• Analysis of expression
• Many dif things can be the mechanism of expression
• People, words, actions, pictures, sounds, objects
• Angry man ranting and raving
• Many dif things can be expressed by each of these mechanisms
• Thoughts, facts, feelings, attitudes, moods


• Expression theory of art says
• Artists and/or artworks express emotions/feelings
• Some art also expresses arguments, beliefs, ideas
• Though not all art does this (instrumental music)
• All art expresses emotions (that is its function and point)
• Something is art IFF it expresses emotions of the person who created the thing


• Implicit criticism of Dickie's institution theory
• X is art if artworld calls it art (bestows on it status of candidate for appreciation)
• Expression theory claims some stuff called art is not (as doesn't express emotion)
• And some stuff not called art is art (because it does express)



• Unlike institutional theory which attempts to explain our linguistic use of the word "art"
• Expression theory a substantive theory of art
• Art is a real phenomenon and exists independently of how use the word
• Society could develop a mistaken view of phenomenon of art (and has, says for example, Tolstoy)



• Three expression theories Fisher considers
• Tolstoy's causal-communication theory of expression
• (Art has) Expressive property theory of art as expression
• Collingwood's Formulation theory of expression

• Tolstoy's causal-communication theory of expression
• Artist expresses an emotion by means of an artwork
• Art is expressive of artists' feelings
• "Artist evokes a feeling and then by means of artwork transmits feeling so others experience the same feeling"
• "Art: when one persons by means of certain signs hands to other feelings he's lived through and others are infected by those feelings and experience them"
• Art is the infections communication of feeling



• THREE CONDITIONS
• One: Artist must have genuine feeling (knowing how to produce it in others is not enough)
• Must artist have feeling as they are creating the art or is having it at other times is enough? (The latter is a more charitable interpretation.)
• E.g., Rembrandt self-portrait expresses happiness, but he may not have been happy when painting it
• If artists has never had the feeling, but knows how to produce it in others, this is not art.
• Is the idea that unless artist has the feeling to convey, he's not expressing the feeling, but, instead psychologically getting the audience to experience the feeling; this is not expressing emotion.

• Two: Artist must intentionally produce something intended to transmit that feeling to others
• Even if others affected with feeling, if it wasn't intentionally done to get others to feel the same way it was not art
• E.g., yawn or laugh and others do the same (not art)
• Unintentional venting/exhibiting of emotion, not creation of art
• "Person who does art to blow off steam, to exhibit his emotions, may deserve praise as an exhibitionist, but no claim to being artist"
• Mere impulsive boiling over of emotions and giving way to impulse is not art
• As not intentional communication of emotions
• Worry: Shakespeare may not always have written to express feelings; wrote to meet a deadline or to pay the bills (and not to convey a feeling?) (not art, then).



• One and Two required for art
• Three: Successful art when audience experiences same emotion as artist
• Problem: Why require same emotion in audience?
• When express emotion often don't cause same emotions in audience
• Express fear to an audience, may elicit pity or desire to comfort (which are different emotions; not art?)
• E.g., people may know boy never threatened by wolf and feel sympathy, not share his fear
• Boy tells wolf story to parents they may not feel same emotion as boy
• Psychology of artist and audience different so get dif emotions



• If allow emotions other than what artists is feeling, not just any emotions can be okay: e.g., boredom, annoyance

TOLSTOY ON WHAT COUNTS AS ART

• Tolstoy's paradigm of art: Boy meets wolf becomes terrified and tells a story describing his experience in order to evoke fear in listeners
• Boy must again experience fear as he tells story
• Tolstoy's theory is egalitarian (expression theorists are anti-elitist)
• Artist not required to be a genius or have special inspiration or special training
• Tolstoy prefers Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin to tragedies of Shakespeare
• We can all be artists
• Even in everyday life (art an everyday phenomenon)
• Tolstoy thinks all human life is filled with works of art
• If we tell stories, paint pictures, play music in order to get others to feel our emotions, this is art
• Tolstoy broadens our conception of art to include ordinary everyday phenomenon: cradle song, ornamentation of houses, dress, utensils, church services, buildings, monuments, are all artistic activity
• Tolstoy argues that some of the alleged masterpieces of art, not real/genuine art as not inspired by real feelings
• Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, Raphael, Michelangelo, Bach, and Beethoven
• Why assume every work by great artists is art?



