1/12/12

Clive Bell and the Formalist Theor

Clive Bell and the Formalist Theory

Christopher Lotito, Drew Universit , 2002
Art is a recurring form of human practice. Some have argued that all human societies have shown evidence of artistic activities. (Carroll 5) Man has long created art, this much is certain. However, man has never ultimately defined art. There are so many things which qualify as art and as many qualities to each piece that trying to find answers only seems result in more questions. The formalist theory of art, as present by Clive Bell, makes an attempt at defining art and answering many of these questions. Below is a discussion of the formalist theory; its definition, its strengths, and its weaknesses as evidenced by the work of Clive Bell. Clive Bell theorizes art in terms of a theory known as Formalism. Formalism is based upon a relatively simple line of logic. All art produces in the viewer an emotion. This emotion is not different but the same for all people in that it is known as the Aesthetic Emotion. There must be a factor common to all works of art that produces in the viewer a state of Aesthetic Emotion thus defining the works as art. This common factor is form. Formalism defines artworks as that which has significant form. Significant form is a term used by Bell to describe forms that are arranged by some unknown and mysterious laws. Thus, all art must contain not merely form, but significant form. Under Formalism, art is appreciated not for its expression but instead for the forms of its components. Examples of these forms include lines, curves, shapes, and colors. Abstract art, twentieth century, or modern art such as color field painting or the works of Mondrian, are examples of art that are not representative and thus are most likely to be appreciated as art in terms of their forms rather than their content. For the formalist, forms are the common denominator that differentiates between that which is art and that which is not art. This is based on the Common Denominator Argument, which is put forth by Noel Carroll. This is one of the same arguments that Bell puts forward, Carroll simply elucidates the matter. the Common Denominator Argument. This argument begins with the unexceptionable presupposition that if anything is to count as a necessary condition of art status, then it must be a property had by every artwork. (Carroll 111). Carroll believes that some things are art, some things are not art, and their must be a factor common to all art which differentiates it from not art because the two things are clearly distinct. Formalism is in some ways an advantageous theory of art. It has advantages over both representationalism and expressionism. Representationalism is the theory of art that in order for something to qualify as art, it must be representative of its content. Thus, a drawing of a tree is representative of a tree because it obviously resembles a tree. The matter goes beyond that though; works of art may even be representative via metaphor, common qualities with subject, or fiat. If a work of art is classified as art via metaphor, its content is a metaphor for the actual object. Thus, in Peter and the Wolf each of the instruments is a metaphor for the subjects they represent. An oboe is not a duck, but both can make a quacking noise. In a color field painting using shades of blue, the name sky would be appropriate because both the painting and the sky have the quality of color in common. Likewise, a Faberge egg and an actual egg share the quality of being egg shaped. Fiat is an announcement on the part of the artist to indicate to you that a work of art is representative of what inspired it. Thus an abstract painting might be called city and have no similarity to a city. In the case of fiat, the art is representative both because it was intended as such and it was announced as such by the artist. Formalism has an advantage over Representationalism in many ways when referring to abstract or th 20 century art. Color field paintings are seldom representative by fiat and thus are often excluded as art by the representationalist theory, yet many people recognize that they are art. Formalism recognizes these works of art for their form, despite their lack of Representationalism. This is one of the main ways that Formalism has an edge over Representationalism.
groups.drew.edu/philoso/Archives/Lotito/Clive Bell and the Formalist Theor .htm 1/3

