7/28/2019 Good Art and Bad Art

1/4

536 Freedom, Responsibility and Powerl0 R. G. Collingwood (1889 1943)'Good Art and Bad Art'Collingwood was born in Cumbria and studied at the University of oxford, where hewas made Professor of Philosophy in 1934. Best known for hG work in philosophicaaesthetics, he was also an auttronty on the archaeology of Roman Britain. He publishecA, ines ol a Philosophy of Art in 1925, developing and reworking the material in IrPnnciples of Art, fisl published in 1938 (oxford: oxlord University Press). In his Prefacto the latter, Collingwood welcomed what he saw as 'an impodant revilal in the artsaccompaned by'a groMh of aesthetic theory and criticrsm, written mostly not by academ iphilosophers or amateurs of art, but by poets, dramatists, painters, and sculptors therse ves'. The thesrs of lre Ptincides of Art lollows Benedetto Croce in identifying art wliintuitive response and witi emotion rendered conscious through linguistic forms of expression (see lBl5). Where Clive Bell had identfied aesthetic emotion wrth response to signiicant form, and had seen art as an automatic means to good (lBI6), Collingwood identiliecthe production of art with cfitical imaginative activity and associated 'good art with thinculcation of a krnd of realism in the face of history and culture. In the final section of lrePrinctples of Att Colling\,tood presents a strong case in favour of T. S. Eliot's poem lrWaste Land. His notable conclusion is ttlat 'Art is community's medicine for that wors:disease of the mind, the corruption of consciousness.' The idea that the life of the artist r:waged as a war aga nstthe corruption oi consciousness finds a later echo in lMichaelFried sassociaton of modernst painting with'life lved...in a state ol continuous moraand intellectual a ertness' (see VlBg).'Good Art and Bad Art'is the tiird and iinalsubsectiorin a chapter on'Art as Language', pp.280-5 in the oxford lJniversity Press paperbacfedtion, 1958.The definition ofany siren kind ofrhing is also the definition ofa good thing ofthrtkind: for a thing that is g{nd in its kind is only a thing which possesses the attributes utthat kind.'Io call things good and brd is to imply succcss and f.:ilure. When we callthings good or bad not in rhemselves but relatilel) to us, rs whn we spak ofr soodharvest or a bad thunderstorm, the success or failure implied is our oirn; \re man rh,rthese things cnable us to realiz our purposes, or prevent us frorn doing so. When $(call things good or bad in themselves, the sucess or failurc irnplied is theirs. W .ri!implying thnt thel acquire the attributs ofthir kind by an effort on their own prrt.rnd that this cffort mal be either more or lss succssful.I am not rrising the question $herhr it is true, as the Greeks thought, that thr ar!mturd kinds, md that what we crll r dog is somcthing that is trying to be a dog. For lllm) present rrgument is concerned, either thrt view ma) be rru (in which case dog'can bc good or bad in themselres), or the altcrnativc vie$ rnay be true, that the idea olrdog is onll a Fa1 in $hich we choose to classify the things $e come across, in whi.hcase dogs can bc good or bad onlti in rlation to us. I rm only concernd \rith sood andbad ilorlis ofirt. Now, N work ofart is an activity ofa certain kind; the agent is trying n,do somcthins definite, ind in that attmpt he mry succeed or h may 1ail. It i\.morcoler, r conscious actilitl; the rgent is not only trling to do something definite.he also knoss shat it is that hc is trting to do; though knowing here does notnecessiril) impl\ beins able to dcscribc, since to dcscribe is ro generalize, and gcncrrlizing is th funclion of the intllct, and conscnrusness does not, as such, inroheintellect.

7/28/2019 Good Art and Bad Art

2/4

IVD l4odernrsm as Critique 537\ \!orl of.rt, therefore, mi! be cithcr a good onc d r bad onc. And bccruse the:fnt is necessirih a constious agent, hc neccssarih kno$s $hich it is. Or rrther, he..essxrih kno$s this so frr as his conscnrusncss in rcspcct of this $ork ol rn isl(orruptedi for \e ha\e sen that therc is such a thing is untruthful or corrupt\n\ Iheor] of.rrr should be required to sho$, ifit wishes to be takcn scriousl\', ho$i .rrrist, in pursuing his.rlisric hbour, is able to tell {hether he is pursuing it.,lcessfull! or unsuccessfulh: ho\r, for clample, it is possible lirr him to sar. 'l .rm- r srrisficd nith that linct let us trl it this $.\'...ind this $rr...and rhis.r\...therel that $ill do. A theorr which pushcs thc rrtistic c\pcricncc too hrrsn rhe scale, to i point bekx! the rcgion $hrrc crpcrienct has the chrracrer o{'