• Art valuable on Tolstoy's expression theory as this is how we share our feelings
• Art, like speech, is fundamental to human communication
• Speech transmits thoughts/experiences
• Art transmits feelings/emotions
• Art is essential means by which we share our emotional lives
• Unity of artist/audience; empathetic identification with artist
• Without capacity to be infected by art, we'd be more savage, more separated and more hostile to each other
• But aren't there other ways to share feelings besides producing art? (Tolstoy would say, if feeling shared in a tangible way, this is art.)



• Virtues of expression theory:
• Why art created? What motivates art to be made?
• So artists can express her emotions
• Why attach great importance to artist
• As art is expression of artists' emotions
• Why care about art and why does art move us
• Expression theory says this is its purpose
• Explains meaning of non-representational art like music and abstract painting



• Worries about expression theory
• Artwork becomes a causal agent of instrumental value only
• A mechanism to emotional communication;
• Not object of importance itself with independently valuable aes properties
• Idea of strong emotion clearly understood by artists and intentionally aroused in audience fits only small % of art cases
• Also one can express emotion even if not single clear emotion

EXPRESSIVE PROPERTY THEORY OF ART AS EXPRESSION

• Artworks have (objective) expressive properties:
• Artworks themselves are joyous, sad, solemn
• Though not literally, this would be absurd-only people can be
• Emotionality of art explained by properties of artwork without reference to emotions of artist or audience
• Not artist's feeling
• Nor what audience feels
• But artwork's expressive properties that make art expressive
• Objective in that sense
• E.g., Peacefulness of a piece of music
• Not a quality emanating from composer/performer
• Or from inner feelings of audience as music works on us
• Property of the musical sounds themselves
• Objective, like prominence of the flute in the music
• Examples?
• Judy Collins vs Rolling Stones
• Thomas Cole and Kitsch art (insomnia)
• Similarly, a facial expression (an objective property) is tied to sadness and so is the objective features of music
• Van Gogh's Sorrow and Study of a Tree



• How do expressive properties work?
• How can a nonliving thing be sad? (Clearly not literally)
• Contrast: peaceful, a nonliving thing can be peaceful, literally?
• Similarity theory of expressive properties
• Art properties are expressive because they are objectively similar to the related human behavior
• See anthropomorphic expressive qualities in art, based on a similarity between human expressive behavior and artwork
• E.g., Beethoven's third symphony mournful, agonized, and gloomy
• Because it is slow, has restrained low notes and repetitive structure is like behavior at mourners at a funeral
• Occasional high notes of flute/oboe mimics crying of mourners expressing grief
• Fast happy music is like happy people moving fast

FISHER'S OBJECTIONS TO EXPRESSIVE PROPERTY THEORY

• One: The natural similarity between human behavior and artworks account for small percent of art's expressive properties
• E.g., How is a gloomy color scheme like gloomy human behavior?
• So how does it work? Psychological facts about humans that certain things strike them emotionally in certain ways? Dark light/coloring is more conducive to sadness or gloom than bright light/colors.



• Two: Fisher objects that similarity theory can't account for differences in expressive qualities of art and nature; He thinks art and nature aren't expressive in same sense, but similarity theory would say they are
• If it is objective similarity between artwork and human behavior that gives art its expressive qualities,
• Then natural objects can/will have expressive qualities in same way/sense that artworks to (depending on their objective similarity to human behavior
• But this is not plausible
• Examples
• Ocean angry due to sound, force, size of waves
• Or a tree is sad because of droopy shape of branches
• But Fisher thinks it absurd to say that a tree could be expressive of sadness in exact same way as say Van Gogh's sketch sorrow 348 is sad (and 349 is)
• Artwork (unlike natural objects) is created by a person and this is relevant to its expressive qualities
• Thus Fisher thinks we need to bring artist back in to explain expressive features of art (which is rejecting the expressive property theory)
• Similarity theory explains why give anthropomorphic expressive qualities to nature, not explains why do this for art.
• Not fully explains this? Or not even relevant?



