Formalism (philosophy)
The term formalism called an art- historical method of interpretation of a work of art. The value of the plant lies in the form of autonomy. The formalist view of art emphasizes qualities such as composition, color, line and texture. Substantive aspects and references, such as theme, genesis of the work, historical context and biography of the artist, are secondary and are not treated. The formalists, as the main representative of Heinrich and Alois Riegl Wölfflin, aimed at a comparative analysis of style that is free of personal judgment and virtue to solve the hermeneutical problem of art history. The formalist ideas of the 19th century served the Modern painting as an impulse to be free to develop and to focus on the aesthetic effect of shape and structure. The concept of formalism can thus spread to the visual arts, for example, to the abstraction.
Beginnings of the formalism
The origins of the formalism can be found already in ancient times, such as the idea that the universe is dominated by numerical relationships. The concept of form understood in ancient times as a quality of things, which is inherent in everything. Plato, for example, explains in his theory of ideas, the perception of the ' eidos ' ( shape or form ) of a thing than a mere copy of the real being. Some art historians consider this form of art as a view of reality. Plato's pupil Aristotle understood the art as a process of shaping analogous to the processes of nature.
These considerations were further developed in the Renaissance. The humanist philosopher Benedetto Varchi defined in a lecture (due lezzione, Florence, 1550 ) via a sonnets of Michelangelo the task of the sculptor as "Subscriber " of reality from the potential being.
During the Enlightenment, the assumption was that the experience of an artwork is neither purely sensual could still be purely rational, and that an aesthetic experience must be clearly distinguished from other kinds of experience. For example. when looking at a painting depicting the Adoration of the Magi, a well-known biblical motif, one is inclined to interpret the religious content and negligible while, according to the early formalist ideas, the aesthetic experience of the painting.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant recognized the importance of formalism in his Critique of Judgment (1790). So there " in all the fine art essentials in the form". Furthermore, he admitted that beauty could produce a moral resonance as a symbol of good and the aesthetic experience.
Friedrich Schiller, Kant ideas drifting in the direction of romance, lifted the mentally therapeutic nature of the aesthetic experience of form and its ability to bring the conflicting aspects of human nature in line out. He even saw aesthetics as a tool for social and political reform.
Before the formalism was coined as an art historical approach, he was rather, as is evident from its history, a subject of philosophy and, in particular aesthetics. This can be explained by the fact that the history of art itself only in the 19th century was able to maintain their independence among academic disciplines.
John Ruskin, including art historians, led by The Stones Of Venice (London 1851), the descriptive form of analysis to her first climax. Using Venetian capitals led Ruskin abstracted from basic shapes, convex and concave lines. He concluded social conditions of the time.
1890 wrote the French painter Maurice Denis in his article définition du Neo- Traditionnisme that a painting was essentially a surface covered with colors in a certain order. Denis looked at the painting, sculpture or drawing itself as much to, not the subject of the artistic work. The emphasis on the form of a work brought the Bloomsbury art critic Clive Bell to distinguish in his 1914 published book type, between the real and the ' major ' form. The techniques of an artistic medium considered here the essence of the work fixed ( the ' major ' form) and not just the mere outward appearance.
Emergence as an art- historical method (19th century)
Heinrich Wölfflin
Wölfflin (1864-1945) sought to give to the needs of art history a firm basis, a comparative analysis of form and style history at. These should be free of personal value judgment.
The question of what makes it possible to identify a style that was for Wölfflin in the visual appearance of a work of art (form) and human perception. According to the psychology of perception, which was founded in Wölfflin time, their own sense of power of the institutions determine the optical knowledge. Wölfflin transferred the history of seeing the shape and thus the development of styles. Immediately upon the perception of a newborn to adult unfolding in stages, so the form would develop after Wölfflin.
Wölfflin differed initially in different styles to delineate his employment field:
- Individual style (subjective vision and temperament -related painting of an artist's individual)
- Groups - style ( common design language a school, a country, cultural group )
- Time - style ( parent, 'pure' form language )
The latter was for Wölfflin important because one can only point out to him the major lines of development. In the change of the form of a ' period ' style to the next the change of ideals and ideology could be identified. Therefore, it is in the sense Wölfflin necessary, comparative apply its methodology on two works of art, because just as the biggest difference between two styles would be clear.
As ' tools ' serve his five pairs of terms, including linear and Picturesque ( see more Wölfflin Heinrich ), which he used as an example for works of Renaissance and Baroque periods. As in the Sehgeschichte, the change is from the simple, extensive surface and object -defined for spatial and complexes, combines the simplicity of each (linear ) or complexity ( Scenic ) associated terms. In art, this development is proceeding cyclically, a simple formal language (eg Renaissance ) follow a complex form of wealth (Baroque) and then call the desire to return to the simplicity ( Classicism ) out.