. xo\ledge, is unrble to meel this demind. h crn onh lidc it b\ protcnding that the1i\t in such crses is ncting not as lrn rrlist, but as r critic and cren (ifcriticism ofart is.icn{ified $irh philosophl ofaft) as i philosopher. But this prctencc should deccile-,)bodr. The nrtching of his o$n $ork $ith a ligihnt rnd discriminrting cre, shich

. leidcs it elerr moment of thc process whcther it is bcing succcssful or nor, is not a.riticrl acti\it) subsequcnt tol .nd rcllectile upon, thc artistic s.ork, ir is an inrgral.,rrt ofthrt work itseli A person sho can doubt this, ifhe h.rs,rn\ grounds rt rll for his

.r,,ubt. is presumabh confusing the i!i\ an irtist works with thc rva1" an incomperent.rudenr in an.n-school worksi pxinting blindlr, ind w,riting ior the m$ter ro sho$rnr r{hrt ;t is that he h.s been doing. ln point ol fict, what a studcnt lcarns in lrn arr-*hool is nor so much to painr as to $atch hirnself painting: to raisc thc pslcho-ph)sic.rl.(rir;t] o[printing to the lclcl of t b! bcLuing conscious ofit, and so conrerring it:r,)nt a ps\chiml experiencc into in imxgin.tilc onc.\\:h.t the.rtist is tr'ting to do is to express a gircn cmoti{rn.'lb e\press it, rnd to:\pfess it $ell, .re thc sime thing. To c\press ;t badh ;s not one $a! ofrpressing itnot, for exrmple, erpressing it, bul nor r"//, Ls rJKlci), it;s fiiling t{' c\prcss it. I bad\ork of.rrt is an acti\'it) in $hich th agent tries to express a gilcn cnDtion, but fnils.l his is the difference bet\een bd lrt and art filsell so callcd. In nrt iilseh so cillcd

rhere is no failure Io express, becruse there is no auempt it expressioni thcrc is onlv anrnempt (Nhether successful or noo to do something elsc.llur e\prssing rn emotion is the sarne thing as becoming conscrrs ofit. { brd $ork,n art is th unsuccesslul rftempt to become consciirus of r gilen cmotion: it ;s whatspinoza calls an inadcquate idea ofan .rllection. No\\, r consciousness rlhich thus fa;lsto grasp its o$n cmotions is a corrupt or untruthlul consciousness. l'or ils frilurc (likern\ othcr lailurc) is not a ncrc blankncss; it is Dot,r doing nothing; iI is a misdoingnrncthing; it k rcti\it\, hut blundering or frustrrred rctjlit!. A person $h.J tries tobcLl)nc conscnlus ol i Bircn cmotion, and iails, is no l.,.ger in I srlte of sheerunconscnrusness or innoccncc about that emoti{rni he has done somthing rbour it,but that somethingis not tocxprcss it. What hc has donc is cithcr to shirk it or dodge it:to disguise it from h;mselfbv pretending either that the emotion hc fccls is not thlt oncbut a difternt onc, or rhrr rhe person \\ho feels it is nol himsell but some ont clsc: tslriltcrnati\es $hich,rrc so far from bing mutuall] exclusi\'e that in facr th\ ire il$a\sconcurreni rnd correlati\e.If \ve ask $trther this pretence is conscious or unconscious, the rns$er is. ncithcr- ltis a process shich occurs not in rh region belo$ consciousness ($hcrc it could not, ofcourse, take pl,rc. sinc consciousnss is 'nlohed in the proccss itself). nor \ct in thc

