Talk:Formalism (music)

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Link to main article

What's the best way to link this and the main formalism article to one another? if searching for "Formalism" one only goes to the main page with no link therein and no disambiguation. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the Soviet Union

Why was formalism denounced in the Soviet Union? What was it about the philosophy that clashed with Soviet ideals? -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. In fact, there appear to be at least four different definitions offered in this article, before the section about Soviet denunciations. It is not clear to me which if any of these senses is intended but, then, polemics seldom offer clear definitions of terms used to rhetorically bludgeon the opposition. This bears looking into. Thanks for calling attention to it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I came across this term while expanding the article Progressive music, and this article doesn't seem to match up with the definition I found in this book.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not prepared to defend this article, which has many shortcomings, I can't help noticing the phrase "as I use the term here" in the book you cite. This is always a good thing for an author to make clear, but it does not help us as Wikipedia editors to come to a more generally applicable definition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have flagged the lede sentence as "dubious—discuss". Since the lede is meant to summarize the article, do you feel it does not accurately reflect the content of the article? You have already made it clear that you find the entire article problematic (which it certainly is).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cotner means that his usage of formalism refers to the theory; to clarify that he's not talking about a "formal" piece of music. When I look at other books related to subject, it seems like they're using the same definition that Cotner uses. It also seems to align with Formalism (art). So, for articles like Progressive music, I'm left wondering where I should be linking to Formalism (art) or Formalism (music).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your dilemma. Allowing for the inevitable differences of opinions amongst different writers, I think we are on more stable ground here (as far as music, visual art, literature, and philosophy are concerned) than with some other areas (e.g., Romanticism, post-modernism, serialism). This actually makes the choice for linking more difficult, since there is little to differentiate the articles. In fact, a case could be made to merge at least the three variant articles on music, art, and literature—perhaps also the one on film.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that merge.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merges

Why is the merge discussion for film theory and art hidden away here? Oh well...
Oppose They're big enough topics to support distinct articles. Current weak status of an article is not a good reason to merge when the topics support separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no merge has yet been proposed. I merely said that a case might be made for it. Still, thanks for your input.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I stand corrected. I see that a notice has just been placed by User:Ilovetopaint. I trust that similar notices have been placed on the other relevant articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support As someone who knows virtually nothing about formalism, the current division between Formalism (aesthetics), (music), (film) etc. is ridiculously abstruse. I can't figure out whether they're actually all talking about the same kind of formalism defined at Formalism (philosophy). This current arrangement is very confusing and inaccessible.

Formalism (disambiguation) categorizes the given articles as subtopics of Formalism (art), and each article is under 10KB in readable prose, so if they are all talking about formalism as applied to various art sectors, then is it really necessary to separate them? It'd be so much better to locate the content at Formalism in art and divide it under "Music", "Film", and "Literature" subheaders.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Music, film, and literature fall under the general notion of art, and it would be useful to have a unified discussion of all related concepts. Per WP:SIZERULE, splitting is only a consideration around 50kB of readable prose, which a merged article would not be anywhere near. Formalism is primarily a historical term (I could find no notable formalists alive today; the closest are "post-formalists" [1]) and thus the article would be unlikely to grow past 50kB unless multiple historians publish tomes on the history of formalism covering even the most minor of figures and someone adds all of that in. Even if that does happen, and the article grows large enough that splitting does make sense, it would make more sense to do it chronologically/thematically, tracing the different sub-movements within formalism, than to split it up by the particular medium used, since musicians can influence artists and vice-versa. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This will facilitate the centralization, expansion, and regulation of content. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andy Dingley. The broad principle, covered at Formalism (philosophy), is the same, but the implications for each branch of the arts are sufficiently different to justify their own articles. Time to end this discussion I think! Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the main template was removed from Formalism (art) with this edit which is a surrogate for saying no consensus to merge. Given this, and the restructuring with that edit, I've also removed the templates on the other pages thereby completing the close. Klbrain (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poststructuralism

'This was parallel to the New Historicism in other historical fields, wherein everyday life was deemed as worthy of investigation as great men and great wars.' This is an outgrowth of post-structuralist theory, and needs to be explained here by someone who has more time to spare than myself, at present. Post-structuralist theory, for example, posits that a bill-board advertisement poster is as worthy of critical analysis as any painting by Velasquez, Van Gogh, Durer, etc etc 118.211.174.104 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]