• Three: Similarity theory also can't explain why expressive properties of nature are culturally relative while those of art are not
• Grand Teton may be noble/sturdy to us, but comical/agonized to a foreigner
• This disagreement is okay, as mountain isn't really one or the other
• No fact of the matter here
• Just are different ways to perceive it depending on which similarities and metaphors one uses
• Much harder to swallow relativism for arts expressive properties
• In contrast, Munch's The Scream is frightening period and anyone who says it isn't is mistaken
• If person from another culture says it is cheerful, shouldn't make us think it is
• Is a fact of the matter here; absurd to say it is cheerful
• When the Aborigine ran from Handel's Messiah as felt it was threatening, he was making a mistake based on not understanding the music.
• (As was Huxley when he thought the solemn Indian music was cheerful)
• Emotional qualities of art are not dispensable, culturally variant qualities of art (where emotional qualities of natural objects are)
• To account for this non-relativity of art's expressive qualities (and guarantee a correct interpretation), must bring in artists who made artwork
• For Fisher, expressive qualities in art, aren't in the art itself
• Art is intentionally made
• We experience art as expressions of someone and that's why its expressive
• This expression comes from an artist with a particular point of view from a particular culture
• This guarantees a correct interpretation of expressive properties of art
• How artwork would have struck other members of same culture, including the artist.
• Not only or mainly artist, but audience mainly?
• One worry
• If an artwork strikes a culture one way
• But deeply and powerfully moves those in another culture a different way--perhaps incompatible way?--
• Isn't the second expressiveness legitimate too?

COLLINGWOOD'S FORMULATION THEORY OF EXPRESSION

• Other theories of expression
• Boiling over theory of expression: Art expresses emotion of artist if artist made it because he was feeling that emotion
• Arousal theory of expression: Art expresses emotion if it arouses emotion in an audience
• Noel Carroll's theory about nature appreciation
• Tolstoy's causal communication theory combines these two



• Collingwood's critique of Tolstoy's requirement artist intends to arouse emotion in audience
• Denies that real art aims to arouse emotions in audience (that artist intends to produce emotional effect in audience)
• This is psychological craft, not art
• Like comedians, preachers, politicians, advertisers
• It could be manipulative
• The calculation required to intentionally arouse emotions not part of expressing emotions.



• Formulation Theory of Expression
• Art is created to formulate/embody an external expression of unarticulated emotion
• Art can be expressive of emotion even when artist operates with no simple clear emotion
• Artist gets emotional understanding by externalized formulation (art) of a particular expression of an emotion
• One expresses particular instances of emotions (not emotions of a general type)
• Might only have the emotion potentially before created the artwork which explores and formulates the feeling
• Art as a process of discovery: discovers our capacity to feel in certain ways
• Not a preestablished formulation of an emotion type
• Not calculated arousal of emotion in audience
• E.g.: We can understand and feel emotions never thought about or experienced before write/read poem.
• Art expands our emotional responses much farther than they otherwise go in life



• Art as a form of social self-knowledge and social self-discovery
• A way for society to know its own emotions
• Artist is conscience of community: Tells audience secrets of their own hearts (which may not please them)
• Society thus needs art
• Art expresses/formulates emotional truths that society needs to know



• Difference Collingwood and Tolstoy on importance of audience
• Tolstoy: audience essential to the expression;
• Need to have audience in mind to communicate to them
• Collingwood: Expression is a relation between artist's feelings and the artwork that formulates and embodies those feelings;
• Audience not necessary in this way for artist to successfully express emotions.
• Collingwood finds a role for audience by rejecting individualist view of art expression;
• Art is not about artists and their feelings, with the audience merely overhearing these expressions
• Artist is not a unique isolated individual
• Artist formulates emotions of community of which she is part
• Artists not sole author of their expressions
• Gets most of what feels and way of expressing it from community, other artists and traditions
• Audience as a whole is a collaborator in the expression of artists' feelings
• Audience is a check on whether artists expression is genuine or self-deceptive and a product of corrupt consciousness

• Collingwood turns the audience into a kind of artist
• E.g., the reader as well as the writer is an artist
• The audience itself formulates emotion by appreciating art?

• Difference between art and ordinary activities a matter of degree



• Art for both Collingwood and Tolstoy is a condition of life (not autonomous from life)
• Art will continue as long as life does, as long as there is a need for emotional expression and to overcome tendency for emotional self-deception



• Ways to use Collingwood for nature appreciation
• If artist formulates an artwork that embodies a feeling, why can't nature also embody same feeling, especially if it is formally/physically the same?
• Fisher might reply that even if art and nature have same formal/physical properties, only artwork has relational property of expressing someone's (artist's) feeling
• If audience is like an artist reading into the artwork and formulating its emotional response to it, then it would seem that nature appreciator could read nature as embodying emotions as well.