1. ART EXPRESSION INFORMS FORM
This would mean that Renaissance art for example could not be considered as art.
An internal monologue of emotional analysis.
ARG: not all art is used to express emotion.
DEF: the audience recreates the artist’s expression for themselves.
ARG: recreation however might not resemble the intended emotion.
Art proper requires the artist to undergo a ‘process of clarification’3.
DEF: Collingwood – art should be used to communicate emotions not inflict.
ARG: places the importance on intellectual process rather than the painting itself4.
Contradicts Tolstoy’s requirement of accessibility.
Negates the purpose of art as expression?
E.G. horror movie makes us feel scared
ARG: other things can evoke emotions.
Art should express feelings and emotions.
Raphael’s idealised woman (idealism).
EXPRESSION
Both representation and expression are irrelevant to Bell.
Formalism can be universally applied.
Art should be used to imitate/represent the world.
Bell: art should be valued by the execution of its formal qualities.
INFORMS
ART
FORM
ARG: most of what is created by man has formal qualities (artefacts).
ARGUMENT
ARG: Plato – as a copy of a copy, art is inferior (‘mimesis’).
ARG: if we value imitation, then why are forgeries so undervalued?
ARG: Bell’s definition of significant form is unclear (fails to distinguish it from form).
DEF: art is created with the sole purpose of displaying formal qualities.
DEF: art can be used to capture the essence of something by representation1.
DEF: could argue that a forgery is not an expression of a truth interpreted directly by the artist2.
DEF: SF is detected by aesthetic emotion.
ARG: however, most of the art leading up to the 20th century was produced with religious purpose.
Cathedrals were built to promote Christianity.
ARG: what of ready-mades or abstract art?
ARG: both define each other without actually providing a clear answer.
ARG: not all art expresses this.
ARG: Appeals to the artist’s emotional response to form – making it an argument for expressivism.

2. PERCEPTION REPRESENTATIONAL REALISM DIRECT REALISM IDEALISM
Secondary qualities – qualities triggered by our perception. A reaction from the primary quality which emits sense data.
Something which has size and shape inevitably has solidity, which can mark a boundary.
DEF: would not be able to function if these did not correlate in some way.
Primary qualities – exist independent of the mind, inherent to the object itself (E.G. shape, size, mass etc.)
ARG: only shows us a representation (does not tell us of the true nature of the world).
Cannot be directly aware of primary qualities.
DEF: Locke argues that in fact we need the property of solidity.
Locke: makes distinction between primary and secondary qualities.
The idea that we perceive through a veil of perception.
ARGUMENTS
ARG: Berkley states that both qualities are in fact inseparable.
E.G. Colour is the boundary of shape.
REPRESENTATIONAL REALISM
Everything is mind-dependent. Cannot exist without being perceived.
The idea that we perceive directly what is physically there.
DIRECT REALISM
PERCEPTION
IDEALISM
Berkley: physical objects are bundles of ideas.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARG: perceptual variation - cannot explain distance and size.
ARG: non-veridical perception – illusion contradicts the objects true physical properties.
Argues that if primary qualities like motion are not constant then they are mind-dependant.
We perceive two numerically different tables as they exist solely in the mind.
ARG: surely I can look at the same numerically identical table?
DEF: different conditions can make us see objects in a different way, but we are still directly perceiving.
DEF: relational property – difference between the object being and looking straight.
E.G. a stick in the water looks bent.
ARG: how can we explain continuous events?
DEF: we both perceive the table that is in God’s mind .
E.G. a bath which is not being perceived.
ARG: what we perceive contradicts what the stick is.
ARG: if there is no intermediary, then it is unlikely that the direct object will differ.
DEF: God acts as an ultimate perceiver.
ARG: how can the same idea exist simultaneously in my mind and God’s mind?
Could justify independently existing physical objects.
ARG: how can we know him empirically?