expressivism

Compare and contrast Croce's and Collingwood's theories of expression in art.

Collingwood claimed that artist's aren't fully aware of what they are trying to express until their artwork is complete - while they may have conscious 'intentions', there are unconscious, psychological factors that play a larger role. This means that the artist will feel they have expressed something through their finished product, even if they are surprised.

Croce believed that the artist's stimuli must be ordered for experience of the world to be intelligible, and that receiving orderless stimuli is frustrating and painful (similar to the frustration humans tend to feel when they are unable to articulate what they feel). He believed that an artist feels this way when they can't complete a painting or a piece of music; it is known that artist's need to go through a trial and error process to find the exact 'right' way of expressing what they are trying to convey. Croce believed that once this 'right' expression is found, the artist feels aesthetic pleasure.

Croce's theory of expression in art is similar to Collingwood's as they both accept that aesthetic pleasure isn't felt instantly or through directly expressing an emotion; both emphasise the need for the right outlet. Therefore, also, both agree that aesthetic pleasure/insight is gained intuitively, not through inference from an analysis of the features of the work.


Assess the claim that art is expressive.

Croce defended the rejection to expressivism that not all art is expression and not all expression is art: he believed that the idea of finding the exact 'right' way to express something is a form of expression in itself. For example, a pleasant piece of music may not overtly express anything in particular, however, Croce would argue that it expresses the composers idea of how the piece should sound i.e. the trial and error process that would occur in finding precisely the right notes, key and chords, that the composer wanted to express, therefore, expression is still relevant.

However, this view moves away from Croce's claim that what is expressed in art is emotion, and is rather saying that what is expressed in art is the artist's vision (e.g. a vision of how a piece of music should sound). Furthermore, this claim doesn't separate art from what is not considered art - essentially Croce is saying that a type of aesthetic judgement is being made in order to find the artist's precise expression, however, this could be applied to tasks such as getting dressed, decorating a house or making a playlist - all of which aren't generally considered art. Thus, this explanation doesn't quite answer what it is we value about art as it is too general.


Explain and illustrate the claim that ascribing psychological properties to artwork is metaphorical.

In describing what an art-piece expresses, we tend to use emotional terms, such as sad, cheerful, peaceful etc. For example, a Van Gogh self-portrait could be described as melancholic. However, these are psychological terms (apply to people); a painting can't literally be sad or cheerful. It is argued that we use these terms as metaphors - this is because using a term metaphorically is different to experiencing an object literally in those terms, therefore explaining why we use these terms when describing art in the first place. However, it is argued that we don't say describe a painting as 'sad', we actually experience the painting as sad (we see it as sad, metaphorically).

However, this claim would argue that to 'experience' a painting as sad is the same as metaphorically applying the psychological term to it, but, if this claim is right, then to 'experience' a painting as sad is quite different from seeing the marks of paint as the Virgin Mary. It could be argued that seeing-as is a genuine form of perception, whereas 'expressive perception' (experiencing what the painting expresses) isn't a genuine form of perception, as we are seeing the painting (and what it represents) and then consequently, separately applying a metaphor to it. This doesn't seem true to aesethic experience as we see the sadness in the painting.

Furthermore, applying metaphors doesn't explain why we describe paintings as depressing (not depressed, or disturbing (rather than disturbed) - we are not using metaphors, even though there's no fundamental difference in the way the painting expresses the relevant emotion, therefore making this explanation flawed as it is incomplete.


Outline and illustrate the 'intentional fallacy'

The 'intentional fallacy' argues against the idea that we value art because of the artist's intention (their state of mind). The theory states a contrast between the public nature of artwork (something everyone can experience) and the private nature of the mind (the first-hand experience of the individual) - it argues that we can't know exactly what the artist intended when creating the artwork, which is why this can't be the reason why we value art in the first place. Also, it states there is a difference between the artwork and the artist's mind - when looking at art we should be focused on the art itself, not the mind of the artist, this is because the intention of the artist is irrelevant to our own interpretation and aesthetic response. Thus, we can't value the artist's expression because we can't ever know what they were trying to express in the first place.

To understand the artist's intention of a piece of art, we would need to find evidence from the artwork itself (referred to as 'internal evidence') which doesn't require referring to the artist, but simply studying the artwork; this is because the 'intentional fallacy' states that we should value/interpret art entirely on its own merits, and not in terms of the psychological or social background of its creation (its 'external evidence').