PHILOSOPHIES OF ART/Aesthetic Stances

How do you judge a work of art? That may depend on the context
and the philosophy(ies) of aesthetics that are applied. Aesthetics
may vary in different cultures and different time periods.

Try this website for some good examples.

http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/tourViewSite.cgi?tour_id=18706

1. IMITATION – MIMETICISM

A work of art is an imitation or representation of a physical

appearance or ideal form. Good art is the most accurate
imitation of nature or an ideal. See Plato.

2. EMOTIONS – EXPRESSIVISM

Art is the expression of the creator’s feelings or the creation of

symbolic forms for emotions that might be felt. Good art
successfully communicates the emotions the artist intended to
create.

3. VISUAL QUALITIES – FORMALISM

All objects that evoke aesthetic emotion in us share one quality—

significant form—, which can be defined as lines, shapes, colors,
and other sensory properties and their formal relationships.
Good art is a highly unified arrangement of lines, shapes, colors,
textures, and values.

4. EXPERIENCE – INSTRUMENTALISM

Art cannot be considered in isolation from other areas of human

experience. The value of art lies in its social intention or utility
of the work. Good art is a means to some end, such as great
religious art inspiring faith. John Dewey wrote about Art as
Experience and how it connects members of a culture or society.

5. IDEA – CONCEPTUALISM
Found in contemporary art, aesthetics and even technique are
discarded in favor of the idea being the most important.

6. FUNCTION – FUNCTIONALISM
Art for art’s sake has little or no value. Art works are used in
rituals or have a meaningful, useful, practical purpose, other than
pure aesthetic pleasure.

7. HEDONISM – Aesthetic beauty is disinterested pleasure, that

can be shared by all others who perceive the same work of art.

FORMALISM

Formalism stresses the importance of the formal qualities and

the visual elements of art

1. The formalist critic wants the experience of art to be devoted

to contemplation of the relationships of the parts to the whole in
a work of art.
2. Each part should enhance the quality of the parts around it.
3. It should not be possible to change a single element without
spoiling the whole work of art
4. The viewer should feel a unity or wholeness in the work. If you
have too much or too little emotion when you experience the
work, it is flawed.
5. The Formalist critic wants pleasure in art to come from the art
object itself - the combinations of sensations from its surfaces,
colors, and other visual qualities.
6. Feelings and ideas should depend only on the way the artist
shapes his materials.
7. Art that relies on symbols, or on subject matter, or on the
viewer’s life-long experience is rejected by the Formalist critic.
8. The Formalist critic appreciates "art for art’s sake", and feels
that no other reason for creating art is needed or even
acceptable.
9. A masterpiece, according to the Formalist critic, is a work of
art that has perfect visual organization and technical execution.

ART AS FORM – another view

Where the mimetic theory ties art down to the real world,
formalism allows the work of art to float free by claiming that
only form - the complex arrangement of parts unique to each
individual work - has artistic significance. Only what is internal to
the work is relevant to its status as art: Works of art are
'autonomous', answering only to themselves. Any outward
references, to a real, fictional, or imaginary world, are irrelevant.
Appreciation of art consists, for the formalist, not in merely
recognising artistic form, but in responding to it: Kant's theory of
mental harmony seeks to explain what the response consists in;
Bell posits a unique kind of 'artistic emotion' which accompanies
the recognition of significant form.
According to formalism, works of art exercise to a heightened
degree the mind's power of ordering sensory data in perception.
OBJECTIONS to FORMALISM
A frequently indicated weakness of formalism concerns the
concept of form, which is arguably too indefinite to play the role
asked of it. In specifying the kind of form that matters in art, the
formalist uses notions like 'balance' or 'uniformity amidst
variety', but it is very difficult to define these in a way that
prevents them from applying to anything and everything - some
sort of balance and uniformity amidst variety can, surely, be
found in all objects.
Another, more substantial objection is that our interest in form is
not in fact as uncontaminated with extra-formal, worldly
concerns as the formalist supposes. Sometimes formal values
are of self-sufficient aesthetic interest, but much more often they
serve non-formal ends: Plausibly, form in art is the vehicle
through which a work articulates ins non-formal meaning. Unless
form has at least an indirect connection with the world, it tends
to become artistically uninteresting and reduces to mere
decoration.
Expressivism

Expressivism: stresses the importance of the communication of

ideas and feeling in a convincing and forceful manner

1. The Expressivist critic is interested in the depth and intensity

of the experience one has when looking at art.
2. An excellent work of art could be ugly.
3. The Expressivist critic believes that the formal and technical
organization of the work has to be good; otherwise it would not
be able to affect his or her feelings.
4. The Expressivist critic has two basic rules for judging
excellence: a. that the best work has the greatest power to
arouse the viewer’s emotions or b. that the best work
communicates ideas of major significance
5. Art should look and feel as if it is based on reality, not other
works of art.
6. Great art should not look calculated. It should seem to be the
inevitable result of what an artist has seen or felt deeply.
7. The Expressive critic believes that art should make everyday
life more meaningful and profound.
8. What matters is the artist’s ability to make the viewer believe
in what the viewer sees in the work. The viewer must experience
an emotion before the viewer can believe that the artist also felt
and expressed it. The genuineness or actuality of the artist’s
emotions does not matter and often cannot be determined.

