Dissonance, Formalism, Representationalism

Probably the best textual evidence for the classification of Kant's Aesthetic Theory as 'Formalistic' is #14 of the Critique of Judgment, in which he seems to suggest that the evaluation of an Artwork as 'beautiful' is its "shape or play".  However, that interpretation does not explain the essentiality, according to him, of another factor in such judgments--the Purposiveness of the object, in which the shape or play is posited as a product of design.  In other words, the basis of such judgments is more than the mere internal structure of the object, though Kant never seems to explicitly explain what the additional factor is.  Most likely, it is a dimension of Art that he seems to take for granted--the representation of a supersensible object by the presented object, in a relation that entails design, and, hence, a designer.  Thus, the significance of shape or play in this theory is not of them per se, but qua functioning as analogous to something not immediately present, e. g. as a metaphor, and is evaluated on that basis, e. g. on that of the fecundity of the analogy.  But, if, so, then the proper classification of his theory is 'Representationalist', to which any 'Formalism' is ancillary.  In contrast, the concept of Dissonance that has been presented here is Formalistic, i. e. because the object of enjoyment is the internal structure per se of an Artwork.