Online research in philosophy

This essay argues that R.G. Collingwood's remarks about genre are implausible, and that they stem, despite their apparent origin in his wider account of art, from his failure to take some of his own most important insights seriously enough. Some possible reasons for that failure are suggested; and it is shown that, once the relevant insights are given their proper weight, Collingwood's account commands the resources from which a plausible story about genre might have been constructed. To this extent, the present essay constitutes a defence of Collingwood's philosophy of art.

Art as communication, by L. Tolstoi.--Art, intuition, and expression, by B. Groce.--Art as expression, by R. G. Collingwood.--The Groce-Collingwood theory of art, by J. Hospers.--The act of expression, by J. Dewey.--Art and the language of the emotions, by C. J. Ducasse.--Music as impressive and music as expressive, by E. Gurney.--Expression, by G. Santayana.--The expressiveness of colors, by W. Kadinsky.--Expression and association, by C. Hartshorne.--Expressiveness, by R. Arnheim.--The expression theory of art, by O, K. Bouwsma.--The concept of expression in art, by V. Tomas, D. Morgan and M. Beardsley.--Musical expression, by M. Beardsley.--Expressive predicates of art, by G. Sircello.

The status of art in Plato's philosophy has always been a difficult problem. As a matter of fact, he even threw the poets out from his ideal state, a passage that has led some interpreters to assess that Plato did not develop a proper philosophy of art. Nevertheless, R. G. Collingwood, wrote an article titled “Plato's Philosophy of Art”. How can it be? What could lead one of the most important aesthetic scholars of the first half of the twentieth century to make this thesis about Plato? To understand Collingwood's position at that time, I will review it in a new light: his own philosophy of art at that moment as it was propounded in Outlines of a Philosophy of Art, a work he published that same year. I will also examine how Collingwood's position changed when he returned to the same subject in 1938, on the publication of The Principles of Art. Finally, I will end this article defending the correctness of Collingwood's earlier interpretation of Plato's position on art.

The art and the artist according to Collingwood.

Collingwood published this article the same year that he published his first book on Aesthetics: "Outlines of a Philosophy of Art". The article can be divided in two main sections. In the first one Collingwood defends the existence of a Philosophy of Art in Plato's Republic, in close relation to the theory of reality expounded by Plato in the Book. From Collingwood's point of view, Plato understood art as "an appearance of an appearance", closely related to imagination, and as a symbol of truth. The second section is a critique of Plato's conception previously presented from Collingwood's own perspective.