ART AS EXPRESSION
The expression theory of art virtually replaced the
mimentic. The concept of expression is paired with with
that of emotion, and although connection of art with feeling
cannot consist of a straightforward equation of art with the
communication of emotion, the expression theory of art
seeks to offer a sophisticated and persuasive account of the
central place of emotion in art.
Collingwood
Collingwood regards artistic expression as a special form
of self-expression.
Artistic expression is a process in which the artist begins with
an indefinite emotional state, for which he wishes to find a
uniquely appropriate concrete articulation, and in so
doing transforms his mental state into something definite,
tangible, and intelligible. The work created by the artist does
not describe his state of mind so much as incorporate it,
somewhat in the way that bodily expressions such as smiles
and grimaces embody mental life.
Because expression is not undertaken with any further end
in view - it is, so to speak, its own end - artistic creation
contrasts with instrumental activities, in which means and
ends are distinct, which Collingwood calls craft and opposes
to art proper.
By giving primacy to the perspective of the artist rather than
(as on the mimetic and formalist theories) that of the
audience, the expression theory offers an interpretation of
Hegel's intriguing and attractive claim that the mind
'recognises' itself in works of art: According to the expression
theory, works of art do not merely exhibit mental features,
they, as it were, contain mind.
A natural development of Collingwood's view is to say that
the expression theory regards audience as retracing the
route pursued by the artist: The audience's appreciation re-
enacts the artist's creative process and thereby 'retrieves'
his psychological state.

OBJECTIONS to the EXPRESSION THEORY

1.The expression theory is associated with the highly
questionable ontological claim that works of art are mental
objects. Arguably, the expression theory can be freed from
that ontological claim, and the artist's activity of self-
expression regarded as routed instead through a public,
physical object.
2.The theory's apparent emphasis on personal psychology
exposes it to criticism. It may be objected that personal
ideas, as much as emotions, can be expressed by art, whose
legitimate subject-matter is not restricted to the contents of
the artist's own mind. But again the expression theorist can
plausibly meet this objection by saying that although an
emotional component is necessary, the content of artistic
expression need not be exclusively emotional: mental
states are permeated by concepts, and thoughts are proper
material for expression. What a work of art expresses is not
therefore confined to merely biographical material.
3.The formalist objection: How can such a supremely self-
contained and self-sustaining work as a Ming vase be
construed as a product of personal expression? The
expression theorist is forced to suggest that the Ming vase
has only formal values, and as such does not constitute a
full-blooded work of art-proper. It is open to question that
such a view would be acceptable to most people's common-
sense view of art.
Instrumentalism

1. The Instrumentalist critic believes that art should serve

purposes that have been determined by persistent human needs
working through powerful social institutions. Art should serve the
interests of the church, the state, business or politics.

2. Art is at its best when it helps to advance some cause that

will, presumably, advance the interests of humanity.

3. Art that depends on art or grows out of art is inferior, self-

serving, and/or decadent.

4. The excellence of a work of art is measured by its capacity to

change human behavior in public and visible ways. For example,
great political art results in greater allegiance to the party. Great
religious art inspires faith.

5. The technical and imaginative gifts of the artist need to be

organized by an idea that is greater or more important than the
private emotions of the artist.

6. The Instrumentalist critic believes that, if the meaning of the

work is good and is expressed through perfect organized form,
then the work is a masterpiece. The phrase perfectly organized
forms means the closest possible connection between the
appearance and the social intention of the work.