Alois Riegl
Alois Riegl (1858-1905), representative of the Vienna School of Art History, is the second major formalist of the 19th century. His greatest merit, however, in the study of the monuments, the so-called ' decay periods ', the arts and its comparative empirical viewed in art history, culminating in new knowledge of the history of style (see Alois Riegl ).
Central to his theory is the elusive notion of artistic intent. Hans Sedlmayr, of the introduction to Alois Riegl. Collected Essays wrote, defines it as a real force, not only explain the changes in style, but is their origin.
His theory is supported by similar formalist assumptions and objectives as the Wölfflin:
- Development of the form by itself (independence of artistic genius )
- Linking the development of form ( style story) with perception history
- The ambition of establishing art history as an academic discipline
- Rejection of metaphysics, for example, according to Hegel,
He also divided into pairs of concepts or categories such as Wölfflin. Always describe mental attitude (preference) the carrier of artistic intent, as well as its basic forms and goals. It takes place a development of style, perception and forms from simple to complex from an " inner necessity of nature " (or " inner destiny "). Here are just a few examples of his concepts:
- Optical ( missing space perception) - haptic ( tangible to spatial, bodily )
- Nahsichtig - farsighted
- Objective - subjective
- Organic - crystalline, etc.
Unlike Wölfflin Riegl find an explanation for works that exclude from its history of style. Styles evolve not only side by side but penetrate each other and so it comes to " random moments " ( anachronism and anticipation). His " idea building " is included in all his works, summarized in a theory, however, it was only posthumously in Historical grammar of the visual arts ( Böhlau 1966).
Modern formalism
Clement Greenberg
Clement Greenberg (1909-1994), one of the most influential American art critic of the 20th century, always aimed at an assessment of art, which should be based only on directly perceivable. He thus divides the formalist assumption. He focused primarily on materials and techniques that were used in the creation of a work of art.
From his interest in the form grows its special appreciation of Modernist painting, which he founded in the eponymous essay of 1960. In the process of self-criticism, the characteristic of Modernist painting, the painting depicts the problems that arise from their own medium, and thus asserted their autonomy and self-determination among the arts. The specificity of the medium of painting lies in the inevitable flatness. Especially Abstract painting would be after Greenberg no illusion of space in your way, show only the reality, the distribution of colors on the screen ( " Art for Art ").
From the artistic consequences of his program disappointed, the radical discarding all unnecessary, he turned away from the self-criticism and called for the evaluation of art according to their quality. This quality in turn could be assessed only on the basis of the visual, so the formal properties of a work of art.
Critique of formalism
One of the similarities between Riegl and Wölfflin, the theory of perception and form of development, has been clearly refuted. In the case of this assumption Riegl loaded his theory sustained by rejection and misunderstanding, even though she was only a small part of his teachings. This is one reason why they are sometimes forgotten and only a few of his concepts still exist today in the history of art. However, for the art history of 19-20. Century meant his Wölfflin terms and first-time understanding or explaining the nature of relationships, rather than merely on declaring the styles. Further criticism was leveled at the lack of ' social context ', which, however, both indirectly in the representation of 'Weltanschauung' by the shape expresses itself. A cultural objection refers to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the terms that require an extension or redefinition.
Wölfflin method is also subject to a circular argument, since the terms of the empirical employment derived with the works of the Renaissance and Baroque periods. Unlike Riegl Wölfflin also left less space for art that does not fit into his scheme. The question of whether Wölfflin terms ever hit the ' essence ' of the Stilenwticklungen is an open question, because they continue to serve as reference points for the art historian Wilhelm Worringer, Hans Sedlmayr and Otto Pacht.
Finally, was the further course of the history of art no particular interest more on formalism (from about 1918) or other major methods (such as the iconography of Panofsky ). It strengthened the assumption that the representation of the entire history of style is impossible through a diachronic method and leads to a more or less false simplification. Also, the goal of ' world views ' show in art, shifted to other disciplines:
" To prove this relationship between art and philosophy in detail, would now not the cause of the art historian, but that - and the real challenge for the future -. The comparative cultural historian "
There were other approaches that had to be content with the synchronous viewing and detailed studies. Therefore, the concept of art-historical formalism affects essentially only the models of Wölfflin and Riegl, but is used by the end of which as a term for a formalistic default setting, as in Greenberg.
Greenberg's requirement to assess works strictly according to their form, would lead, ultimately, to the exclusion of spirituality, the intellectual content of art. Viewing art, but it is impossible solely by a "pure eye," as formulated by Greenberg. His direction of the formalism is therefore seen by many art historians to be dogmatic and was thus similar to Wölfflin and Riegl's methods, no existing agreement.
Nevertheless, provoke their thoughts and interest up to the present time, which, for example, in the publication (2006) by Caroline A. Jones: Eyesight Alone. Clement Greenberg 's Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses. ( University Of Chicago Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-226-40951-1 ) is clear.