Three basic concepts of form 
A visual form's analysis after the »postmodern« 
Misko Suvakovic 
1. Form and formalisms 
Beyond visual form, there is an implicit or explicit theory of form. The theory of form talks about visual shape, the procedures of shaping the 
surface, the body and the space, in other words, about perception of visual 
phenomena ranging from the recognition of shape to the coding/decoding of 
information, reading and comprehension of shape. Different ideological 
assumptions, systems or models of setting form into nets of discourse of 
Criticism, History of Arts, Philosophy, etc., are hidden behind primary levels 
of theory of form. Theory of form exists to specify, describe and explain 
various visual art works through concepts, productions and receptions of 
shapes. Often expected from the theory of form is the theory that produces the 
contextual frame, meanings, values and convictions for the specified 
production of art works, for example, theory of form of Bauhaus, 
Suprematism, De Stijl, New Tendencies, etc. 
Reduction, approximation or explanation of visual artworks by concepts, 
models, schemes and discourses of theory of form will be called »formalism«. 
Modern 20th century frames of formal discourse on visual art could be 
differentiated through two traditions: (1) aesthetics formalism, and (2) 
language formalism, which is linguistical and semiotical formalism. 
Aesthetics formalism starts from the integrity and autonomy of the art's 
subject (thing, situation, event). In other words, the art's subject is defined, 
and produced, and the specific thing, situation, or event is made or produced 
in the extraordinary, autonomous, and closed frame of art world. Axiology and 
semantics are derived by aesthetic formalism from a set of concepts of 
aesthetic contemplation of object phenomenality, which is direct experience 
that is not mediated by knowledge, and from »existence« of aesthetic qualities 
derived from the concepts of visual shape and shaping, that is, form. Aesthetic 
formalism has a long tradition in the history of modernism and in the theory of 
art. For example, the concept of autonomy was formulated by Kasimir 
Malevich (»Die Gegenstandslose Welt«, 1927),showing that art no longer cares 
to serve the state and religion, it no longer wishes to illustrate cultural history 
and is not concerned with presenting things. English critic Clive Bell described 
the principle of form productivity (»Art«, 1914.), claiming that forms 
arranged and combined after certain unknown and mystical laws have the 
82 Miško Šuvakovič 
power to excite us quite extraordinarily. The dominance of experience over 
knowledge was worked out in the 50's by American critic Clement Greenberg 
(»Abstract, Representational and so forth«, 1954.), showing that art is a 
matter strictly of experience, not of principles. 
Language (linguistic and semiotical) formalism in visual art's theories belongs 
to the big »linguistical turn« (boom) in the 20th century theory of ideas. When 
we consider the unusual course of language formalism - researching myth, 
psyche, society or its application to the theory of ideas, - we notice that 
formalism is one of the leading and, at the same time, one of the most 
heterogenous movements in the 20th century. Contextually, the concept of 
language formalism is derived from two essentially different traditions: (a) 
Slovenian (Russian, Pollish, Czech, etc.) formalism, which was later 
transposed in the concepts of structuralism and poststructuralism through 
semiotics and metasemiotics, and (b) linguistic and logical conceptualism of 
analytical philosophy. Language formalism applied to production, reception, 
and interpretation of visual art works leads to approximation of complex visual 
phenomenology (things, situation or events), by sign or textual models. They 
are constructions of hybrid visual forms based both on visual and linguistic 
phenomenology (for example, collages with text in Analytical Cubism, or 
textual environment of Conceptual Art). 
We will soon consider the actual situation: the dominance of postmodern 
production and theory and the »formalistic« counterstrike. Postmodern 
poststructuralistic theory in original French or Slovenian variants developed as 
a critic of aesthetic formalism by transforming linguistic (semiotical) 
formalism in extreme relativism of sign arbitrarity, marking practice and 
textual models. Simplified, according to postmodern poststructuralistic 
linguistic formalism there are no new forms and meanings, but only new 
combinations (collage, montage, simulation, citing) of existing products (forms 
which are read as signs or texts). Artwork production is dominantly semiotical; 
it exists in the dominance of the discoursive arrangement of painting surface, 
installation arrangement, performance narration, etc. Postmodern 
poststructural production and theory shows that artwork isn't determined by 
ontological parameters, but by semantical uses of medium. The concept of 
representation is formulated as deciption of way of representations or as 
mimesis of existing mimesis produced in arbitrary semiotic practices. 
