Formalism in Art

[formalisminart]

August Macke on Form

By coincidence, my Blue Rider Almanac blog is going through discussion on form in art, by August Macke (1912). He even talks of the perception and the senses:

"Incomprehensible ideas express themselves in comprehensible forms."

"The senses are our bridge between the comprehensible and the incomprehensible."

However, he is often quite mysterious and unclear of what he writes.

[formalisminart]

Representation versus Symbol

So, if we look in a painting and we see a red arrow, then from a formalist viewpoint, that is what we have, no more, no less. If it is being interpreted as symbol, then it is an arrow and also.... it conveys something else, which is external to the work, and referring some framework (culturally shared symbols, or artist- or viewer- specific ones).

You mentioned perception, and that is an interesting area. In Angel Applicant, we see a figure, with a face, and plausible wings (once we know the title..) and we see the moon. Why do we see these things in the work? A real face does not look like this - but how do we perceive it as a face, rather than it just being a symbol of a face.

In Chinese, the characters originally represented what they meant. But over time they become stylised and became mere symbols I believe. So, form and symbol might be more like different places in a spectrum/space, rather than discrete categories.

[formalisminart]

Paul Klee - Applicant Angel, 1939.

[formalisminart]

For the record #2

(By unwordinglanguage, on stuffetcetc, copied here for convenience.)

See this for brief discussion.

So this is being viewed in terms of symbolism. It seems unlikely that Klee only had the red bits, specifically the red arrow, as purely formal elements. They were probably intended symbolically.

But the critics can’t agree on the meaning - is that the problem with symbolism/iconography/”deep”-meaning: you never know if you have the wrong end of the stick?

Authorial intention is only one of many interpretations. Sure, in some cases you have interviews with an author, so you have access to what the author wanted certain stuff to “mean.” But you have no way of knowing what eg. Shakespeare “meant” because the guy’s been dead for a couple of centuries. He can neither “confirm” nor “deny” an interpretation. And it wouldn’t matter anyway even if he could because a 21st century viewer views a 16th century work of art through the lens of the 21st century anyway. You’re not describing the artwork. Your interpretation is a testament to the kind of interpretational frameworks/assumptions about art that permeate in the 21st century. You’re really talking about the 21st century, not about the century in which the work of art was made.

That’s only one problem with systems of interpretation which focus on extra-diegetic “meaning.”

You as a person who views a painting give it “meaning” — “meaning” that isn’t actually there. It doesn’t matter what the author “wanted” something to “mean.” A work of art will have different “meanings” across centuries/cultures. Every viewer brings their own assumptions. These assumptions stem partly from the culture(s) in which that particular viewer was raised, partly from their education level, familiarity with different cultures, etc. If a viewer sees an artwork and says “This is what it means.”, then it’s what it means for this particular viewer. Unfortunately, this creates a few problems. If person A thinks an arrow symbolizes, say, movement of society from feudalism to Fordism, that’s what it symbolizes for person A. Now, person B can disagree and say that for her/him it symbolizes a baby passing from one stage of development to another. Person A can disagree, but person A can’t tell person B she/he is “wrong.” No one is “wrong” because both are projecting. They’re both equal interpretations that can’t be argued with. You can’t engage in a discussion. So what’s the point?

Plus, it’s like music. Different lyrics mean different things to different people. Billy Idol’s “Sweet Sixteen”: interpretation #1) a song about a lost love, interpretation #2) a song about leaving things behind (outgrowing things and letting go). We may not agree on the “meaning”, but what we can both talk about is form, eg. the blues typically has a 12-bar structure. It’s rhythm-based and the rhythm is irregular (a regular rhythm would be a healthy person’s heartbeat). Blues is a form that relies on call and response: A/A/B. The two As are the ‘call’, the B is the ‘response.’ Anything that deviates from this 12-bar pattern is an irregular blues structure. We may not agree on the symbolism of a blues song, but we can talk about what different kinds of forms remind us of the blues form/structure. Eg. Maybe it reminds you of something you read/saw/heard. Maybe a literary novel you read uses the call-and-response pattern in the division of text on the page. So you bring the book, I’ll look at it and I’ll see for myself if I see it or not. Formalism does go beyond form, but in an experiental/perceptual way.

