Samantha Melrose

Philosophy

a) Explain and illustrate two strengths of the view that we value

art because of its formal quality (15 mks)
Art can be said to be of value due to its form; the aesthetic enjoyment of
its structure, colour, balance, proportion etc. This argument suggests that arts
value lies entirely in its form emphasising its structure, and visual aspects,
rather than it's expression or representation.
One argument in favour of form is that taking art as of value due to its
form, allows us to take a step back from context or intention. We don't need to
know why to painting was made, what it's trying to portray in order to value it's
skill, structure, use of colour etc. Form allows us to value all art forms just
because of the skill or imagination the artist has used.
On the other hand, many philosophers would argue that the story and
intention behind the art gives the art its value. For instance, a painting by Da
vinci called the virgin of the rocks, we admire because of the sense of balance
and harmony with the colours and the feeling of completeness. We do not know
the story or intention of the painting, yet even without knowing those qualities,
we already value the artwork because of it's significant form.
Another argument in favour of art being of value due to its' form is that
some art has no subject at all. This relates more to abstract art, or even music.
These types of art simply don't need a subject, which leads us to say that
music in particular its value lies purely in it's form. For example Jackson
Pollock's art work seems to be a jumbled mess of colours, not expressing any
emotion, nor representing an event or action. Yet the way in which he has used
the colours, created lines, the structure of the piece and its form is respectable
and of value to the audience. As it isn't anything other than form. He said ‘It is
only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise
there is pure harmony.‛
The counter argument to this point would be that art is a very subjective
matter, everyone values art for different reasons, and each reason isn't
necessarily related to form. Bell's idea of form here can be seen as elitist.
Marcel Duchamp created an artwork called fountain in 1917, and was created
Samantha Melrose

to provoke strong reactions from the audience. The piece is simply a urinal in a
art museum. So why is this urinal valued more than a urinal in a public toilet?
Surely it's form is the same? So this argument questions the value of form, and
the story and intention behind the art that is of value rather than simply the
form.
In conclusion, art can be of value purely due to it's form; the balance,
structure, harmony, proportion, and wholeness. Without needing anything
extra, such as intention, or expression, or representation. Form requires
nothing other than the work itself.

b) Consider the view that the value of art lies in its formal
quality (30 mks)
Art can be said to be of value for many reasons, such as its
representation, expression or it's form. Many philosophers would argue that of
the three form is the argument which just works for all forms of art. Form
claims that it's the aesthetic pleasure from art which we value, such as its
composition, structure, colour, balance, proportion etc. Formalism works on the
concept that arts value is entirely determined by it's form.
Clive Bell was a philosopher in favour of the argument for formalism,
saying that significant form is a combination of lines, shapes and colours in
certain relations. However Bell says that not all form is significant form, it
becomes significant form because of the relation between the lines, shapes and
colours used. He claimed that the accuracy of representation is not the point in
art, however it's the arts formal qualities, the way in which the artist has
specifically engineered an artwork, and our aesthetic response to this
manipulation that we value. He continues his defence by saying that the
subject matter of a piece of art is unimportant, yet it's our admiration of the
piece and it's form that brings value to the art. Yet he continues to say that
representation is not 'wrong',but instead the artistic value lies elsewhere. Bell
argued that significant form is “the one quality common to all works of visual
art”.
However in dispute of this argument it can be said that significant form
applies only to object art, yet the term art can be applied to many objects
Samantha Melrose

which too can be valued but all for different reasons. Wittgenstein's idea of
family resemblance shows that there is not one thing that everyone in the
family has the same. For instance not everyone in a family has the same nose,
or same eyes etc. He uses this example to go on to say that likewise there
cannot be an umbrella term that can apply to all art. Significant form cannot be
applied to all art, as it is valued for different reasons.
Another argument in support of formalism are examples of music and
abstract art, both of which point towards the form we value. Both examples
simple do not need to have any subject matter. It can be argued that both use
elements in a specific way making it beautiful, it's not about the subject, or the
intention, but the elements used in the way the artist/composer has arranged
them.
On the other hand, how are we aware of significant form? G.E. Moore
claimed that you know when your in the presence of significant form, and he
called it intuitionism. However Bell said that this was elitist, and that there are
those who do not feel aesthetic emotions when in the presence of significant
form, they are like “deaf men at a concert”.
In support of form, Is that the formal qualities of art give us more than
just the surface level appearance, it gives us an insight into the nature of
ultimate reality. This means that something in it's purest form such as a table,
when painted is empty of all of its functional use, yet gives the artist something
to create a work of art. Giving it the significant form, the way the formal nature
of the art takes us beyond just the photographic representation.
Yet if art can 'expose' what is behind just a veil of appearance, then
surely its representative? Dutch painter Mondrian's paintings are very formal,
in the way that his paintings are supposedly resembling Plato's ideal forms;
eidos (essence) includes elements of representation and imitation, because the
true thing cannot be replicated. For Plato absolute beauty was geometric in
nature. Mondrian said “absolute harmony of straight lines and pure colours
underlying the visible world”, this was in support of Plato's argument form the
geometric basis to absolute beauty.
So can the value of art lie in it's formal qualities? I believe so, the
arguments for the case of formalism are very strong and show that form can
Samantha Melrose

be applied to all types of art whether it's music, drama, or art objects. Form
shows that we can value the skill, composition, technique, use of the elements
behind the art even if we don't particularly connect with the art work. We also
don't need to have any background knowledge of intention for the art work to
be of value.