I did a little research on formalism (this being my first time hearing about it). Formalism strikes me as something formed on the basis of aesthetics; and so I typed that into Google to see if anything worthwhile popped up ("formalism and aesthetics"). Not too much was found immediately; however, I did find a page on good ol' IEP, and I noticed that formalism reaches further than just literature. I only read bits and pieces of it, so I don't have nearly the fullest grasp of it. Primarily, "aesthetic formalism" has its properties in virtue of a piece of art being valued by the artwork itself, therefore determining such-and-such value from it, and that these properties are formal in the sense that they are accessed through direct sensation (typically sight or hearing). To paraphrase what IEP said. I'm guessing this is similar to what you were talking about here?
only ones mentioned I've heard of are brooks and eliot the later whom I love looking forward to artist vs art vid we all know some of these guys were real SOBs in there personal lives⚛
how can formalists use literary devices such as symbolism when it is very dependant on external assumptions? symbols are created due to repeated use of an element which in time turns into a self-expressive character.
Formalism doesn't really say that you can't use external information, it just says that you can't use external materials. Concepts are fine, but materials are not. for example, you can use your preconceived understanding of your nationality, to understand the works of a poem that talks about your nation; but you can't take a biography of the author to understand the meaning of the poem about your nationality. Because metaphor itself is an external assumptions just like symbolism, the same way with other figurative language. it's just that the work should stand on its own, and shouldn't need external materials to be understood.
if you think you can't use symbolism because it is dependent on external assumptions, it just means you are a pure formalist, but formalists long evolved from a mechanical into a much deeper understanding of the "form" of the work.
I love these mini lectures!!!
😊
Thank you so much y’all don’t understand the importance of these vids and how they helped me.
Loved the video! What works did you look into? Would love to read directly from the source if possible. All best
This was so informative, keep 'em coming! :)
I did a little research on formalism (this being my first time hearing about it). Formalism strikes me as something formed on the basis of aesthetics; and so I typed that into Google to see if anything worthwhile popped up ("formalism and aesthetics"). Not too much was found immediately; however, I did find a page on good ol' IEP, and I noticed that formalism reaches further than just literature. I only read bits and pieces of it, so I don't have nearly the fullest grasp of it. Primarily, "aesthetic formalism" has its properties in virtue of a piece of art being valued by the artwork itself, therefore determining such-and-such value from it, and that these properties are formal in the sense that they are accessed through direct sensation (typically sight or hearing). To paraphrase what IEP said. I'm guessing this is similar to what you were talking about here?
Yes 👍 I’m just focusing on the literature side just cos I’m a book channel, but everything here maps on to other mediums
Cool! Interesting stuff. Thank you for the video!
Great topic!
😃
only ones mentioned I've heard of are brooks and eliot the later whom I love looking forward to artist vs art vid we all know some of these guys were real SOBs in there personal lives⚛
Thank you ..good work
Can you please post the rest of theories?
I'm working on it 😊 Any you would like to see?
Psychoanalytic and feminism 😍
your video was rather helpful! thanks a lot
you're amazing
how can formalists use literary devices such as symbolism when it is very dependant on external assumptions? symbols are created due to repeated use of an element which in time turns into a self-expressive character.
Formalism doesn't really say that you can't use external information, it just says that you can't use external materials. Concepts are fine, but materials are not. for example, you can use your preconceived understanding of your nationality, to understand the works of a poem that talks about your nation; but you can't take a biography of the author to understand the meaning of the poem about your nationality. Because metaphor itself is an external assumptions just like symbolism, the same way with other figurative language. it's just that the work should stand on its own, and shouldn't need external materials to be understood.
if you think you can't use symbolism because it is dependent on external assumptions, it just means you are a pure formalist, but formalists long evolved from a mechanical into a much deeper understanding of the "form" of the work.
❤❤❤
so...new criticism?