Formalism and Aesthetic Theories of Art

Formalist and aesthetic-functional theories define art by its form or by its capacity to afford aesthetic experience, rather than by representation or expression.

Definition

Formalism holds that something is art, or is artistically valuable, in virtue of its formal properties and the arrangement of its elements; aesthetic functionalism holds that art is whatever is intended to afford a marked aesthetic experience.

Scope

This topic covers formalism, which holds that the artistically relevant properties of a work are its formal arrangements rather than its subject matter, and aesthetic functionalism, which defines art by its function of providing aesthetic experience. It treats Bell's notion of significant form and Beardsley's aesthetic-experience-based account of artistic value and definition. It does not cover the analysis of aesthetic experience itself, treated in a separate area, except as it bears on defining art.

Core questions

• Are the artistically relevant features of a work confined to its form?
• What is significant form, and how does it differ from mere decoration?
• Can art be defined by its capacity to produce aesthetic experience?
• Does formalism cope with representational and conceptual art?

Key theories

Significant form

Bell argues that all visual works of art share one property, significant form—relations and combinations of lines and colors that stir a distinctive aesthetic emotion—independent of representation or subject matter.

Aesthetic functionalism

Beardsley defines art by its function of affording aesthetic experience, and grounds critical evaluation in features such as unity, complexity, and intensity that promote such experience.

History

Formalism arose with early-twentieth-century modernism, as Bell and Fry sought to explain the value of Post-Impressionist painting through form rather than narrative content, paralleling Hanslick's earlier formalism about music. Beardsley reformulated the aesthetic tradition by defining art and artistic value through aesthetic experience. Both approaches were challenged by conceptual and contextual art, which seems to make formal properties insufficient for either defining art or fixing its value.

Debates

Is form sufficient for artistic value?

Anti-formalists argue that historical context, representational content, and intention contribute to artistic value, so confining attention to form distorts both appreciation and definition.

The myth of the aesthetic experience

Critics question whether there is a single, distinctive kind of experience that aesthetic-functional definitions can use to demarcate art, since putative aesthetic experiences seem heterogeneous.

Key figures

• Clive Bell
• Roger Fry
• Monroe Beardsley
• Eduard Hanslick

Seminal works

• bell1914
• beardsley1958

Frequently asked questions

What did Clive Bell mean by significant form?

Bell meant the particular arrangement of lines, shapes, and colors that, independent of what a work depicts, provokes a special aesthetic emotion; he held this to be the one quality common to all visual art.

How does formalism handle conceptual art?

Poorly, on its own terms: works whose interest lies in an idea rather than in perceptible form resist formalist explanation, which is one reason formalism is now treated as a partial theory rather than a definition of art.