Abstract
R. G. Collingwood’s The Principles of Art has enjoyed something of a resurgence in interest thanks to the endeavours of scholars such as Aaron Ridley who have proposed a reading that refutes the charge of ontological Idealism as articulated by Richard Wollheim and engages with the dimensions of Collingwood’s aesthetic philosophy that deal with expression and imagination. David Davies has endorsed Ridley’s argument and taken this “revisionism” one step further by proposing a “performative” interpretation of Collingwood’s theory of art based on Collingwood’s conception of the work of art as an activity rather than the product of an activity.1 Nevertheless, he also highlights a series of puzzles that Collingwood cannot fail but generate when he attempts to reconcile the conception of art as activity with the art/craft distinction. He concludes by suggesting that, despite these ambiguities, it is Collingwood’s novel conception of art as a “language” that enables us to better understand the structure of The Principles of Art and Collingwood’s significance as a commentator on the role of imagination in the experience of art.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Davies, David. “Collingwood’s ‘Performance’ Theory of Art” in The British Journal of Aesthetics , 48(2), 2008, pp. 162–174.
Ridley, Aaron, “Not Ideal: Collingwood’s Expression Theory” in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 55(3), pp. 263–272.
For Wollheim’s interpretation of Collingwood see Wollheim, R., Art and Its Objects , 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 36–43, and “On an Alleged Inconsistency in Collingwood’s Aesthetic”, in Critical Essays on the Philosophy of R.G. Collingwood , M. Krausz (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).
Sclafani, Richard, “Wollheim on Collingwood” in Philosophy 51(197), 1976, pp. 353–359.
John Dilworth’s response is in “Is Ridley Charitable to Collingwood?”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 56(4), 1998, pp. 393–396.
For Ridley’s response see Ridley, A., “Collingwood’s Commitments: A Reply to Hausman and Dilworth”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 56(4), 1998, pp. 396–398.
Connelly, James, “Patrolling the Boundaries of Politics: Collingwood, Political Analysis and Political Action” in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations , 7(1), pp. 67–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Alistair D. Swale
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Swale, A.D. (2015). R. G. Collingwood and a “Philosophical Methodology” of Aesthetics. In: Anime Aesthetics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137463357_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137463357_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55357-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-46335-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)