7/28/2019 Good Art and Bad Art

3/4

538 Freedom, Responsibllity and powerregn'n of conscn,usnes (whrc cquath, ir could n{Jt rrke pl,ce. because a man crnnotliterrll\ rcll h'm.clfa her in s,' frr as h. is conrrous oirhe rrurh hc crnnor t errlltdcceile himselfabour i0; it occurs on rhc threshotd thar dilides rhc pst.chical lelel;ferperiencc fiom the conscious lelel. tt is rhc matperforman.t ofthe rct {hich d)nlertsrhat 's mc.clt pslchic (impressnrn) into $hat is conscious (idca).The corruption of consciousness in virruc of which a rnan f.ails r,, exDress a eilen(motionmJle,himJrrh(srmerim(unJbtrr,,Lnosrtrcrherh.traserprc..cdiroinor.He is, thcrefbre, iar on and rh sanre rason, a brd nrtisr rnd a bad judqc ofhis ownJrt \ pd\!n sh,, N Lrrihk. uf nidu(ine hJd rrr ennot. \o tir r. h( n capabte ofproducing it, recognize it for $h.t it is. Hc cannot, on the orhcr hmd, rc.r v thinl irgood arr; hc crnnot rhink rhat he has expressed himsclfwhen hc has not. To mistakebxd art lbr good arr would imply har;ng in onc's mind an idea ofwhat sood arr is. andun( hJs su.h rn iJrJ ontt \o rrr r\ one Inu$\ sh.r ir ir r,, hare an unconuprconscrousncss; but no one on knory this exccpt a pcrson who possesscs one. Anin,in(re mrnd. so hr ^ ir n in,incere. h-rs nu r,rncepn,,n ,,r .inccrrrr.But nobod!'s conscn,usness cnn b whoth corrupr. If ir $.ere, hc $ould be in .condutun as much wdse thln the most completc insrnitt.wc can discoler or imagine,ls thrt is sorsc than rhe most complcte sanit! $.e can conceive. IIe rvoutd suffers'multaneouslr elcrt possible kind ofmcnral deransement, and evcrv bodill rtiserscthat such derlngcmenrs can bring in thcir rrain. Corruptions of consciousess areil$ars partid and remporary lapscs in rn activir) wbich, on rhe $.holc, is successlul indoins ryhat;r rrics to do. A person rLho on one occasion fails tu rpress himseif is lrprr\on quI( a((u\'.,merl rn e\pr.*\ hrm{tf \ucc$futh un,,rher o((r\ions. rnd roftno\r thrt hc is doing it. 'Ihrough comparison of this occasion nith his memorl ofth(,e urhrr,. rh(e tore. h( ,,ughr r,, bc ibh.ri, see rhir hc hi\ t.itcd, ,his rime. ro e\n;eshimsell \nJ rhi. r\ pr(.i,ctr rhrr crerr ifll\r is d,,ing shen h( sar.,, 'fhis lin( sonldo.' fle rcncmbers shlrt rhc erperience ofcrpressing himselfis like, and in the lighr ofthrr mmorr he rcalizcs rhat rhe itrcmpt cmbodied in this padcular l;n has bcn aftilure (;.ruption ofconsc;ousness is not . reconditc sin or a remore catamit\ {hich

'^( rcom$ onh Jn unli{'un.,r( ur r.ur,(,t ti.s: ir i.1 ,,,n,1"n, ",Oeri.n.c rn rh. tire ofer$! rrtist! and his Ufe is a conshnt dnd. on thc $holc, a succcssfirt wari.are againsr it.But this wrrfare ahvavs in\ollcs i \cr\ prescnt possibitiry. of rlci.eat: rnd then I ccrtaincorrupnon bccomes in!ternte.\VhrI $e recognize ls definitc k;nds of bad irt are such inletemtc corruptir)ns ofconsiousncss. Bad art is ncler the resulr oforiprssing what is in itselfcvit, o; {har isinnocent pshrps in itself, but in I gilcn socict).ll thing inexpedicnt to bc publicl\ said.Elerl one ofus fecls emothns \rhich, ifhis ncishbours becamc alare oathem. woutdmake lhem shdnli liom him sith horror: emorions $hich, ifhc becamc i{.rre ofthem.rould matc hirn horrified .1r himsctc Ir is not rh expression ofthese emorions thrt isbrd lln. Nor is ir rhe e\p.ession ofthe horror thel e\cite. On the contrart, bad art,nses \vhcn insrerd of extrcssing these enotions wc diso,$n them, w;shins ro think'rrr,chc. inn,'cenr ,,t rhe (munons rhl h.,rnt\ u,.,,r $rshinB ro rhint,,uieh* roobrrid-m;n.lcd to be horrificd bI then.in rr not a luxur\', and bad.rrt not a rhins $e can.fford to toteritc. To knoNourschcs ;s thc foundar;on of.1tl life thar de\eft)ps berond the mcrctl ps\chic. lercl ot.expcrience. Unless consciousness docs irs $ork successfuth, rhc f,cts $hich ;r offers rointellecr, thc onh things upon rvhich inrellect can built its fabric ot thoushr, ,rc lntse

