فرمالیسم هنری

تاریخچه فرمالیسم به سال ۱۹۱۴ بر می گردد. سالی که ویکتور شکلوفسکی در روسیه رساله به نام رستاخیز واژه منتشر کرد که به عنوان نخستین سند ظهور مکتب فرمالیسم شناخته شده است.
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 ویکی پدیا کمک کنید.
رده های صفحه: تاریخ هنرجنبش های هنری فلسفه گونه های 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 ca . . .