The power of poststructural postmodern relativism in practice and theory of 
arts was dominant in 80's. The first reaction against postmodern semiotic 
formalism could be seen in pro-capitalistic design of objects exhibited at 
»Documenta 8«, in eruption of neo-geo paintings and especially in the triumph 
of sculpture concepts developed in the tradition of the St. Martin School. The 
new-new British sculpture become on international style connecting the 
modernistic sculptor's modus of British sculpture from 60's with emptied 
Three basic concepts of form 83 
fragments of postmodern signs. Today, it is difficult to differentiate the 
products of British sculpture from Ljubljana or Belgrade new sculpture. 
Within the theory of art, the critique of linguistic formalism is developed. The 
analytical theory deals with the problems of psychology (for example, 
intentionality and perception), and with the problems of visual 
representations, which leads to critique of institutional theory of art, critique 
of arbitrary semiotic models and critique of quasiontological theoretical 
explanation. These theoretical positions are realistic: they represent the world 
existing independently of mind, stability and heterogeneity of cognitive 
mechanisms, ontological and causal nature of subject and object: art is 
cognitively and not simply culturally significant. 
2. Three cognitive theories of form 
If we look at any picture, sculpture, environment, film or performance, we 
could ask ourselves what and how do we see, what and how do we feel, what 
and how do we read, what and how do we talk, or tell by writing to Others, 
what and how we produce (write, paint, etc.)??? There is also one of the basic 
questions whose answer enters distinctions among cultural categories of 
classicism, romanticism, modernism and postmodernism: What is the relation 
of that what we see and produce in relation to our previous knowledge, our 
conceptualism and discourses? For example, classicism and different reactions 
to modernism start from concern for our productions and perceptions led by 
existing or previous knowledge - language or concept always precede picture. 
On the contrary, romantism and modernism (especially modernism in the 
Anglosaxon frame) start from act and perception before our knowledge -
picture always precedes language and knowledge about picture. 
If we apply the cognitive theory to art analysis, it necessarily ought to 
introduce a set of limitations. Art work, whatever and whoever it is, is not a 
part of natural world continuity. It is made and introduced into the world 
continuity. Reception of art work is a reception of certain material systems of 
appearance (thing, situation or event) which, along with complex 
phenomenology, also have a conceptually-linguistic setting. From the 
standpoint of cognitive theories, art work is understood through superposition 
of 2 informal systems: directly perceived information about form, thing, and 
invariants and information about settings of work in the nets of art discourses. 
According to different types of information, we can also talk about different 
cognitive systems of receiving and processing information. 
We shall take up three basic approaches to visual form: (1) The system of 
knowledge that stands behind the production and reception of art works is 
exclusively a linguistic and semiotical system, that is, work of mind can be 
literally or metaphorically described by logical or syntactical machine 
(computer analogy). (2) The system of knowledge that stands behind the 
84 Miško Šuvakovič 
production and reception of art works is internalistic, that is, both the 
production and reception of art work are defined by cognitive ability of the 
subject, that is, by his vertical (intuition, beliefs, intentions, emotions, desires) 
and horizontal (perception, motoric skills, etc.) powers. (3) The system of 
knowledge which stands behind the production and reception of art works is 
externalistic, that is, both the production and reception of art works are 
determined by ontological existence of phenomena outside the subject. 
2.1. Linguistic and semi otic concepts of visual form 
The appearance of a picture is analogous to the appearance of writing or letter 
or text. Elements and structural relations of elements on the picture's surface 
are defined by linguistic and semiotic character of each human work, that is, 
the possible nature of human mind, which is similar to a linguistical-semiotical 
machine. Linguistic or semiotic structure of picture's surface may be: (1) 
dominantly syntactic, or (2) syntactic and semantic. 
