T0 help elaborate on what the picture is showing, here is my interpretation of Collingwood. I think that when it comes down to it, Collingwood's most interesting point of conversation is the addition of the "Feeling" into the description of how an artist translates any sort of information via art to an observer. It allows us to focus on what exactly is happening in the head of the artist by pointing out the following process: 1. Artist Conceives Feeling 2. Feeling is dumped into pool of limitless Expression Outlets 3. Artist works with raw expression and a preferred medium to which eventually turn into Artistic Representation of "Expression 1".
Now the next interesting thing is what happens after the artist has an oppertunity to put fourth artwork, as seen by the second process that takes place: 1. The Observer witnesses Artistic Display of "Expression 1" and 2. Interprets the piece as "Expression ?" which can be one of almost as infinite as the infinite pool of Expression as mentioned before;
3. However, if the oppertunity arrises that the Observer may talk to the Artist on the subject of their piece, then the Observer understands the original feeling that is now sugar coated in artistic expression. Thus the best description available to be heard is implimented to the translating of how the artist came to try to explain the original feeling that they experienced; even though they may not even know it themselves as the artist.
I personally think that this is a particularly interesting and clever tool of showing how the various ways of interpreting of art can be put into a chart like this one and not be overcomplicated. I especially enjoy the concept of the possibility that the artist could get the true message across via other means if the artwork couldn't display the perfect thought process everytime. I additionally like the fact that this chart makes it pretty clear just how unlikely it is that we will ever be able to tell exactly what it was that was going through an artists mind at the time of the creation, because its true.
What are your thoughts on this chart? / Theory
Replied to your post on my blog :D
ReplyDeleteKurt's Response:
ReplyDeleteNow on to the important part of the discussion. First let's start off with a general review of Collingwood's theory. Collingwood builds upon Tolstoy's idea of Art as Communication of a Specific emotion. Instead of being used solely as a means to communicate emotions to another person, art is a means of personal therapy and self-acknowledgement. To Collingwood communication seems to be incidental, and that the true meaning of art is to communicate to the self, an emotion that has been "aroused". Once the emotion is "aroused" it can be "expressed" to another individual through artistic means.
Your chart does not follow exactly what Collingwood is believing, but I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. Your visual is sort of an in-between of both Tolstoy and Collingwood.
I just have a few questions:
What do you mean by "Expression ∞". Is it that the artist can have an infinite number of Expression 1's? If this is true, then making a more circular model would be more apparent. Clarifying this aspect would be helpful.
The artist's feeling is in two spots. Is this because that same feeling is what is described to the observer upon request? Maybe "Description of Feeling" would be a little more obvious.
Also, I don't think there can ever be a perfect understanding by the observer of "Expression 1". I mean they may understand the feeling/emotion behind it, but will never truly understand the "specific" (as good old Tolstoy would say) emotion. Maybe entitling it something a bit less hopeful would be a bit more realistic.
Overall, a great portrayal and hope you continue to "draw" upon your visualization talents in the future. :D
What do you think of Massar's chart/theory? Can you do better?
Alright, clarification time!
ReplyDeleteSo for starters, I certainly did not label this chart appropriately; for I agree that this is more accurately my interpretation of these two philosopher's conceptual work in combination with each other. Ironically I even have something to that extent written in my notes about how it is the synthesis rather than the descriptor of just Collingwood, but alas did not have my notebook the day I made this chart! The same is true for the "description of feeling" note you had mentioned, for in my notes I have the line connecting the feelings labeled as "language of some sort".
As for the question about the Expression ∞ aspect of the chart: this is meant to be represented as a pool of expressions that the artist can choose to utilize in the creation of a piece of art. Ideally there should always be infinite possibilities, but the point of its position on the chart is that whatever expression it is that happens to be best descriptor of the feeling is the one that becomes "Expression 1". Then expression 1 is implemented into the artwork however it needs to be to help segway the concept of the feeling to the observer.
Now, for the perfect understanding bit. This is a little bit tricky to explain, but the idea here is not that the observer walks away with perfect understanding of the artist. Rather, what I mean by this is that the observer ideally searches for the connection from feeling to artwork to become a part of the experience, not to understand why the artist had the feeling in the first place. Thus if the observer can witness the artwork and be told what the feeling was that lead to choosing expression 1, then they can choose whatever path is necessary through their own "Expression ∞" and enjoy the endpoints:
(Feeling-----Expression ∞-----Artwork)
~ The importance here being that it is the path to understanding that is what intrigues us when we don't understand art, and fulfilling that for someone so that they can figure it out for themselves without fail is what makes a perfect piece of art.