Nick Zangwill's Artistic formalism

 

The debate over formalism in aesthetics revolves around the idea that aesthetic properties are determined by certain non-aesthetic properties. Different versions of formalism primarily differ in their identification of which non-aesthetic properties are relevant. For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on formal characterizations of artworks, particularly in visual art, as introduced by Nick Zangwill.

 

Nick Zangwill differentiates between arrangements of lines, shapes, and colors (including properties like shininess and glossiness) as formal properties, contrasting them with non-formal properties, which are influenced by the artwork’s production history or context. Zangwill captures this divide by stating that formal properties are those determined solely by sensory or physical properties, as long as these properties are not relational to other things or times. This definition aligns with the intuitive idea that formal properties are directly perceivable.

 

Zangwill acknowledges that some philosophers argue that aesthetic properties are dispositions to provoke responses in human beings. To accommodate this, he uses the term "narrow" to include sensory properties, non-relational physical properties, and dispositions that might be part-constitutive of aesthetic properties. Conversely, "broad" covers extrinsic properties like the history of a work's production. Thus, formal properties are determined entirely by narrow non-aesthetic properties, while non-formal aesthetic properties are partly determined by broad non-aesthetic properties.

 

In this framework, Zangwill identifies Extreme Formalism as the view that all aesthetic properties of an artwork are formal and narrowly determined. Anti-Formalism holds that no aesthetic properties are formal, instead being broadly determined by both history of production and narrow non-aesthetic properties. Zangwill’s own position, Moderate Formalism, contends that some aesthetic properties are formal, while others are not. This stance allows Zangwill to counter arguments put forward by anti-formalists.

 

Kendall Walton’s influential position argues that to make any aesthetic judgment about an artwork, one must see it under an art-historical category. This counters attempts to focus solely on the works themselves without considering extraneous factors. Walton uses "intuition pumps" to support his proposal, suggesting that aesthetic properties depend on how artworks are categorized historically.

 

Zangwill, defending Moderate Formalism, argues that Walton's thesis is only partially accurate. He asserts that a significant class of artworks possess purely formal aesthetic properties that emerge from the configuration of colors and shapes alone. This narrower determination contrasts with Walton’s claim that the history of production partly determines aesthetic properties by dictating the category under which the work is perceived. Zangwill challenges Walton’s assertion that most works and their values are category-dependent, aiming to vindicate the idea that aesthetic concepts can exclude facts about an artwork’s origin.

 

Walton’s argument about representational properties highlights a marble bust resembling a Roman emperor, which we interpret as representing a man with specific features. Walton asks why we don’t see it as representing a motionless, uniformly colored man severed at the chest. His distinction between standard, contra-standard, and variable properties explains this: the bust’s uniform color and motionlessness are standard properties for busts, influencing our perception.

 

Zangwill concedes that representational properties, which are partly determined by the history of production, contribute to some aesthetic properties being non-formal. This is acceptable within Moderate Formalism, as many artworks are not representational and are unaffected by this consideration. Thus, while Walton’s argument holds for a subset of artworks, it does not undermine the broader Moderate Formalism.

 

Walton extends his argument, claiming that an artwork’s art-historical category is aesthetically relevant because it affects how one perceives the work. His well-known example involves a society without painting but producing works called guernicas, similar to Picasso’s "Guernica" but in bas-relief. In this society, Picasso’s "Guernica" would be a flat guernica, perceived differently than in our society, illustrating that aesthetic properties depend on the categories under which we perceive artworks.

 

Zangwill challenges Walton’s account by questioning the psychological process behind category-dependent judgments. He argues that we can make aesthetic judgments about whole categories or compare items across categories without subconsciously operating within a more embracing category. According to Zangwill, phenomenological reflection does not support the view that aesthetic judgments are inherently category-dependent.

 

Zangwill proposes an alternative: when we say something is “elegant for a C” or “an elegant C,” we are communicating degrees of aesthetic qualities more conveniently. This pragmatism does not mean that category-dependent judgments are essential. Instead, category-neutral aesthetic judgments are fundamental, enabling comparisons. Thus, Zangwill maintains that Walton has not disproven the possibility of category-neutral judgments.

 

Zangwill concludes that we can resist being swayed by Walton’s intuition pumps. Even if two aesthetically indistinguishable objects are categorized differently, this does not necessarily change their aesthetic properties. We can acknowledge that referencing art-historical categories is convenient for classification without conceding that it is essential for understanding aesthetic value. This perspective supports Moderate Formalism, affirming that while some aesthetic properties are influenced by historical context, others remain purely formal and independent of such considerations.