While reading 'Collinwood's Aesthetics', I agreed and disagreed with Collinwood's assertions on art. Collinwood tries to define what it is for something to be considered art. He begins by stating how the term "art" is used in different ways throughout society, of which are not all consistent with each other. He addresses this issue by trying to specify these different definitions of art, ultimately trying to define what it means for something to be considered "art proper", which he considers to be true art. I agree that these specification between these definitions of art need to be made, but I think his arrival to his definition of "art proper" is more convoluted than it needs to be. He goes through these complex examples and definitions of different views on art which I do find interesting, but which I don't feel are very effective in illustrating his view on what "art proper" is...
When Collinwood describes his theory of art, he writes how art is an expression (in his definition of expression) of the imagination of the artist. I generally agree with this theory as I cannot see how there are any flaws with the logic, I just thought his writing style was very heavy with tangents and complicated explanations of nonessential concepts.
