Transforming Artistic Practice: Collingwood, Adorno, and the Diseases of the Mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper addresses the views of R.G. Collingwood and Theodor Adorno on the role of amusement and art in what each of them saw as the crisis of contemporary Western civilization. We will begin by showing how the aesthetic theories of Collingwood and Adorno develop out of their shared concerns about the harmful effects of amusement and bad art on the consciousness of human beings. We will argue that a productive dialogue between these two figures clarifies that the value of art consists in its ability to remedy the corruption of the mental and emotional lives of human beings and in helping to fashion a different social and political order. As part of this, we will show how, despite appearances, Adorno’s aesthetic cognitivism and Collingwood’s expression theory of art agree with and complement one another in significant ways. In establishing this point, this work will leave us with an understanding of art that is more comprehensive and better equipped to address the crisis of contemporary Western society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".