Despite the different histories of and aesthetics, the two share a surprising number of similarities. They are similar in the problems they discuss, their dominant methodologies, the ways in which they conduct discussion, and the dominant stances they take in theoretical disputes. One example of this the old, though still relevant, controversy between artistic and anti-formalism. Since there does not seem to be any specifically Polish or exclusively American problems in this controversy, my discussion will deal with questions of aesthetic irrespective of who originated them and irrespective of slight historical lapses which might have existed between their being raised in the United States and in Poland. In aesthetics and art criticism, the formalism used in many different contexts. Formalism may mean a methodological orientation in art studies, a specific conception of an artwork, or a position taken on the theory of value and valuation of an artwork. Of course, a connection exists among these three basic perceptions of formalism: as a methodological attitude, entails, explicite or implicate, a specific conception of an artwork, which in turn entails a specific stance on the theory of value and valuation of the work. This so because, if one believes that the formal what truly constitutes a work of art, then one will look, consistently, for its significant value. The question of characterizing the nature of a work of art, however, not identical to the question of methodology, nor it identical to the axiological question of values and valuation of art phenomena. This paper deals primarily with the axiological questions and only marginally addresses the methodological as represented by, for example, the Russian Formalist School or the New Criticism. I suggest that, in the theory of value and valuation of art work, we provisionally define as a theory according to which the value of a work of art qua artwork-its artistic value-is constituted exclusively (radical version) orprimarily (moderate version) by its formal aspects. Its or its (conceptual, cognitive, material, etc.) content no important consequences for its value. Hence, only the formal aspects should be considered as criteria of artistic excellence. Aestheticians and art theoreticians use the concept of (and its correlatives, such as meaning, fabric) in many different senses. British aesthetician David Pole, for example, characterizes as a polar term which has its meaning bound up with its correlates. He mentions three possibilities: as opposed to matter, as opposed to and as opposed to formlessness. In addition to these three basic ways of understanding form, Pole suggests a fourth possibility: as structure where is constituted by a system of relations, and it opposed to content, what they relate. 1 All four meanings of form mentioned by Pole are used in discussions of artworks. However, the first three have a more universal significance, because they can be used with reference to nonartistic aesthetic objects-both artifacts and natural objects. In this paper I hope to use conclusions reached by R. Ingarden, Tatarkiewicz, and Pole to characterize the nature of artistic and its chief variants, differentiating, at the same time, artistic and aesthetic formalism. I would like also to answer the question: what are the historic and