Abstract
As we have seen, it is typical of formalism ultimately to assume that the "pure form" is supported by something metaphysical or supernatural after all. Apparently, even the most radical formalists cannot escape the fact that "pure form" does express something in one way or another, and therefore exhibits content, however intangible this may be. As I have already indicated, this can undoubtedly be attributed to the fact that the "pure" or "significant" form, to which Hanslick, Bell and Fry constantly refer, embodies a "language", and because of this alone is of a symbolic nature. Very concretely, this means that forms in art are always symbolic of something else, even — and this is a fascinating thought — when the forms in question are very "pure" or "elementary", as is the case in music and abstract painting. The great challenge, which is revealed by the fundamental paradox of formalism, is to find an answer to the question: how would it be possible to see art as form, without, at the same time, neglecting the content, the expression? A similar formulation of the problem arises from the opposite point of view, the expression theory. Here the question is: how can we consider art as expression, and at the same time acknowledge the importance of composition, the medium, the style or technique? In both cases, that of formalism and that of the expression theory, the one-sidedness obliges us to look for an idea about art in which justice is done to form and expression equally.