A Map for Collingwood

Having now discussed Collingwood in class, I thought it would be interesting to show what my interpretation of his art concepts were when I read through the description of his thoughts:

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

Response to Brycen's Post

In response to the post that Brycen created, found here: http://brycen-honorsartandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/04/performance.html?showComment=1303753976831#c2154931601607662769 I wrote:

I read through this post and kim's response, and I must say I am certainly one to lean more towards what Kim has said. I think that the signifigance of either side cannot be declared as better or worse on the whole. It is also specifically important to point out that their differences are the reasons each can be qualified as an interesting an independant for of its own art.

The concept of the live show being more "real" or "imperfect" only allows you to see the actual actions of what the live performers are doing at x,y,or z showing. The recording of their work though is the closest thing that we can witness and experience to what the artist was trying to convey... it is the closest we have to the perfection that they concocted. And when it comes down to it, both sides of this coin are equally interesting and valuable towards our goal of having something to listen to and enjoy as receptors of art.

Do you personally feel that the concept of live show or stagnent art are equal or that one is better... and why?

Artistic Philosophy: Anthology Puns

So I was flipping through my notes earlier this week andI remembered that I had been doing this thing for most of the semester where I would write down the name of the philosopher that we were talking about in any given week, and a little joke about what their standpoint on the subject is. So, in looking for things to blog about, I figured I would show you some of the ones that I could find in my notes:

Bell: -Art is the successful avoidence of Science-

Dewey: -Art is Everything-

Weitz: -Why Define Art?-

Hume: -How good is Good?-

Goodman: -It is Art.... but only for right now.-

Danto: -Art is a club of dedicated persons... did you bring your membership?-

Dickie: -Can we justify some of the people breaking the rules some of the time?-

Piper: -Art is a power that pieces of art do not represent-

Collingwood: -I do not think you see what you think you see-


That's what I have thus far, I know most of them are pretty silly, but I feel that some of them are actually pretty funny. How accurate do you feel these claims are of these philosophers?