1/12/12

Clive Bell and the Formalist Theor

Modern artists eschewed pictorial illustration, composing paintings out of often nonrepresentational shapes and masses of color. Their aim was not to capture the perceptual appearances of the world, but often to make images noteworthy for their visual organization, form, and arresting design. (Carroll 108) Expressionism is a definition by which art is defined as anything which expresses and transmits emotion to others. Thus, any painting, drawing, picture, music, or sculpture that causes emotion in you is qualified as art. The problem with this definition is that there are many things which cause or transfer emotion to people that are not works or art. Among these are war, fights, hugs, affection, large bills, and any number of other things. Perhaps if a war, fight, hug, affection, or large bill were put on a stage and directed at an audience, it might then qualify as performance art, but by themselves, a correct definition of art cannot encompass these things. It is possible to change the definition of expressionism such that art is defined as the intended transmission of an emotion to the audience, as Carroll has pointed out. However, this definition too has problems because there are still things that fit theses criterion which are clearly not art. An example of this would be Hitler s speeches; indeed they transmitted emotion and in fact intended too; however they were manipulation and very few people may be found who would qualify these things as legitimate forms of art. Another problem or expressionism under any definition is its tendency to be relative. Emotions are not a static thing that is unvarying from person to person. Far from it, a person s emotional reactions are based upon many things including upbringing, physical factors, life experience, religious beliefs, and other factors. Simply put, art effects everyone differently in reference to emotions. Some people my experience not emotion at upon viewing a work of art while other might experience extreme emotion or any variant between the two. With the expressionist theory, every person would have to have a different definition of art. Formalism does not share these problems because it is not concerned with whether emotion is evoked or not, its only concern is with form. Furthermore, Formalism classifies all emotions occurring from the viewing or experiencing of art as Aesthetic Emotion and thus unites the emotions of the viewers so that the definition art is no longer relative to the viewer of the artwork. The Formalist theory is not without problems of its own. One of these problems relates to the term significant form. Significant form, as previously stated, refers to form which is arranged by some unknown and mysterious laws. The inherent problem with this is that the definition is not. In reality, this definition defines nothing; it simply tells us that one thing which we do not understand is defined by another thing that cannot be defined. How is one supposed to know which forms are significant and which are trivial? How does one determine what these unknown and mysterious laws are? These are the questions that must be addressed before we can define significant form and thus Formalism. Unfortunately, Clive Bell does not answer these questions and because of this, we have no reasonable basis for assuming his theory of art, Formalism, to be accurate. Another of the problems with Formalism is that of the monument. Monuments have been commonly assumed as art by most artists and people in general. This should be taken as general knowledge. The problem with monuments is that they are not intended as art, but instead as signifying a person or an event. This is similar to the Formalistic problems found in both gargoyles and religious artworks as well. The question raised here is; how are these items still art (and indeed they are recognized as such) if they lack the characteristics inherent to the Formalist theory, namely significant form and an appreciation of the form rather than an expression made by the artwork? Fortunately for the Formalist, there is a solution to the problems of Formalism. Unfortunately for the Formalist, it requires a drastic reorientation of the though-values inherent to the definition of Formalism. This solution is an alternative form of Formalism known as Neo-Formalism. Neo-Formalism defines form as the vital factor for defining a work as a work of art, however it states form as significant only in that it conveys the content of the artwork. An example of this is Pieter Bruegel s Landscape With the Fall of Icarus. The form of this work is beautiful, however without understanding the story behind the art, namely that of the fall of Icarus, one could not hope to view the form as significant. Therefore, Neo-Formalism states that a given work is art only if it has both form and content, and the two are related in a satisfyingly appropriate manner.
groups.drew.edu/philoso/Archives/Lotito/Clive Bell and the Formalist Theor .htm 2/3

1/12/12

Clive Bell and the Formalist Theor

Content in this definition is defined as that which something expresses, implies, or conveys. This could be likened to the message that the art is intended to convey. Neo-Formalism solves the problems of religious art, monuments, and gargoyles in that one could now say that even though the art is appreciated for factors other than its form, the form conveys the content and thusly those factors. At this point, one might assume that art had been defined and that there would be no more generations of philosophers agonizing over the concept. To this thought reality says, Don t quit your day job just yet, for the reality of the matter is that, as with most things in philosophy, even this theory has problems that prevent it from being our final answer. For one, Neo-Formalism has no allowance for bad art. If a badly done artwork s form does not convey its content, then it does not qualify as art. Since we have all been through grade school we have all seen some truly bad artwork, thus this poses a serious threat to the good standing of the Neo-formalist theory. Another problem with Neo-Formalism is that of art without content. For example, tap-dancing has no content. However, it has been determined that tap-dancing is indeed art. These are problems with the theory of Neo-Formalism for which we do not yet have an answer. Neither Formalism nor Neo-Formalism is the defining answer to the questions raised in the nature of art. As before, we are left to wonder, what theories will be created and indeed shot down by the philosophy community in relation to the nature of art next?

Works Cited Carroll, Noel. Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction, New York, NY: Routledge, 1999. Goldblatt, and Brown. Aesthetics: A Reader in Philosophy of the Arts, Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.

groups.drew.edu/philoso/Archives/Lotito/Clive Bell and the Formalist Theor .htm

3/3