When an individual is prompted with the task of creating a formal analysis on a piece of work, it is meant that they should observe the physical factors that make up the piece.
Components of a formal analysis include everything to do with what you see as soon as you set sight on a piece and do not require further research. You may observe the lines, the colors and the size and scale of the piece. Are the lines going straight up or horizontal? There might possibly be a color scheme going on or maybe a pattern. Is the subject large or small? Is it possible to determine how large or small the subjects are to its surroundings? In addition, you may take how the subject is placed and it’s surrounding details into consideration and this may be called composition.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/elements-of-composition-in-art-2577514-v3-5b5b6c73c9e77c002c93c6de.png)
My comment is similar to yours in that we both discussed the meaning of formal analysis in a fairly condensed way at the very beginning of our posts. We both then discuss the components of formal analysis and actually reference the same 4 components (line, color, composition, scale). This is where our posts start to branch off, as you give examples of analyzing the components, while I simply list them off. After the components are discussed, I go on to talk about the purpose of formal analysis, as well as the subject matter and historical context which are also elements that tie into formal analysis. Your post does not seem to discuss these points at all. Separately from the post itself, you also put an image in the body (which I do not do) and do not include a feature image (which I did).
Our post are fairly similar, we both discussed the basics of formal analysis. After simplifying formal analysis into the use of elements we both talked in depth about how they are used to describe what an artist is trying to convey. Although you do not go in depth, we also both talk about the importance of composition.