afawfawsfafa
Three Theories of Art
Harold Osborne (Aesthetics and Art Theory) identified three basic ways in which we can think about works of art. In the simplest sense, a work of art has certain physical properties. It is made of a material (e.g., wood, marble, clay, paint on canvas, ink on paper) which possesses texture, contains shapes, occupies a portion of space, reflects certain colors, and is apprehended over time. In addition, these colors, textures, and shapes are organized together in a certain way. These material and organizational qualities of a work of art are called its formal properties, and discussion about the value of art from this perspective is to consider a formal theory of art. Secondly, art uses its formal properties to present itself in certain basic ways. For example, art which serves as a copy of reality is described as “realistic” or “naturalistic.” Art which presents an improved version of an existing reality is called “idealistic.” Though in the recent past in the West we’ve shown a bias for naturalistic art, some art doesn’t mimic reality, and this kind of art we call “abstract.” Discussion of a work of art within the context of realism and abstraction is to participate in a presentational theory of art. Throughout history works of art have typically served a purpose, they’ve served as instruments to accomplish these purposes. For example, art has served to indoctrinate people about the importance of particular political and religious personages and beliefs. When we talk about art in terms of acting on behalf of a purpose, Osborne says we’re working within an instrumental theory of art. All works of art offer formal, presentational and instrumental qualities. These categories become the framework for the analysis of works of art. To assist in their application to a work of art, listed below are words, expressions and responses typical to each category.
Formal Theory:
Terms: Form: shape, size, location, scale, texture,
Harold Osborne (Aesthetics and Art Theory) identified three basic ways in which we can think about works of art. In the simplest sense, a work of art has certain physical properties. It is made of a material (e.g., wood, marble, clay, paint on canvas, ink on paper) which possesses texture, contains shapes, occupies a portion of space, reflects certain colors, and is apprehended over time. In addition, these colors, textures, and shapes are organized together in a certain way. These material and organizational qualities of a work of art are called its formal properties, and discussion about the value of art from this perspective is to consider a formal theory of art. Secondly, art uses its formal properties to present itself in certain basic ways. For example, art which serves as a copy of reality is described as “realistic” or “naturalistic.” Art which presents an improved version of an existing reality is called “idealistic.” Though in the recent past in the West we’ve shown a bias for naturalistic art, some art doesn’t mimic reality, and this kind of art we call “abstract.” Discussion of a work of art within the context of realism and abstraction is to participate in a presentational theory of art. Throughout history works of art have typically served a purpose, they’ve served as instruments to accomplish these purposes. For example, art has served to indoctrinate people about the importance of particular political and religious personages and beliefs. When we talk about art in terms of acting on behalf of a purpose, Osborne says we’re working within an instrumental theory of art. All works of art offer formal, presentational and instrumental qualities. These categories become the framework for the analysis of works of art. To assist in their application to a work of art, listed below are words, expressions and responses typical to each category.
Formal Theory:
Terms: Form: shape, size, location, scale, texture,