What Is The Expression Theory Of Art

Art has evolved and regenerated itself many times during our human existence. These differences are defined through changes in styles under various theories. During the nineteenth and early twentieth century, a style known as Expressionism became popular. During this movement the artists were trying to use their artwork as a tool of expression toward life. It was mainly dominant in the nonrepresentational arts, such as abstract visual arts and music. It also was probably one of the most difficult movements to understand because the whole point of the piece lay within the artist. Not only was it a movement, it defined the act of art as a whole. From the beginning of time, each work of art, excluding replicas, show a way of expressing one's self. Every artist puts a piece of his or herself into their artwork. Who really is to determine what that work of art was meant to express?

One might ask, "Since most artwork is used as a way for an artist to express him or herself, what makes this expression period anything special?" On the general level "Expressionistic art, whether literature, painting, music, or cinema, often involves intense psychic disturbance and distortion in the perspective adopted by the artwork." "It is remote from the objective or realistic portrayals of the world, as well as from the happier emotions." To bring a more defined meaning to the overall theory of expressionism, two philosophers play a large role. The first notarized expressionistic philosopher was the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy who was followed by his counterpart R.G. Collingwood: a twentieth-century English philosopher. Together they hold the two best known expositions of the expression theory.

What make these two analyzers important is not what they agreed on, but rather on how they contrasted. They both conclude that during the expression theory, the main concern was to express emotion. The one question that draws the two apart is "What does it mean to express an emotion?" They attempt to conclude this question, by providing the answers to a few others. What the nature of art is? Why we make and appreciate art? Why the arts are so valuable?

The best way to go about describing their thoughts is to state one of the thinkers discoveries followed by a thorough investigation of the second's, beginning with Leo Tolstoy. He begins his arg...

... middle of paper ...

...correspondent real life events. "If the music does not evoke a real emotional response in a listener, according to this school of thought, this response should be considered inappropriate."

No matter whose view you take they all have their faults. Making a theory on art is not the same as making a theory in science. With science you have guidelines that can be proven. There are very few guidelines in art that can be backed up by fact. The ideal of defining a theory in art is based on emotions as well. Both Tolstoy and Collingwood are using their emotions in order to judge other emotions. If I were forced to pick a philosopher to side with, I would probably lean toward Collingwood, since he leaves more area for variety. He places more of the wealth of the emotional art within the artist themselves rather than a third party. If it were totally up to me I would leave the decision on whether a work is good or not between the artist and whomever was viewing it at that time. What I might think as a good piece of work and what might evoke emotions in me might not do the same for another who might consider themselves experts, but does that really make my opinion less valuable?