“All that should be assessed in evaluating the merits of an artwork are its formal properties.” Two arguments against this view

An artist expresses their personal views or the views of society through the medium of art and to portray this view affectively human emotion is necessary to make a piece of art great. The image on the left represents the freedom of India in 1947. With aesthetic appreciation, we can say that the silhouette image is translucent to the overall image, which gives the image a nice contrast. Also at the bottom of the image, in purple is written ‘Gandhi’, and above in purple ‘his own weakness.’ This shows a good balance of colour to sepia contrast. Through aesthetic appreciation, the art can be analysed in-depth; however, without taking the artist’s emotions in context and the historical significance is inhumane to do so. Hatred, pride, love, determination, expression, liberty, acceptance and strength are a few adjectives that can be represented with the historical context and the artist’s view. This art can also be viewed in a different perspective: the silhouette image can represent how Gandhi’s death may be a loss yet, his views and the way he led his life will always be remembered. So an art can be analysed for its aesthetic qualities, yet without taking into account the artist’s emotions and the historical context it just becomes perspective lines and colour.

Art also informs the audience. With an image of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr or Rosa Parks, can their historical significance for society be forgotten? This piece of art informs the audience about the hardship of India’s Independence. The King’s Speech informs the audience of how King George VI of Britain faced the difficulties of talking due to a stammer. This art informs the audience about King George VI in an artistical context. Shakespeare’s Richard III informs the audience on the perspective of Shakespeare of the King’s life.

“Art can illuminate our experience or reveal truths.” Two arguments for this view.

Art can illuminate our experiences and perceptions of society and the world. Art can provide another perspective to the workings of society that perhaps society shies away from. Or, perhaps art puts forward a view of people, insignificant objects or situations that in day to day life, we take advantage of: a mother, shoes, clothes or faith. Van Gogh’s Chair is a reminder to society that even with the advances society is making such as technology and money, the simplistic items in life must not be taken for granted. Picasso’s Guernica portrays a different perspective on the truth. It shows the massacre of the innocent lives killed due to a war of dominance. Spain was unable to resist the forces of Nazi Germany. She was too powerful. Picasso tries to transform our perceptions in Guernica. A common man would instantly say that Guernica represents society’s anger towards the Nazi’s; however, Guernica portrays the destructive impact on war: families were killed for a futile war over dominance? Consequently, Picasso has transformed the perceptions towards his art.

Truth within art can also ‘shine a light’ into the operations of society and the work. Dead Poets Society starring Robin Williams as John Keating encourages his pupils to against the status quo. Keating argues: "But only in their dreams can men be truly free.’Twas always thus, and always thus will be." The art is portraying how the ways of society, the syllabuses taught to children and how life has become insignificant due to people leading their lives based on rules and regulations. This film may not be specifically about the betterment of a person’s behaviour, yet, it tries to push forward a message: “No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.” Being different within society makes a difference to society. Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, are people whom did not live by the rules and unjust regulations of society in the past. Their words and ideas changed the world to the society that we have.

“The most important thing which distinguishes good art from bad art is ‘significant form’”. Two arguments against this view.

Clive Bell’s formalism is really a form of expressivism. Instead of valuing art via aesthetic appreciation, Bell asserts that the significant form fundamentally portrays an artist’s emotion in response to their opinion of the pure form of reality. Therefore, subjecting the value of form to the emotions expressed instead of the artwork being valued for it being aesthetically correct. Consequently, without emotion the artwork cannot be aesthetically valued, so the artwork would be invalid. Piet Mondrian’s contemporary art – the significant form portrays that it is the artist’s view of pure form, however, with the art being dependant on expression, how can Mondian’s artwork be valid?

Bell’s portrayal of significant form is rather secretive. We, the audience can interpret Bell’s definition of the significant form to be based around lines, shapes and colour in a certain arrangement. Yet, what is this arrangement? The following is an aesthetical description of form, not the significant form. So, if the significant form is the same as form, how is it legitimate? In addition, the process of appreciating form is unique to every individual. For example, I may appreciate instrumental music for the arrangement of instruments, for dramatic effect and for being concise and punctual, however, another individual may say that the appreciation of the form of instrumental music are the solo’s played by individual artists that requires technique and intuition. 

“The value of an artwork lies simply in our peculiar aesthetic enjoyment of its form”. Two arguments against this view

A perfect copy of an artwork is never regarded to be as great as the original. In art, the original Mona Lisa is priceless and therefore exhibited in the Louvre museum in Paris, whereas a copy or forgery can be bought on eBay. In music, after the death of Elvis Presley, people copied his act. Perhaps to keep the spirit of Rock ‘n Roll alive, yet it is an imperfect copy of the original. An imitation of the original artwork’s form, in aesthetic value, would be given the same respect as the original. However, an imitation is never valued to the same depth or value.

Leo Tolstoy’s infection theory of art argues that an artist conveys or infects the audience with his emotion and his own experience. Tolstoy believes in the social communication of art, how art is able to connect masses of individuals together, whereas Kant focuses on individualism within art. Therefore, neglecting the aesthetic qualities to an extent to enjoy the expression of an artwork, for example Andre Rieu the violinist uses great emotion to connect with his audience on stage. To capture the hearts of thousands of music fanatics! Formalism tries to state how art should be valued and analysed, however, as humans we are unable to forget an artwork’s emotive and informative qualities therefore, an individual’s view of art will be different to another individual because art is personal. Indian classical Raaga may be amazingly technical and beautiful to one individual, yet another person may say that punk rock is more emotive to them. Therefore, art cannot be enjoyed simply for its aesthetic qualities because we as humans do not completely view art in this manner.

Why Plato was wrong in stating that art merely imitates particular things

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is an example of art by Tim Burton. It is a true story based in London, yet it portrays a dramatic display of violence and horror that grasps the audience’s attention to be known as a great film. This defies Plato’s theory that art copies particular things, because the film is a musical. Real life is not carried out through song and dance, and within the time limit of one-hundred-and sixteen minutes. Real life is also not spent without trips to the toilet, getting dressed in the morning, brushing your teeth or even having something to eat. Therefore this form of art cannot be a copy of something else, but a concept portrayed on camera for millions to bear witness to. In addition, philosophers have argued that a concept is unique to an individual. Many people have a concept of Sweeney Todd, and if asked to portray his life, then each person would portray it differently. Why? Philosophers say that to interpret experience a concept is required beforehand. Without the interpretation, the experience is futile and this is why Plato’s theory cannot be justified fully. If this is true, then an artist, a director or a composer cannot copy anything to make a piece of art simply due to the one quality that is admired in every piece of great art: a unique individuality.