formalists.

Romanticism has more explanatory depth than formalism too because it gives room for imagination and feeling out the artwork in your own personal way. Formalism is almost a set in stone viewing of the art work and only on the physical realm of things while romanticism allows for a more in depth description of the art work.

I will say , however, that formalists have romanticists beat on simplicity of the theory because there is much less that goes into a formalists view on art than a romanticists view. They look only on the surface of the art instead of what the artist is really trying to convey like the romanticists. In there view, the only thing that matters is how and why it was made and what it is made out of basically. Romanticists go into much more detail.

Romanticism has much more conservatism to our current beliefs today than formalism does. Artists today look at art work with an immense amount of emotion and formalists lack the emotional aspect of art. Artists today show great passion in what they do and that is how I would imagine romanticists to view the art work, with incredible passion.

1.Romanticism and Formalism are the two most plausible explanations of judging pieces of art.
2.Romanticism has much more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth, and conservatism whereas formalism has a little bit more simplicity.
3. Therefore romanticism is the best explanation for judging pieces of art.

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.

Stephanie Bellofiore

Professor Gilliland

Philosophy 100 Sec 24N

12/2/14

Aesthetics: Formalism vs. Romanticism

Art is the expression of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form. These works are appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. There are a variety of standards that are used to judge artworks. Two methods that are used are: Formalism and Romanticism. Formalism is the view that art should be judged based on formal beauty and rationality. This view states that beauty is the unity or orderly arrangement of various parts. The artwork should give us rational insight and should not be judged with emotion. Romanticism however, is the belief that art is not limited to rational components but allows the viewer to evaluate art on the emotions the artwork conveys.

                In my opinion, I feel that romanticism is the more plausible way to judge artworks. This method allows the artwork to be viewed on rational elements and nonrational emotions. The purpose of this method is to make us aware of a mysterious transcendent reality.

Romanticism has more explanatory breadth than Formalism does. This is due to the fact that romanticist judge artwork based on rationality and how the artwork impacts the viewer on an emotional level. Formalism does not include the emotional aspect of artwork. They are limited to how the artwork is arranged, which to this method, is the beauty of the artwork. Clearly, Romanticism explains more works of art than the other.

Romanticism has more explanatory depth than Formalism does. This is because Romanticism examines artwork in greater detail than Formalism does. Romanticism not only takes rationality into consideration but also emotions as well while judging artwork. They believe that artwork should leave its audience having strong emotions on the piece. Each individual reacts differently to the artwork. In this method’s opinion, this is the beauty of the artwork. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, is one the most famous painting in the world. This is because there are many different interpretations on the painting. People closely examine it to find out the identity of Mona Lisa and have their own opinions on the reason behind her secretive smile.  Formalism does not view artwork in an abstract manner and ultimately loses the true meaning of art. It does not take into consideration the emotion of the art at all. This is why Romanticism is able to go into greater detail of the emotional aspect of art while Formalism cannot. Formalism does not go in as great of detail as romanticism because they do not include the emotional component at all while judging artwork.

Formalism has fewer parts than Romanticism. Formalism focuses only on the abstract form of the artwork. This means it only judges art based on the arrangement of various parts. In Romanticism, emotion is also taken into consideration. This makes it more complicated because emotions can vary from person to person. Not all people will view the artworks in the same way. Formalism has more simplicity because all people view the artwork in a similar way, based on form.

Romanticism has more conservatism than Formalism does. Romanticism is much more consistent with our current, common sense belief. Nowadays, many people judge artwork using their emotions rather than purely on structured form. People enjoy interpreting pieces of art based on the emotions they have while viewing it. Many people would not agree with Formalism because they feel artwork has more meaning and value than just it's rational form.

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

Aesthetics debate

Eric Kemmling

Philosophy 100-24n

12/2/14

Blog Post 3

Aesthetics

When we look towards a renowned piece of art or any piece for that matter, we either look to find meaning or evoke an emotional response. this is where the debate between formalism and romanticism begins. An argument over form and emotion, these two theories battle over how people interpret and go about experiencing art and in most cases decide if it is truly good or bad art. Formalism is a theory of art interpretation presenting the idea that art should simply be pleasurable and well made. There is a large focus on technique and the level of ability to recapture what we see in life whether copied exact or abstractly. Romanticism is not limited to rational views as it takes a more emotional approach. Romanticists believe that art can express emotion and feeling through the canvas also.

The explanatory breadth of Romanticism is larger than that of formalism. Formalism is limited to viewing the rational parts of art involving form, technique and other physical attributed to the piece. Romanticism does not limit its interpretation to physical aspects, as they believe the piece also evokes emotion through how it looks. If viewing the art piece of a sunny day, a romanticist could not only say it was painted well, but that the sun and green grass also conveyed happiness. A formalist would be only able to go as far to say the painting was done masterfully, limiting the view and explanation of the painting

The explanatory depth of romanticism also overshadows that of Formalism. Formalism can only go as far as the outside looks of the painting, whereas Romanticism can open a whole new topic of discussion involving emotion. Each person has a different idea or reason for what is happening on the canvas, this means multiple themes can be explored and inferences towards why a painting was painted, or what it means can be debated. Formalism can not explore the emotional realm of artwork, without this the expressions of the artist can’t be truly seems only the ability they have in making a well done composition.

In terms of simplicity formalism does have the upperhand. With fewer parts formalism has a solid explanation of what art should be and how it should be viewed. it cuts out the emotional aspect, a complicated one and presents art as aesthetically pleasing and well made compositions capturing our world in a real or abstract way. This provides a simple and solid definition. Romanticism is more complicated and can be confusing as technically anything with emotional value could be classified as art. This can pose problems as some things would definitely be argued as not art and may be too large of a definition.

In terms of conservatism Romanticism is also the leader. With almost all aspects of art today, including music and writing based solely on the emotion presented and the emotional responses of consumers it is clearly more abundant. In art classes in school, kids are told to paint their emotions, write with emotion even sing with emotion. No matter what any type of art gives a person some type of feeling, when a song makes you smile, or an art piece reminds you of a memory, it is obvious there is some kind of emotion involved.

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

2. Romanticism has more explanatory depth and more conservatism whereas formalism has more simplicity.

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