Explain the claim that an artwork is a clarification of emotion.

Collingwood, a philosopher, believed that art is a clarification of emotion, rather than an outpour of emotion or attempt to deliberately arouse emotion. He claimed that artists aren't fully aware of the emotion they are trying to express until the artwork is complete - although they may have certain conscious 'intentions', unconscious psychological states, emotions, visions and experience of the world play a larger role. This means that artists may be surprised by their finished product, but still feel that they have expressed something. Furthermore, this means, according to Collingwood, that the audience needs to use their imagination to recreate this emotion for themselves.

Collingwood created the term 'art proper' which was to be distinguished from art that expresses emotion for any purpose or entertainment. So, the term should be separated from art as entertainment, whereby the purpose is to arouse and evoke particular emotions to the audience (i.e. there is a clear purpose for expression) - for example, the clear purpose of horror films is for the audience to feel (enjoyable) terrified. Furthermore, 'art proper' is different from art as 'magic' whereby the purpose is to arouse and direct particular emotions, for example, patriotism or, in religious art, a devotion to God.


Explain and illustrate two objections to the view that we value art because it expresses and arouses emotion.

Firstly, it could be argued that we don't value art because it expresses and arouses emotion because not all art expresses emotion - for example, some conceptual art pieces express ideas, not emotions; many artefacts, such as rugs and vases, are beautiful, but don't express feelings; 'nice' music is pleasant to hear, but expresses nothing in particular. Therefore, because art expresses and arouses emotion cannot be the reason why we value art, because this claim ignores many artworks which are clearly enjoyed, but don't express anything in particular. However, Collingwood would argue that the aforementioned artworks are not 'art proper', so should be separated; however, to say that art which is not expressive is not art at all seems like an incomplete and too simplistic of a statement.

Secondly, something that is emotionally expressive is not necessarily art, for example, saying 'I love you'; therefore there must be something else that we value about art to differentiate it from things that are simply emotionally expressive. However, again, Collingwood would argue that this isn't 'art proper' as its purpose is to directly arouse emotion, thus differentiating it from art. However, it could be argued that many religious art pieces which people clearly value, such as Bellini's 'The Dead Christ' was painted to arouse religious experience and emotions, thus going against Collingwood's idea of 'art proper' as not having the purpose of directly arousing emotion. Therefore, not answering what differentiates art from other expressions of emotion.