To say that the picture's surface (topology of picture's surface) is dominantly 
syntactically arranged means to say that the appearance of the surface is not in 
referent relations with the world outside the picture or representation of the 
world in other pictures, but that appearance of the topology of surface is 
determined by the rules of formation and transformation. By the rules of 
formation and transformation, if we follow the transformation of syntactical 
theory from Morris' semiotic rules to technical rules for production of 
drawings from Group 143, we call the rules that show how elements are being 
connected in the visual structure and how visual structure can be derived from 
another or other visual structure by formal change of relations between the 
elements of surface. Within this, visual elements may be: texture, colour, 
composition, line, spot, different pictures, iconic signs, invariants, letters 
(signs, letters, words, sintagms, texts), etc. Visual form, that is, topology of the 
picture's surface, is a visual phenomenon constructed by analogy to linguistic 
and semiotic rules. Visual elements, the constituents of form, are visual 
appearances used in a way that »sign vehicles« are used (Morris) or 
»signifiers« (Saussure, Barthes, Lacan) in linguistic and semiotic processes. If 
we search for a cognitive ontological base for procedures of producing 
syntactical pictures (geometric abstraction, neoconstructivism, minimal art, 
etc.), then we can derive the assumption that syntactic pictures are the result 
of mental processes of pictures (reflections, mimesis, representation), of 
mental pictures or states. If visual pictures are the result of reflection of 
mental processes and structures, then we may suppose that the mind is 
analogous to a syntactical machine. 
Syntactic and semiotic character of topology of the picture's surface is 
interpreted through two instances: (a) the topology of the picture's surface 
exists in some referent relations with world outside the picture (things, 
Three basic concepts of form 85 
situations, events, texts, other pictures, etc.), and (b) the artist's mind, which 
produces the picture, or that of an observer, which perceives the picture, is not 
analogous to the syntactic machine, but to the syntactic and semantic machine. 
Relations of reference made by subject (artist or observer), visual forms and 
the world outside the picture are realised by: (1) similarity of the surface 
topology and the world's object; (2) generative relations of production, that is, 
by the possibility of reconstructing the form's realization on the basis of data 
that are given by the picture's surface topology; (3) symbolic coding of the 
surface's topology (cross, spiral); (4) analogies to discursive reference: from 
the relation of titles and topology of picture's surface to the usage of discursive 
aspects as form elements. Semantic aspects, that is, referent relations of picture 
and world outside, are determined by phenomenal aspects of the picture itself 
and relatively unstable central conditions (point of view, context, history etc.). 
2.2 Internalistic theories of form 
Internatistic theories of form start from the attitude that any picture is a part 
of continuity that is realised by subject through his intentions, beliefs, 
knowledge, wishes, perceptive and productive powers. Elements and relations 
of the picture's surface topology are determined by horizontal and vertical 
powers of the subject. 
Causal internalism tends to describe and explain the appearance of artwork by 
ontological organization of subject's mental system. Then visual form is: (a) 
the product of a certain mental organization; or (b) »picture« (representation) 
of certain mental organization. To say that visual form is the product of a 
certain mental organization means that the mental state of the subject is a 
cause of visual form, that is, mental state initiates a given state of the picture's 
surface topology. For example, one of Expressionism's dogmas is that the 
painter's state (sorrow, happiness, drunkenness, extasy, fury, etc.) causes a 
certain picture's surface topology, which reveals to us his mental states. 
Similarly, in Surrealism, the automatic drawing or text is received and 
interpretated as a result of unconscious work. Insisting on relations of mental 
states, processes and picture could be generalized through the concept that 
each picture (from the landscape or portrait to the gird) is preceded by the 
constitution of mental representation, which is, therefore, realized through 
possible technical and stylistic categories. For example, the painter who 
watched Sainte Victorine mountain had some mental representations of the 
mountain (which differ phenomenally from the real mountain because they 
are determined by mind's aspects) and he transformed these in visual 
representations of the mountain. In other words, internalistic theory of visual 
form places mental representations between the mountain and the picture of 
the mountain. Hard realistic internalism tends to show that mental 
representations of the mountain are dominantly determined by ontological 
aspects of the mind, and so the visual representations of the mountain are 
86 Miško Šuvakovič 
determined by ontological aspects of the painter's mind. In the case of picture's 
representation, the observer's system »eye-mind« works with specific mental 
representations, which it treats and relates to the discoursive knowledge, 
emotional state, etc. The picture can be defined from the internalistic 
standpoint as a material representation of mental representation or their 
syntactic and semantic structures. 
