Post by
drftsil8ty »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/drftsil8ty-u17226.html
Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:25 am
hey guys, disregaurd this post, having e-mail problems and this is the only way to get my school work from the paintball store(crap computer) to my house...lol, dont ask.
thanks,
-Petey
1.)The relevance that Collingwood's discussing of the history of the concept "art" have for his theory is easy to explain. Collingwood goes on about how that earlyer in time, that the spelling of one word can also have more then one meaning. When the Roman's came up with the meaning of "art" the word meant a group of crafts. They thought that poetry, carpenter, etc. were only a group of crafts, but they all differerd in only a small way from one another. Now looking on art today as they saw art in earlyer times is not that all much different, they admire art in the same spirital way as we do now. As time went in through history, the thin line between "Fine Arts" and "Usefull Arts" we now seperated, and had a class of their own.
2.)Collingwood thinks that art consists in the expression of emotions rather then its arousal, I have to agree with Collingwood. Collingwood goes on explaining that when the artist begins his project, he is said to be to mirrioring his image and thoughts onto his piece of art. The artist most potray his thoughts from his mind onto his piece of art so that the audience can see and feel his emotions. If an artist were to only potray the arousal of the setting onto the piece of art, the audience would only be affected in a way the artist would only feel and not the audience.
3.)Collingwood says that someone who has not expressed an emotion does not know which emotion is. I must agree with collingwood based on the fact that the artist must think in a way that "I want to get this clear". Saying that, there is a proper way of producing this "way".