Post by
drftsil8ty »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/drftsil8ty-u17226.html
Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:08 am
just ignore this post guys...thanks(this work computer sucks!!!)
Both Bell and Goodman are very known artistist that have very good points on the subject of art. Here I will explain how both of these two artistist have points that very different from one another. Bell goes on the subject of "Significant form", while Goodman goes on the subject of "Representation and Symbolism". These two points are very different from one another, While Significant Form relies on combination of lines and colors, while Representation and Symbolism relies on weather the art critic knows how to judge art or not.
Bell backs up the theory of "Significant Form", this is when a pieace of art relies on the combination of lines and colors. Formalism is the key to this theory, where everything on the piece of art has a flow to everything and one object in the piece of art goes with another object in the piece of art. Bell goes on explaining these theory that you dont have to be an artist to be able to make a piece of art, Bell explains that nature has a Significant form that can be a work of art on its own. Hence, that the person making this piece of art does not have to be a artist to be able to make a piece of art. Bell also continues on going on about how representation can be mis-guiding. Bells explains that the person observering the piece of art can be mis-guiding on how the person observing the piece of art will try to relavate the piece of art to something else. The reason why this can be mis-guiding is because they cannot see the pure form of the piece of art and will try to associate the piece of art to something that has no relavience to the original piece of art.
Goodman on the other hand argues this point and explains that Formalism and trying to find the "Significant Form" are much to difficult to the average person. Goodman goes on about how the only the lines and colors of the piece of art will have relavience to something else outside the piece of art. So Goodman is aruging that the "Significant Form" is irrelavant and mis-leading to the unexperienced art observer. Goodman says that art must have either representation, expression, or exemplification to be considered art. Goodman also explains that a piece of art can also not be a piece of art. If you take a toilet and put it in a art museum, it will be considered a piece of art, but on the other hand, if you take that same toilet and put it in your living room it will not be considered a piece of art. this way of thinking from Goodman is called exemplifying symbol .
In conclusion, I think that Goodman has a better perspective on art rather then Bell, they both have very good theory's and the subjct of art, but I think that Goodman has a much better perspective. While Bell thinks that anything can be considered art, Goodman brings up the idea of exemplifying symbol, The idea of this is much more clear to me rather then Bell's explanation of it.