2.3. Externalistic theories of form 
Externalism is the explanation of mental states (predominantly or totally) by 
the characteristics that function outside the organism. Externalistic definitions 
of the picture explain knowledge, which stands at the base of picture 
production or reception showing the importance of relations between artwork 
and world. In this direction, for example, Gibson makes distinction between 
two levels of the picture's perception: (a) perception of the picture as picture, 
that is, specific object and (b) perception of that which the picture shows. 
Externalistic theory of the visual form imposes a question: »How can we 
describe mental reference or picture reference in situations that are not mental 
or are not 'from' painting«? 
The externalistic answer to the question »What is in the mind/brain of the 
painter who paints a picture or an observer who watches it?« is: external 
information about material aspects of the picture and information about world. 
For example, Gibson carries out a critique of classical externalism, which 
shows correspondencies of things in the world, retinal image of the object, 
mental picture and painting. Gibson's thesis is based on critical approach to 
theory of form and Gestalt. His intention is to show that the subject doesn't 
perceive forms and colours, that is, the painter does not represent forms and 
colours. The painter perceives and represents invariants. Gibson's thesis can be 
explained by comparative analysis of realistic, expressionistic and cubist 
portraits. Each portrait can be perceived as the portrait of a certain person. We 
can start with the theory of form. As fans of Courbet's realistic portrait, we 
would hardly count Klee's or Braque's portraits as portraits, because their form 
(Gestalt) does not fit the form concept of Courbet's realism. Nevertheless, 
because even a naive look is able to recognize the face in the realistic, 
expressionistic or cubistic picture (even on a caricature level), that means that 
picture-portrait is determined, predominantly, by invariants of the human 
face, and then, secondarily, by arrangement of those invariants into a specific 
or individual form. Then, Gibson points out that there isn't anything like 
literal representation of existent environmental objects (landscape, and even a 
human face). The idea of literal representation (similarity) is wrong because a 
picture showes only some (limited number) of invariants of environmental 
phenomenons. In the Gibsonian frame, the picture is not a record of the world 
but is a representation of information about the world attained through 
perception. 
Three basic concepts of form 87 
It is possible to talk about different externalistic theories: informational 
(Gibson, Dretske), and classical (image on the retina, Gestalt), but also about 
specific externalism developed in theory and practice of non-representational 
painting: concretism. Concretism postulates that only essential aspects of 
painting (and art) are those determined by the artwork itself, that is, by its 
objectivity, materiality, surface, space, colour, etc. Production, and also 
reception of the picture, are reduced to production (treatment, construction, 
making) that is direct perceiving and experiencing/trying, of the picture's 
material aspects. The idea of concretism spanning from avant-garde solutions 
of Doesburg and Constructivist's ideas of concretism are parts of modernistic 
ideology and reactions on postmodernism. 
Literature: 
V. Božičevič, »Optical array: natural and artificiel«, Radovi, Filozofski 
fakultet Zadar, 1989. 
J. A. Fodor, The Modularity of Mind / An Essay on Faculty Psychology, The 
MIT Press, 1983. 
J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to visual Perception, LEA, 1986. 
M. Potrč, fntrenationality and Extension, Acta Analytica, 1989. 
M. Potrč, Jezik, misel in predmet, DZS, 1988. 
M. Šuvakovič, Drama slike i diskursa / predavanja o jeziku i saznanju u 
savremenoj umetnosti 1986-1990 (unprinted). 
Dj. Vidanovič, Problemi jezika i uma, IICSSOS, 1989. 
R. Wollheim, Painting as an Art, Thames and Hudson, 1987. 
Modernism*Criticism*Realism / Alternative contexts for art, ed. C. Harrison 
and Fred Orton, Harper and Row, 1984. 
Kompjutori, možak i ljudski um, ed. N. Miščevič i N. Smokrovič, Dometi, 
1989.