 In closing, the reader may find it useful if we summarize the major differences—narrowly on matters of aesthetics—between Croce and Collingwood, who is often thought of as Croce’s follower. (Indeed the question of whether, how, and to what extent Croce ‘influenced’ Collingwood, not only in aesthetics but in wider matters of metaphysics and history, are vexed questions. According to a careful study Rik Peters, the influence was perhaps pervasive insofar as Croce influenced the questions that Collingwood posed for himself, but Peters concludes that the answers given were of Collingwood’s own making; see Peters 2011 for more; for the matter specifically about art and aesthetics, see also Hospers 1956, Donagan 1962, and Jones 1972.) First, Collingwood seems to agree with Croce that art, so to speak, is everywhere—there no self-conscious perception that lacks expressive and aesthetic qualities—whereas Croce’s theory does not tend to regard the expressive content of work of art as something ‘in the artist’, emphasizing instead its form and later its ‘universality’, Collingwood tries to explain expressive content in terms of a detailed theory of the emotions. Second, although Croce does devote some energy to discrediting the ‘technical’ theory of art, Collingwood offers a more organized and detailed analysis of why art is not ‘craft’, though arguably the main points are Croce’s. Finally, Collingwood devotes his final sections to a topic left unaddressed by Croce: the problem of whether or in what way the responses of the audience can constrain the object presented by the artist.