Plato on Art (soul, experience, philosophy, Greek)

[sahra-t]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Exactly. Plato was a philosophical genius and innovative thinker but it's obvious his large ego had no room nor his mind the depth to appreciate the sensitivity of art. Then again, perhaps he was frustrated because he could only draw stick men and cattle.

From my understanding, Plato was actually very fond of art. He just didn't like how far removed it was from the Truth.

After all - it is specifically mimetic art which he is condeming here - as PureX said. He not only condemned the art which we would understand today as paintings and sculptures - but similarly poetry (he uses the example of Homer writing about War when in fact he has never experienced it) and theatre. For it is not right for an actor to take on a persona he doesn't truly know, and not right for a playwright to write for a person whom he is not. And yet, Plato's republic is written thus - it is one of the great mimetic masterpieces.

I don't think Plato disliked Art as much as he may have lead us to believe, just falsehood in art.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

From my understanding, Plato was actually very fond of art. He just didn't like how far removed it was from the Truth.

After all - it is specifically mimetic art which he is condemning here - as PureX said. He not only condemned the art which we would understand today as paintings and sculptures - but similarly poetry (he uses the example of Homer writing about War when in fact he has never experienced it) and theatre. For it is not right for an actor to take on a persona he doesn't truly know, and not right for a playwright to write for a person whom he is not. And yet, Plato's republic is written thus - it is one of the great mimetic masterpieces.

I don't think Plato disliked Art as much as he may have lead us to believe, just falsehood in art.

But even from what you wrote of him, above, it's clear that he had no idea what art was about. To criticize an author for writing about a subject that he has not directly experienced is to completely miss the purpose of art. Art isn't about re-presenting images of objects or events. Art is about sharing a human being's perception of ideas, objects, and events. Whatever representation is involved is just part of the mechanism. It's NOT the purpose. Plato clearly didn't understand this.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

From my understanding, Plato was actually very fond of art. He just didn't like how far removed it was from the Truth.

After all - it is specifically mimetic art which he is condeming here - as PureX said.

And, the reason I used the word, "sensitivity". Plato tried to project his own sense of "right hood" about what art should convey. He didn't have the natural sensitivity to realize art is well, just art. It doesn't matter if it portrays reality.

I don't think Plato disliked Art as much as he may have lead us to believe, just falsehood in art.

It's not possible to have falsehood in art.

[sahra-t]

Originally Posted by PureX

But even from what you wrote of him, above, it's clear that he had no idea what art was about. To criticize an author for writing about a subject that he has not directly experienced is to completely miss the purpose of art. Art isn't about re-presenting images of objects or events. Art is about sharing a human being's perception of ideas, objects, and events. Whatever representation is involved is just part of the mechanism. It's NOT the purpose. Plato clearly didn't understand this.

I see what you mean- and he seems to contradict himself a lot. He said in Laws that he would allow art and music for "innocent pleasure". And - anyway, Plato specifically said that if poetry is to have educational value it should be a didactic from the author's own experience. And yet, the Republic is Plato's instructions, and it's written from the point of view of Socrates. So he's actually saying we shouldn't listen to his own views...

But back to the art we were discussing, Plato still understood that many saw art as expressive, for the emotions etc. He simply values moral excellence over aesthetic pleasure. We're perhaps getting too caught up and on the defensive because he famously said he would not allow artists in his Republic.

And Buttercup - I don't think Plato ever stopped to let anything be "just" anything Hence why I have to read about his views on everything.

[Stellify]

He also (as Socrates) said that imitative poetry/music/acting was alright as long as the poets/singers/actors were imitating something better than themselves. Only when one imitates something lesser than oneself is it harmful. Because poetry/song/acting are fairly close to art, I would think that this concept (the idea of only imitating things that are better) could be loosely applied to artwork as well.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

We're perhaps getting too caught up and on the defensive because he famously said he would not allow artists in his Republic.

There are a lot of people even today who have no idea whatever, of what artists do, or why they do it. And there are lots of people even today who think that art is simply the act of rendering images, just as Plato did. As an artist myself, I have to defend against this ignorance as it does harm to the art endeavor. It's like saying that the purpose of a doctor is to put bandages in things. While it's true that doctors sometimes put bandages on things, this certainly in not their purpose. There is a far greater and more important goal, and the bandage is just a mechanism for achieving that goal.

[doppelgänger]

In Book X Plato is mainly concerned with poetry and epic storytelling moreso than visual arts. Specifically, he expresses a great concern with the corrosive effect of the hero stories like those of Homer on the virtuous soul and the health of the state.

Why then does Plato end Book X with a long hero story of his own making? Was Plato a hypocrite? Was he trying to teach something through the text of The Republic that isn't apparent in the literal meaning of the text?

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by PureX

There are a lot of people even today who have no idea whatever, of what artists do, or why they do it. And there are lots of people even today who think that art is simply the act of rendering images, just as Plato did. As an artist myself, I have to defend against this ignorance as it does harm to the art endeavor. It's like saying that the purpose of a doctor is to put bandages in things. While it's true that doctors sometimes put bandages on things, this certainly in not their purpose. There is a far greater and more important goal, and the bandage is just a mechanism for achieving that goal.

Agreed. Plato in The Republic was overly concerned with virtue and tried to assign it's importance to every endeavor. As we know, the purpose of the art piece (he called gymnastics an art )is defined by the artist. Can art and virtue even be related?

[sahra-t]

What about Poetry?

"Poetry is an intellectual danger to everyone who is unprovided with an antidote in the shape of a knowledge of its real nature" R G Collingwood, Mind, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 134. (Apr., 1925), p. 155

and

"I soon realised – to put it briefly – that their poetic ability was based not on wisdom but on some instinct or inspiration like that which we recognise in prophets or soothsayers, for in their eloquence they betrayed an incomprehension of their own words’" (Plato, Apology 21 e)

If poets are effectively just stringing together words which sound good together, what else can we gain from it if they have no real knowledge of that which they are writing? Should we take the stance that ‘If poetry is to have an educational value it must be didactic and the poet can only be an effective teacher when he speaks in his own person’? (Greek Aesthetic Theory, J G Warry)