Reflections On One Idea of Collingwood’s Aesthetics

The Monist 72 (4):581-585 (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I first read Collingwood about 25 years ago, when The Principles of Art was a staple in classes in the philosophy of art, along with books by Santayana, Dewey, and Croce. Since then, all these books have lost currency among American philosophers of art, and not only among those who are “analytic” philosophers. The wholesale abandonment of the history of the subject which was a feature of work in the philosophy of art during the 1960’s and 1970’s is not a characteristic of contemporary work, and yet Collingwood has not been well served by recent developments. The 1980’s have seen a renewal of interest in leading works in the tradition, even a kind of renaissance, especially with regard to philosophers of the 18th century, Kant in particular. The earlier general neglect had placed Collingwood along with Croce, Hegel, Kant, and the rest, including Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hume, and even Aristotle, and consigned the lot to some earlier, benighted philosophical time devoid of standards of rigor, precision, verification, and, indeed, sense. Although current attitudes are not so crude and harsh, the rediscovery of Kant’s aesthetics has not been propitious for Collingwood. There is now wide agreement that there are marvelous ideas and arguments in Kant’s Critique of Judgment, but the adherents of this appraisal locate Kant’s achievements differently. One group thinks that Kant virtually invents and discovers the major themes of modern philosophy of art, setting them with a depth that guarantees enduring riches. The other group thinks that Kant’s best ideas are already present in Hume and that Kant’s main contribution has been the arrogance, pomposity, and obscurity that perennially seduce readers into imagining that they are in the presence of profundity. Both groups agree, however, that after Kant it is a swift fall down the mountain into the disastrous philosophical rubble of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the fall from the sweet, promising light of the Enlightenment to the terrifying nightmare of ideologies that either brought philosophy to an end or made it worth ending.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Collingwood's commitments: A reply to Hausman and Dilworth.Aaron Ridley - 1998 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (4):396-398.
Collingwood's ‘performance’ theory of art.David Davies - 2008 - British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (2):162-174.
Arts and crafts in Plato and Collingwood.Christopher Janaway - 1992 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 50 (1):45-54.
Plato's philosophy of art.R. G. Collingwood - 1925 - Mind 34 (134):154-172.
Collingwood and greek aesthetics.Stanley H. Rosen - 1959 - Phronesis 4 (2):135-148.
Collingwood, aesthetics and a theory of craft.Robert Kavanagh - 1991 - International Studies in Philosophy 23 (3):13-26.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-12-16

Downloads
86 (#196,677)

6 months
15 (#167,163)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references