Overview- Dewey’s Theory

Dewey's theory, here, is an attempt to shift the
understandings of what is important and characteristic
about the art process from its physical manifestations in the
‘expressive object’ to the process in its entirety, a process
whose fundamental element is no longer the material ‘work
of art’ but rather the development of an ‘experience’. An
experience is something that personally affects your life.
That is why these theories are so important to our social
and educational life.
Such a change in emphasis does not imply, though, that the
individual art object has lost significance; far from it, its
primacy is clarified: the object is recognized as the primary
site for the dialectical processes of experience, as the
unifying occasion for these experiences. Through the
expressive object, the artist and the active observer
encounter each other, their material and mental
environments, and their culture at large.
This is a dramatic expansion of the bounds of aesthetic
philosophy, for it demonstrates the connections of art with
everyday experience and in so doing reminds us of the
highest responsibilities that art and society and the
individual have always owed to each other:
...works of art are the most intimate and energetic means of
aiding individuals to share in the arts of living. Civilization is
uncivil because human beings are divided into non-
communicating sects, races, nations, classes and cliques.[2]

To emphasize what is aesthetic about an experience is not,

finally, to emphasize what is apolitical or impractical or
otherwise marginal about that experience; rather, it is to
emphasize in what ways that experience, as aesthetic, is a
'manifestation, a record and celebration of the life of a
civilization, a means for promoting its development' and,
insofar as that aesthetic experience relates to the kinds of
experiences had in general, it is also the 'ultimate judgment
upon the quality of a civilization.'[3]
See his Experience and Nature for an extended discussion
of 'Experience' in Dewey's philosophy.
Mimeticism

Art Imitates nature.

To be a work of art it needs to look realistic. The work needs to represent, reflect
or copy a section of reality. One tends to like art that looks real because it can be
easily recognized and understood. To be art it need to be correct, complete, and
vivid in its representation. The work of art needs to show that the artist has
technical skill. Realistic art may teach and reform by emphasizing social ugliness
and injustice. Idealistic or realistic art may edify and inspire.

See article on Plato.

ART AS MIMESIS
The object of mimesis (imitation, copying, or representation) is usually identified
with nature, by which is meant not only physical nature, and includes human
nature. Although some art appears to be non-representational, the mimetic
theorist may contend otherwise: In antiquity it was thought, for example, that
music imitates the harmony and order of the cosmos and the soul.
The values connected conceptually with representation are cognitive, truth-
orientated values such as accuracy and comprehensiveness. These have an
important role in art - verisimilitude of plot and characterization evidently matter
greatly in literature - but it is hard to see that truth encapsulates the interest
of art.
The question remains: Can the mimetic say what it is about art that enables it to
represent its (ideal, typical) subjects in a way that is aesthetically
rewarding?

.Plato's critique of art in book 10 of the Republic goes further, by

suggesting that art's preoccupation with appearances weakens
our awareness of reality, and that its effects may be
psychologically detrimental and morally pernicious.
CONCEPTUALISM: EARLY 20TH CENTURY – TODAY

Conceptual art is based on the concept that art may

exist solely as an idea and not in the physical realm.
For advocates of this movement, the idea of a work
matters more than its physical identity. The
movement began in the early 20th century, but was
based on the European Dada movement and the
writings of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Conceptual art also had roots in the work of the
father of Dadaism, Marcel Duchamp, who was also
the creator of the "ready-made." Conceptual art
became an international movement, beginning in
North America and Western Europe and spreading to
South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and
Japan. It was a major turning point in 20th century
art, challenging notions about art, society, politics,
and the media with its theory that art is ideas.
Specifically, that art can be written, published,
performed, fabricated, or simply thought.

Conceptual art emerged in the 1960’s, the term first

used in 1961 by Henry Flynt in a Fluxus publication.
It later evolved into a different meaning when the Art
and Language group, headed by Joseph Kossuth,
adopted it. This group believed that Conceptual art
was created when the analysis of an art object
succeeded the object itself. The term gained public
recognition in 1967, after journalist Sol LeWitt used it
to define their specific art movement. Conceptual
artists began forming around the theory that the
knowledge and thought gained in artistic production
was more important than the finished product. The
first Conceptual art exhibit, titled "Conceptual Art
and Conceptual Aspects" took place in 1970 at the
New York Cultural Center.

Conceptual art was intended to convey a concept to

the viewer, rejecting the importance of the creator or
a talent in the traditional art forms such as painting
and sculpture. Works were strongly based on text,
which was used as much as if not more often than
imagery. Conceptual art also typically incorporates
photographs, instructions, maps, and videos. The
movement challenged the importance of art
traditions and discredited the significance of the
materials and finished product. Rather, Conceptual
works were meant to be proactive and questioning to
the nature of art.

A controversial movement, supporters believe that

Conceptual art expanded the boundaries of art and
stopped the influence of commercialism. Critics see
the movement as dull and pretentious. Although
some Conceptual artists attempted to make serious
political and social statements, more often than not
they were preoccupied with analyzing the nature of
art. Conceptual art was the forerunner for
installation, digital, and performance art, more
generally art that can be experienced.

http://wwar.com/masters/movements/conceptualism.html