Talk:Formalism (art)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Article Evaluation Formalism (art) Content: Everything in the article is related to the topic. Although this is true the individual sections could be a little longer. The length could increase by adding more detailed explanations or examples of the topics. The citations on this wiki page could also be quoted inside the text better and there is a need for a full citation for all of the sources. Tone: The tone is neutral. There is not bias to one particular source or position. No viewpoint is over or underrepresented. Sources: Looking into the source "Towards a Newer Laocoon" by Clement Greenberg there seemed to be no relationship to art or how formalism is used in art. Other than this source being an issue no other sources seem to have a bias and lineup with the appropriate claims. Talk page: The talk page brings awareness to the Greenberg sources as problematic. It also references how the page's layout is not cohesive and how the topic could be explained in a better way. This page is a part of 2 wikiproject pages: Philosophy and visual arts. Overall it is rated ineffective. The talk page is more informal than I remember talking about in class.

Question: How is formalism used to explain prehistoric art and why is this usage important? Gabrielletolliver (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some refinement[edit]

I would think that Formalism dominated modern art from the late 1800s through the 1960s. is much too simplistic. It is unclear if that means formalism in art criticism or formalism in the making of art. Either way, it would be wrong. Formalists would like to think that it dominated modern art for that long.Brosi 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it suspect to refer to Duchamp as a Post Structuralist. He was a dadaist, Modernist, Surrealist.... anti art Chess master. (Billyvamp4 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

one more thing[edit]

Clement Greenberg needs at least a paragraph.Brosi 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Greenberg Quote[edit]

I am concerned that the large Greenberg quote deals less with Formalism (art) and more his personal involvement and opinion--even though he has an important role in art criticism. Should this be scaled down, or perhaps paraphrased with a footnote to the original text? Chad.Decker801 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plato[edit]

Near the beginning of the Background section the reader is treated to:

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.

Just about everything in this passage is wrong, and is notable for its lack of references to any of Plato's works. I've removed this until someone can come up with something that actually reflects Plato's ideas. 111.233.235.116 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written[edit]

So dense I can't make sense of it. Sorry I can't help here, even though I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Poor outline. Poorly written. FutureForecasts (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]