In formalism, an arrow is just an arrow. A geometrical shape. It’s a red arrow. It’s a red arrow that points upwards. In perceptualism (which I’m in favor of), each person has their perception of the arrow (perception = using one’s senses, however many working ones one has). In one culture, the arrow may be shaped like a certain musical instrument. So the person will bring that perception to the table, and also talk about the place this musical instrument occupies in their culture. Or maybe the arrow looks like a tool in another culture. That viewer will bring that perception to the tale, and also talk about the kinds of activities this tool is used for in their culture. But they’re both tangible artifacts (the musical instrument and the tool). Both viewers can take pictures of the two artifacts and show us what they look like. Or bring the two artifacts for me or whoever to see/touch/perceive with my own senses. So everyone can see for themselves if they think the arrow is actually shaped like the artifact. It’s a bit like anthropology (based on tangible “evidence”).

Now, what an arrow clearly isn’t is what symbolism would like us to believe it is. An arrow is clearly not a baby. It may be shaped like an umbilical cord, but it’s not a baby. Nor is it a social organization of labor. So then, when you view it symbolically, it all becomes a mass of IMPLYING instead of STATING, MAKING THINGS UP/PROJECTING instead of DESCRIBING, looking at what ISN’T there instead of looking at what IS there. It’s the kind of stuff that fills papers, though.

Plus, the “meaning” of symbols has to be “agreed upon.” It has to be shared in a particular culture. A group of people has to agree that, eg. the peace sign symbolizes “peace.” If all of the people in a group share that assumption, the symbol works (it “means” peace for every single person in the group). But then, what is a symbol in one culture may be meaningless in another culture, so two different viewers from those two different cultures won’t agree on the “meaning” of the symbol/artwork. Or a symbol may mean something completely different in two different cultures. Symbols rely on universality. They have to be universal. But many things aren’t.

Religion is a good example of non-formalism/symbolism/conjecture/projecting “meaning(s)” onto things. If symbolism were universal, there’d be only one religion. Clearly, that isn’t the case.

[formalisminart]

See this for brief discussion.

So this is being viewed in terms of symbolism. It seems unlikely that Klee only had the red bits, specifically the red arrow, as purely formal elements. They were probably intended symbolically.

But the critics can't agree on the meaning - is that the problem with symbolism/iconography/"deep"-meaning: you never know if you have the wrong end of the stick?

[formalisminart]

More questions/ideas

Sensation and perception.

How much is formalism inherent in the work, and how much is projected iconography?

Form is always there, the symbol attaches. (As you say, it is a projection)

But new forms can arise from the symbols that attach. Example from my movies: Notting Hill. About a famous American actress who falls for an ordinary English bloke in London. Consider these two details:

whilst discussing a script for an action thriller she is currently rehearsing, they end up discussing whether she should star in a hypothetical Henry James adaptation.

to protect her privacy, she use cartoon character aliases for her contacts at her hotels. The three names that are mentioned are Bambi, Flintstones and Pocahontas.

Once you realize James was an American who fell for British life; and that Pocahontas is an American in love with an Briton (who makes that same journey across the Atlantic), then these can be seen as symbols. But they can also be viewed as echoes, as parts that reflect the whole, and that is a formalist type relation.

Sources of icons?

Culture,

Subconscious?

Personal( William Blake with his stars considered evil)

7 is lucky/complete in the West; but 8 is lucky in east Asia.

[formalisminart]

For the record...

Q&A with Unwording Language:

“I wonder what in formalism attracts, and what is its “antithesis”, which you might shun?” Form attracts. Aesthetics. Shapes. Surfaces. Textures. What things are made of. What color(s) things are. Things you can see, touch, smell, hear, perceive, experience with your senses (directly). Formalism is about what is there. Looking for some “deeper” meaning beyond what is there would be the antithesis of formalism. Say, you’re watching a movie and there’s a red ball in a scene…

Formalism says what it is, what it looks like, what it’s made of, etc. Eg. It’s a red ball shaped like a circle. It looks like Rudolph the Reindeer’s nose. It’s made of (say) plastic. There are bits of pain on it. The antithesis of formalism would be to look for some “deeper” meaning behind the red ball that is not actually there (it can’t be directly perceived — it’s not actually there, you’re projecting it onto the thing).

“you are interested in film, which is often inherently psychological; more often than formal.” Film is a sensual (sensory!) medium. You need your eyes! Film = images. Image = half-form (signifier: what it is, what it is made of, what it is shaped like, how it looks, the surface), half-content (signified, what it “means”). I like the form part. Maybe you noticed (or maybe not) that I never analyze movies. I rarely post about what certain scenes “mean” (which would be the antithesis of formalism).

So the antithesis of formalism would be to say: The red ball symbolizes a dog’s balls, which symbolize a man’s balls, which must in turn symbolize the sickness of society. That would be the antithesis of formalism. Form = surface, and nothing “beyond.” Nothing beyond what you can perceive/experience with your senses.

[formalisminart]

Test Post