7/28/2019 Good Art and Bad Art

4/4

IVD Modern sm as Crtque 539'rl,m the bSinning. A truthfirl consciousncss gi\es inrcllcct r lirm loundnrion upon\hichlobuildircoruptconsciousnesslirrccsintellcctnlbuildoniquicksand'Ihclilsehoods $hich !n untruthfrl consciousncss imposcs oD thc;xcllect are hlschoods{h;ch intellect crn ne\er conecr tur itseli In so fir as consciousncss is corrupred. thc\er\ $clls irl lrulh rre poisoned. Inlcllect crn build nothin8 iirm. \toral ideils dre..rstles in lhe.lir. Politierl rnd eeonomic s\slcms are mcrc cobrcbs. hcn common.rnitl ind bodih healrh rre no longer secure. l r corruption ofconsciousncss is rhc..nnc rhing rs brd .rt.I do not spcik ofthcsc grare issucs in ordcr to magnift thc oificc ol ant smrll scctrcnin orr communit;es $hich rrrrgates to itsclfthc n.mc ofrrtiits. l'hrr {oukl bc rbsurd.Iusl xs rhe life ofi comrnun;t\ deprndr for its !rr c\istence on honesr derling bcxr eenni:rn.nd man. thc gurrdianship of this honcstr bcing lestcd not in in\ one chss or\ccrion. but in all rnd sundr\, so the mrt t6lrrds crpression ofcmo rns, the efforr ro

, r ercome conuption of consci(msness, is .n eftbrt that his to be mad e not b\ specirlisrs,)nh but b\ erer\ onc sho uscs hnguagc, shcnc\rr hc uscs it. l^crv u(crrnce ind(\cr\ gesture thit cach one ofus mrlcs is r $ork ofilrt. It;s inrporrant to crch onc ofusIh.t ;n mrlins thcm. ho\crcr much hc dcccncs others, he should nol dcei\c h;nlselilfhc dcceircs hinsclfin this nrntter, hc has s. !n in himself i seed nh;ch. unlcss hcroots;t up rg.1in! mrl Sro{ ink) xn\ knrd of *icLcdness, in\ kind ofmentll diseasc.in]' Lind ofstupidit\ .nil nnlr rnd insanity. Itad .rrt, thc corrupt consciousncss, is thct(re tll\'nthtnon.

ll Clcmcnt Crccnbcrg{1q09 lq95)'{\ant-Garde:rnd Kirsch'W th this essay Greenberg mpoied some specrfic concern s of the Ge rma n ntellectLral Leftnto the Arnericai forum of the then Trotsky st Parrsa,,?ewery, where a debate abolt thepolitica roe of art and terature had been going on for the previous three years. (npartcular, Greenberg's text shows signs ol acqlaintance wth Boch's'D scussing Expressonrsm'; see VD8) His ana ysis of the avantgarde unites a socialh storica form of explanation with an Interest n the qualtative distnctness of advanced ad. li Greenberg's 1939lormulation, the avant-garde is that h storical agency which functions to keep cu ture alive Inthe face of capitalsrn. (ln a 1972 reprint of the art cle Greenberg corrected his mistakenidentificaUon of Repin as a panter of pseudo.rea stc batte scenes.) Frst published iiPaftisan Review, New \otk, Vl, ro. 5, Fa | 1939, pp. 34-49. (For ater texts by Greenbergsee VAI and 10, VlB5 and 8.)ODe rDd thc s,Dre cniliTxti(rr tfudu.cs simultlneou$l\ (\o such diffcrenr thinFs.s.pocm br 't . S. Filiot ard r'l in P.n Allrl song. or I p,rinting b\ llr,rqLre rnd i.\ariild)Irraug Pav crrrcr. \ll lbur arc on thc ordcr of culturc. ;rnd ostcnsibl\'. prrts of thcsrmc cuhurc rnd prod(cts ofthc sinre societ\. Hcrc. hoNc\cr. thcir conncction sccmstu cnd. A pocm b\' l-liol rnd tr poem b\ Eddie Guest $h.t terspecti\c ofculturc islargc cDoush to cn.rblc us Io situatc them in rn enlighrening rehtion to erch othcriDocs the f)ct thrt i distiritr such as this \ith;n thc frrme ol i singlc clthunl tr.ditx)n,$hich is iDd h.s bccn titen lbr grrnred does thjs lrd indic.ue th.t the disparitt is ifrrt of thc Dituril odcr of thing,: Or is it somcthing cnrireh nc$. rnd pirticulir t{)