فرمالیسم هنری

فرمالیسم هنری به عقیده‌ای گفته می‌شود که باور دارد، ارزش یک اثر هنری تنها و تنها وابسته به فرم آن (چگونگی ساخت و ویژگی‌های دیداری‌اش) است. در هنر دیداری، فرمالیسم بیان می‌کند که تمام چیزهای ارزشمند یک اثر در خودش نهفته‌است، و عواملی مانند ظرف تاریخی ساخت اثر، زندگی هنرمند یا هدف هنرمند از ساخت اثر در درجه بعدی اهمیت قرار دارند.

تاریخچه فرمالیسم به سال ۱۹۱۴ بر می‌گردد. سالی که ویکتور شکلوفسکی در روسیه رساله به نام رستاخیز واژه منتشر کرد که به عنوان نخستین سند ظهور مکتب فرمالیسم شناخته شده‌است.

منبع [ویرایش]

Wikipedia contributors، "Formalism (art)،" Wikipedia، The Free Encyclopedia، http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formalism_%28art%29&oldid=199232699

این یک نوشتار خُرد پیرامون هنر است. با گسترش آن به ویکی‌پدیا کمک کنید.
رده‌های صفحه: تاریخ هنرجنبش‌های هنری فلسفه گونه‌های هنرنوگرایی هنرهنر نوگرا

قس انگلیسی

In art theory, formalism is the concept that a work's artistic value is entirely determined by its form—the way it is made, its purely visual aspects, and its medium. Formalism emphasizes compositional elements such as color, line, shape and texture rather than realism, context, and content. In visual art, formalism is a concept that posits that everything necessary to comprehending a work of art is contained within the work of art. The context for the work, including the reason for its creation, the historical background, and the life of the artist, is considered to be of secondary importance. Formalism is an approach to understanding art.
Contents [show]
[edit]History of formalism

The concept of formalism can be traced as far back as Plato, who argued that 'eidos' (or shape) of a thing included our perceptions of the thing, as well as those sensory aspects of a thing which the human mind can take in. Plato argued that eidos included elements of representation and imitation, since the thing itself could not be replicated. Subsequently, Plato believed that eidos inherently was deceptive.
In 1890, the Post-impressionist painter Maurice Denis wrote in his article 'Definition of Neo-Traditionism' that a painting was 'essentially a flat surface covered in colours arranged in a certain order.' Denis argued that the painting or sculpture or drawing itself, not the subject of the artistic work, gave pleasure to the mind.
Denis' emphasis on the form of a work led the Bloomsbury writer Clive Bell to write in his 1914 book, Art, that there was a distinction between a thing's actual form and its 'significant form.' For Bell, recognition of a work of art as representational of a thing was less important than capturing the 'significant form', or true inner nature, of a thing. Bell pushed for an art that used the techniques of an artistic medium to capture the essence of a thing (its 'significant form') rather than its mere outward appearance.
Throughout the rest of the early part of the 20th Century, European structuralists continued to argue that 'real' art was expressive only of a thing's ontological, metaphysical or essential nature. But European art critics soon began using the word 'structure' to indicate a new concept of art. By the 1930s and 1940s, structuralists reasoned that the mental processes and social preconceptions an individual brings to art are more important than the essential, or 'ideal', nature of the thing. Knowledge is created only through socialization and thought, they said, and a thing can only be known as it is filtered through these mental processes. Soon, the word 'form' was used interchangeably with the word 'structure'.


Piet Mondrian, Composition No. 10, 1939-42, oil on canvas, 80 x 73 cm, private collection.
In 1940, the American art critic Clement Greenberg, in an influential piece in Partisan Review, argued that the value of art was located in its form, which is inseparable from its content. In a talk given by Clement Greenberg at Western Michigan University, January 18, 1983, he addressed the topic of 'formalism' directly.
Formalism was originally the name of a Russian art and literary movement before the First World War. And then it became used by the Bolsheviks (Soviets) for any kind of art that was for its own sake. It became a dirty word like "art for art's sake," which is a valid notion. Sometime in the '50's the word formalism came up again in the mouths and at the pens of people I dare to call middlebrow. And then, it's true, I was made responsible for it, though I wasn't the only one, and by one of these easy inferences that plague human thought, it was held that I advocated a certain way of painting. Now, I haven't written a word in favor of a certain kind of painting that hasn't been made yet. You only write about art that's already been made. My prejudice, as Professor Link says, is towards representational painting, and it's the only kind I can do, but I had to accept the fact that the major painting of our time, and the major sculpture too, after a while, was abstract, because you can't choose what to like and what not to like. I say major because the difference between major and minor is very important. It became very important for this country in the '40s when the Abstract Expressionists finally decided they could compete with the French and stop being in tutelage. But my rhetoric wasn't very careful, otherwise I couldn't have been misunderstood to the extent I have been. I recognize that and I don't put the blame entirely on the people who misunderstood me. Though I still say I haven't written a word that gives you reason to think that I'm for abstract art, as such, as against other kinds of art. I wrote a piece called "Modernist Painting" that got taken as a program when it was only a description, and I was thought to believe in things that I was describing [as a program]. Again, it was the fault of my rhetoric. I was in favor of "pure" art in spite of the fact that I put quotation marks around "pure" or "purity" whenever I used them, because I don't believe there's any such thing as pure art. It was an illusion. It was a necessary illusion, apparently, for modernist artists and it helped produce some great art and some great poetry. A necessary illusion for Mallarmé, say, and for Valery, and maybe even for Ezra Pound. It was a necessary illusion for Picasso and for Cézanne. There is no such thing as pure art, or pure poetry, or pure music. Anyhow I don't believe there is such a thing. But I made the mistake of contenting myself with quotation marks and not saying "look, I don't believe this as a program, I'm simply describing." And so people assumed that was my program. I'd been describing what I thought had happened under modernism, and nothing more and nothing less. It was also inferred that I had said there was some necessity working in this although I said nothing to that effect. But I blame myself. I should have been more careful.[1]
[edit]Formalism today

The concept of formalism in art continued to evolve through the 20th century. Some art critics argue for a return to the Platonic definition for Form as a collection of elements which falsely represent the thing itself and which are mediated by art and mental processes. A second view argues that representational elements must be somewhat intelligible, but must still aim to capture the object's 'Form'. A third view argues for a diale-discursive ontological knowledge. Instead, structuralists focused on how the creation of art communicates the idea behind the art. Whereas formalists manipulated elements within a medium, structuralists purposely mixed media and included context as an element of the artistic work. Whereas formalism's focus was the aesthetic experience, structuralists played down response in favor of communication.
Structuralism's focus on the 'grammar' of art reaches as far back as the work of Marcel Duchamp. In many ways, structuralism draws on the tools of formalism without adopting the theory behind them.
[edit]See also

Modernism
Abstract expressionism
Josef Albers
Structuralism
Constructivism
Modular constructivism
Hard-edge painting
Color field painting
Minimalism
Lyrical Abstraction
Post-modernism
Geometric abstraction
Op Art
Elements of art
[edit]Notes and references

^ Clement Greenberg. "Taste". Retrieved 2010-03-16.
[edit]Sources

Bell, Clive. Art. London: 1914.
Denis, Maurice. 'Definition of Neo-Traditionism.' Art and Criticism. August 1890.
Greenberg, Clement. 'Towards a Newer Laocoon.' Partisan Review. 1940.
[edit]External links

Formalism: Critical analysis
Formalist Art Criticism and the Politics of Meaning
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Submit ratings
Categories: AestheticsArt movementsArt genresArt historyModern artModernismFormalism (aesthetics)