فرمالیسم از نگاه کلایو بل و نیکلاس لومان (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در تحلیل های زیباشناختی همواره اندیشمندان سعی بر آن داشته اند تا هنر را با ویژگی خاصی تعریف کنند که فصل مشترک تمام آثار هنری باشد. اما، آن چه آنان ارائه کرده اند، مانند بازنمایی و فرانمایی صرفاً برخی آثار هنری یا دوره های هنری را پوشش می دهد. فرمالیسم چونان روشی در تحلیل زیباشناختی با غرض فائق آمدن بر این معضل، بر عناصر ساختاری و ویژگی های صوری، حسی یا ادراکی تأکید می کند. ضرورت بکارگیری چنین روشی در دور شدن هنر مدرن از ارائه ی تصاویر واضح و روشن است. برخی تحلیل گران با توسل به گرایش فرمالیستی تلاش کردند تا علت انگیزش زیباشناختی را در مواجهه با فرم بجویند. کلایو بل، یکی از تحلیل گران فرمالیست، فهم هنری را بر نمایش «فرم معنادار» استوار دانست، البته ابهام فرم و اصطلاح معناداری، یکی از نقاط ضعف نظریه اوست. به نظر می رسد در نظریه ی سیستمی نیکلاس لومان، فرمالیسم و فرم، متفاوت از آن چه تاکنون متداول بوده به گونه ای تعریف شده که چه بسا بتواند موضع بل را نه ابطال، بلکه تعدیل کند، زیرا لومان، فصل مشترک تمام آثار هنری را در مشاهده می دانست. در این نوشتار با تطبیق آرای این دو اندیشمند از خلال ترجمه، تحلیل و تدقیق در آثار اصلی آنان به برداشتی متفاوت از فرمالیسم دست یافته می شود.Formalism form the Viewpoint of Clive Bell and Niklas Luhmann
Thinkers have always tried to define art with special features in the aesthetic analysis that they are common among all the artworks. But what they were suggested, for example representation and expression, is covered a part of artworks and artistic periods. Formalism recommends attention to structural, perceptual and formal elements in order to overcome on these problems as a method in the analytical aesthetics. In fact, abstract art required to this method. Modern art distances from representation of clear and bright images. Therefore, man could not judge with attention to the subject matter, representational content or conception of the artworks. A group of analyst tried to evaluate the artworks with recourse to formalistic tendency. They attempt to find the cause of the aesthetic emotion in form. It is said, the root of formalism is in the ideas of Kant. Early formalist, including Konrad Feilder and Eduard Hanslick, their thought reflects Kant’s idea about form. Feilder identified artistic creation with perceptional experience. This experience is free from any interest, motive and purpose. Gradually, the important of subject matter removed in the aesthetic analysis of the artworks. After his, Clive Bell, one of the formalist analyst, is based the understanding of art on “significant form”, of course due to ambiguity in the word of significant, his theory encountered with many critiques. Noel Carroll is one of these critics. Of course, many critics are for formalism and formalists, all persons do not accept an essence for art, including Kendal Walton and Arthur Danto. Nevertheless formalistic discussions are still ongoing. Even, it is said, he isn’t considered the importance of what is represented in the artworks. But due to the importance of formalism and its place in the modern art, we cannot reject simply it. It seems, we can find a modified formalism and a response to the ambiguity of significant in Niklas Lumann’s the systems theory. Because of, he is announced observation as common aspect in the all of artworks. In Luhmann’ art theory has been associated to each other observation and form and distinctions. This is same the different definition of form. Therefore, in his view form isn’t defined versus content, that is, what reflects content. Each form is made from a distinction, these distinctions are necessary for observing, for example the distinction of inside and outside is necessary for the observation of inside a thing, even though not observed its outside. It is important to observe the forms. Then the work of form does not finish in production and continues in perception with observation. We want to get to know with different version from formalism through the adaptation and comparison of the view of Bell and criticisms on it with Luhmann’ view on artistic form and formalism, because of, Luhmann had not the essentialist conception of art. In his view art is as a social system that is changing and evolving. We try to reach this aim with studying and review of their main woks through translation and analysis them.
تبلیغات
