The Principles of Art

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. A basic tenant of the expression theory is the idea when engaging an artwork, that it is important one needs to recognize the power of the artwork's ability in being able to focus on the mind of both the creator and the audience. Thus, expression theorists expect artworks will produce certain human emotions in the audience. The expression theory correctly recognizes that art, especially literature, possesses a certain power in being able to articulate the communicative and educative power of the mind and emotions of the artist to the audience. Expression theorists argue that one of the powers of art is to tap into the human dimension in such a way that it is not just a pleasurable thing to regard but an actual educational tool that deepens the reader's sense of life. For example, the artist has an experience that the rest of us have not noticed. Then the artist tries to express this experience in the artwork, which she hopes will transmit to the audience so they can share the artist's experience. This idea in the expression theory, that artworks have an educative power, is central to Robin G. Collingwood's theory of art articulated in his book "The Principles of Art." Collingwood argues that the whole idea is that the artist is some kind of educator and the artwork becomes some kind of educational vehicle for people. Thus, the expression theory gives artwork a new importance, especially in the medium of the written word, since it purports that artworks like literature are something we can learn from that we cannot do any other way. I recommend this work for anyone interested in philosophy, philosophy of art, and textual criticism.

This is near the top of my list of the ten best non-fiction books of all time. It is a must-read masterpiece of philosphy that will enable you to distinguish true art from mere commercialism or self-promotion. After reading this book, you likely won't ever again be intimidated into giving the name of "art" to something that's merely become fashionable with the in-crowd. Collingwood was a don at Oxford during the 1930's and 40's. Familiarity with him is waning even in England, and he is hardly known at all in the U.S. He deserves to be discovered and rediscovered internationally though. He has written a number of enlightening books defining the proper spheres of subjects such as history. But I think this book is his crowning achievement. Here he defines art in a way that can transform every casual trip to the museum or every opening of a book of poetry or prose into a meaningful experience based on the ability to appreciate what is authentic. He approaches the subject of art by the process of elimination. He will lead you to understand what art is, by recognizing what it is not. For example, Collingwood does not deem anything that is only craftsmanship to be a work of art. If a person simply succeeds in building a table, chair, or house to blueprint specifications in fulfillment of some strictly utilitarian goal - then it is not art and its producer is not an artist. A furniture-maker is a craftsman. Likewise, Collingwood argues that art is not propaganda. He defines propaganda broadly. It doesn't refer only to posters aimed at inciting political fervor. He also includes anything contrived solely with the intention of wringing a certain emotion out of an audience. So for example, a painting showing a dog urinating on a figure of Jesus would be a piece of propaganda if its aim was merely to provoke a sense of shock and outrage in viewers. Paintings of generic, wisteria-lined paths, of mothers baking pies, of cuddlesome dogs cavorting or playing poker - would all similarly be classified as propaganda by Collingwood. That's because these familiar productions are intended solely to evoke feelings of sentimentality, nostalgia, or amusement in viewers. In that sense, they are designed strictly as manipulations. All such formulations may include elements of art, or may achieve the overall status of art if they are more than the mere intentions cited above. What is this "more" that will lift a thing into the realm of true art? That's what you must read this book to find out. As a hint though, Collingwood suggests that in order to be art, a work must be an individual's deeply personal expression. It must the chronicle of a journey the artist started before he/she had a specific destination in mind. Real art conveys a sense of the artist discovering what he has to say while he is en route. Anything totally predictable and preplanned is just a tourist trap. A piece of true art usually has as its core some accidental rightness, some fortuity like a gr

The theory of art or language -- he regards them as identical -- lies at the heart of Collingwood's philosophy. This book should become the "Bible" of language theorists, rather than the drivel of people like Chomsky, for it shows us how meaning is created. Thought is not the antithesis of emotion, but is built upon a foundation of emotion, and includes emotion within itself. This has enormous implications for the theory of art, or aesthetics, and Collingwood works them out, as well as the ramifications for civilization itself. This is simply the best book in the field, and should be read not only by artists and philosophers, but by any one who wants to understand the place of art in his own life.

In the preface to his first book - Speculum Mentis or The Map of Knowledge - Collingwood wrote: "I do not expect the critic to spare his blows: I only say 'strike but hear me'." In his second one - Essay on Philosophical Method - he argued that philosophy should not have a special technical language, since it does not operate with concepts that cannot be expressed by using that of "laymen". In his next - The Principles of Art - he reinforced this point by arguing that philosopher's ability to define phenomena by the language currently in use but initially developed for other purposes is one of the ultimate tests of his or her skill. This little book is a brilliant application of Collingwood's philosophy to the study of art as one of the forms of human experience. In a way it is a struggle with language that sometimes deceives us, sometimes lures into the blind alleys concealing the meaning of phenomenon. But it is a struggle marked above all by respect, ability and willingness to hear the opponents. Not surprisingly art itself is in the end understood as an on-going dialogue between the artist and the audience, something that Collingwood's contemporary Michael Oakeshott would call "the conversation of mankind".