Andria Graeler

Research Methods

30 January 2019

2.3 Reading Response – Formalism

Through the readings, the basic concept of Formalism is described as a more objective theory. It

is all about the work and no other element. This methodology, in my opinions, is akin to putting on

blinders. In Formalism, it does not matter that the artist intended or whatever external social or cultural

points of view that might relate to the work. Because of this notion, it seems like a difficult methodology

to keep up with in a way.

The difficulty lies in blocking out essentially everything but the text. More often than not, works,

artistic or literary, are created because the author had something to say; there was intent in their

creation. It also appears to be impossible to completely block out any social or cultural elements.

Through our upbringing, environment, and experiences, we are predisposed to have certain viewpoints

of different matters. That being said, it would be mentally strenuous to block out those predispositions

and just purely read/view the work.

Another note about Formalism is that it is more about the structure and form of the content

than the content itself. In other words, it appears to me like the subject does not matter so much as

how well-structured the subject matter is presented. This seems similar to the importance of certain

formalistic elements in various art movements. In some of these movements, the lines, shape, negative

space, and other such components are the focus of the work of art and not the actual “big picture”

itself. This is mimicked in the exclusion of synopsis from criticism. In literary works, critics do “not

consider plot or story as identical with the real content” (Ransom, 979). How is an audience member
supposed to consider the work outside of the actual story? This only works in educational settings

where correct form is being evaluated.

Critics such as Roger Fry, in my opinion, are a bit too extremist in their view and carrying out of

Formalism. Fry refuses to recognize and validate the connection between art and life (Slideshow). This

practice seems to be equally impossible as the separation of artist and other elements from the work.

Life is what fuels 99% of literary, artistic, cinematic, and other genres of work. Without involving the life

experience, many of today’s treasured works would not exist, and they therefore would not inspire the

creation of other works or many advancements in society.

John Crowe Ransom says to leave emotion of analysis of works, to give way to no distractions

(Ransom, 970). I do agree there are some subjects and topics that do require to be evaluated devoid of

emotion. However, it is hard for me to see how well that operates with any creative-type works. Other

moralists go along with this same idea, leading them to severely criticizing romantic literature and other

such genres because of their inclusion of emotion. They view the creator of such works to be adolescent

(Ransom, 974).

In relation to cinema and media arts, the methodology of Formalism is a difficult one to abide

by. Yes, evaluation the structure and technical elements of cinema and media is an important practice.

However, I do not believe that it is the only practice that should be carried out. As time progressed,

critics began to notice the limitations of Formalism. This notion occurred in the evolution of film as well.

Pudovkin discusses the steps taken in creating and editing a film. He goes into great detail about he

importance of each progression. However, as time goes on, creators like Eisenstein express the

elements outside the technical aspects such as “Art is always conflict... because of its social mission..

Because of it’s nature” (Eisenstein, 23,25).

 Bibliography

Bazin, “What is Cinema?”, 41-53, Braudy & Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism.

Eisenstein, “Film Form,” 12-40, Braudy & Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism.

Kracauer, “Theory of Film,” 187-197, Braudy & Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism.

Pudovkin, “Film Technique,” 6-11, Braudy & Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism.

Ransom, “Criticism, Inc.” 969-982, Leitch, ed., Criticism,” Theory and Criticism.

Wimsatt & Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” 1230-1273, Leitch, ed., Criticism,” Theory and Criticism.