Every art movement has merit of some sort. The idea of ‘merit,’ of course, is rather subjective, but I think that most of us can find at least a few things in any given art movement that we consider merit-worthy. Problems arise when artists’ work becomes overly conceptual or when one artist decides that they have the capacity to re-invent the movement, or all of art itself.
The philosophy behind formalism, for instance, is quite intriguing and on paper should give rise to truly interesting artwork. The point of formalism is to deliver an aesthetic experience that is unexpected, because the merit of the work lies not in its execution or its content, but in its fundamental nature. Formalism encourages us to re-evaluate our own preconceptions about what makes something art.
We start running into problems, however, when artists forget that they are creating an experience and instead set themselves to work without a solid concept, only the idea of what it is that they are supposed to be producing. If your blank canvas is not able to deliver an aesthetic experience to the viewer, then it’s not art, it just gives the impression of being art. Artists too easily get caught up in their own ideas about being unique, or experimental, or ironic, and often this means that they end up with work completely lacking conceptual merit.
For me, postmodernism is a rather ill-defined movement, because essentially it’s just formalism’s little brother with a severe inferiority complex. Again, there is merit to be had in the idea of basically going against everything that you’re supposed to do as an artist. The issue is that since the term itself is ambiguous and essentially only means “newer than modernism,” everybody has their own definition as to what postmodernism is. Thus, it’s hard to qualify whether any given work actually fits the postmodernist philosophy because there is no one clearly defined philosophy except for being ‘not modernist.’ Then again, maybe this is what it means to be postmodern.
Realism has a pretty self-explanatory purpose–it intends to capture a moment, and provide the audience with a visceral experience, bringing an event or a setting to life in such a way that it becomes a proxy for reality. Thus, the goal of realism seems relatively simple: paint something that looks like it’s real life. The philosophy of realism, however, is about more than that–it’s the idea that something intangible, such as an emotion, feeling, or atmosphere, can be translated from one person to another through a tangible medium such as paint on canvas.
Many think of realism as the polar opposite to formalism–the importance lies in the accuracy of the content rather than in the form of the work itself, however this is an overly simplified designation. Realism and formalism, in fact, have many similarities. Both movements hold the experience as the most important part of the art–while it is true that realism is built on the idea of reproducing reality, the end goal is not simply that, rather it is to use the work’s realistic nature to capture a moment in time, and all of the emotional and personal impact that existed in the real space. Where artists fall short in realism is any time they forget the more ‘metaphysical’ side of the realist philosophy and simply try to portray something accurately. It is completely possible to near-exactly reproduce reality, but if it carries none of the experiential intrigue that is inherent in reality’s fabric, then the merit of the artwork suffers.
Expressionism is another movement that people often label as a foil to realism. While to a large extent this is true, again, they both share a purpose. Expressionism seeks to directly capture an emotion or an abstract feeling, however instead of capturing a moment in reality it seeks to embody something living within the artist itself. Expressionists often think of their work as an extension of the self. The importance is placed on the experiences of the painter, or even some kind of mass experience that extends to all or most of mankind. Thus, something such as realism captures emotions and thoughts through an analog to a real situation, while expressionism lives inside an external, metaphysical realm where feelings exist outside of the constructs of the physical world.
The major way expressionists fall short, I think, is by going into a work with an idea like, “I’m going to paint angry.” Expressionism relies on capturing primal, complex, undefinable feelings–the idea is almost to ‘rip’ them out of yourself and throw them directly onto the canvas. If an artist has set out to paint an expressionist piece, then they have already failed. The movement’s philosophy dictates that expressionism happens, it isn’t planned.
And so this severely long blog post comes to an end. To avoid saying “I like this movement, I don’t like this movement, this movement is crap,” I’ve attempted to briefly define what works about each movement, but to offer caveats where they can fall apart. Well-executed art works no matter what movement it’s officially associated with, and I think often when people criticize some movements it’s because they have not been exposed to some of the more apt examples of that movement. Of course, which examples are and aren’t ‘apt’ is completely subjective, but if you understand the philosophy behind a movement and the complex relationships between them, then identifying works that deserve praise and works that don’t becomes much easier.