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

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Here again Plato shows his unabashed pragmatism implying no other frame of thought/view is valuable, at least on the surface. He could have been playing devil's advocate.

See #17. Even The Republic itself is full of myths and hero stories, the very thing he is criticizing. BTW, the poetry Plato is talking about is not the rhyming of words like we think about poetry, but the Homeric and Heroic epic poetry of the Ancient world with its passionate, larger-than-life characters interacting with the gods. He rails in particular against the respect afforded the Homeric epics. In some ways, it's a long and detailed argument for the separation of church and state.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

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?

Yes, for Plato, "virtue" was a kind of paradigm through which he conceptualized and evaluated all endeavors and experiences. But in a way, that's the function of a philosopher. That's what philosophers do. That's how they "work" a particular philosophical proposition to see how it holds up.

I think the problem is that the art endeavor is as big and broad and significant as philosophy itself, is. And so art just can't be whittled down or minimized to fit into a given philosophy like a good little subset should. Yet this is exactly what Plato is trying to do to it. And this is why Plato is choosing to characterize art as mere mimicry. If art were mimicry, it would fit nicely into his 'general philosophy of virtue'. But of course art is far more than mere mimicry. And so Plato chose to ignore all else that art is; as he chose to hold on to his philosophy, at the cost of seriously mischaracterizing art.

When I was in college I took a class in aesthetics, which was taught from a really big heavy and costly hard cover book called "Aesthetics". And I was really fascinated by it. The book began with Plato, and moved on through all the western philosophers, one by one, focussing specifically on each of their concepts of art. It was a long time ago, so I can't remember who said what, but basically one philosopher would claim that "art is X", and the next philosopher would claim that the preceding philosopher was wrong, and that "art is Y", and then pose an argument proving it. Then another philosopher would come along and say that they were both wrong, that "art is Z", and then he'd explain to them all why he is right and they are wrong.

And the funny thing is that they were ALL RIGHT, but only to some degree, yet none of them managed to define the art endeavor as a whole. One says art is the pursuit of beauty. Another says art is the pursuit of immortality. Another says that art is an expression of the divine. Another says that art is the expression of internal illness. And they're all right, to a degree, yet none of them really were able to define art as a whole. And I don't believe I could define it as a whole, either.

And the reason for this difficulty is that art as a human endeavor is as broad and deep as it gets. It's all of the above and a lot more, too. As a human endeavor it's as big and all-encompassing as philosophy, or science, or religion. It can't be fit neatly into one of these other endeavors as a sub-category. It's a raison d'être all of it's own.

[Buttercup]

Great post, Dave. I can't add anything of significance to your words. We'll have to wait for Ms. Devil's Advocate to come back in and shake us up again.

[sahra-t]

Thanks Dave - I'd be interested in who said the various positions you put there, art is pursuit of beauty, immortality, etc? Doesn't matter if you can't remember

What do you think Plato would think of this painting?


The Treachery of Images (1929) by Rene Magritte

[sahra-t]

‘Plato recognises that the popular view of art and music is that they exist to give pleasure, but it is a view with which he will not agree. A thing can only be judged by the standard of pleasure when it furnishes no utility or truth or ‘likeness’ but exists solely for the accompanying charm’ Coplestone, History of Philosophy Vol.1 pg 259

Does this mean Plato would approve of abstract art, as it possesses no "likeness" and is not deceiving anybody? Did abstract art such as Jackson Pollock's exist in Greek times?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

Thanks Dave - I'd be interested in who said the various positions you put there, art is pursuit of beauty, immortality, etc? Doesn't matter if you can't remember

I looked high and low for a copy of the book on line, but it's likely out of print, now. The copy I had was back in the early 80s. It was a massive white hardcover book with a big eye on it, and the title "Aesthetics" emblazoned across the top. I had seen it on line, before.

My guess is that the contemporary version of it is either: "Aesthetics: A Reader in Philosophy of the Arts" by David Goldglatt, or "Aesthetics: The Classic Readings (Classic Readings in Philosophy)" by David Cooper.

Originally Posted by sahra-t

What do you think Plato would think of this painting?

The Treachery of Images (1929) by Rene Magritte

Good question. I think that in a lot of ways that painting exists because of Plato.

I once participated in an amazing graduate seminar with a great Chicago art collector and critic named Denis Adrian. And to open the very first class discussion, he stepped up to the chalk board at the head of the room, placed his hand flat on it, and with a piece of chalk, traced the outline of his hand. Then he removed his hand and asked the group, pointing in the general direction of the chalkboard, "what is that"?

Of course several people murmured in unison that it was a "hand", upon which Dennis Adrian shouted very loudly, "NO!", and then repeated the question. Having been frightened by the intensity of his response, no one was quick to offer an answer this time, but eventually someone suggested that it was a drawing of a hand, upon which Dennis again shouted, "NO!", and again repeated his question.

This went on for some time until the folks in the room had finally realized that what they were looking at was a mark made of chalk and left on a blackboard. And having finally ascertained exactly what it was they were looking at, Dennis then asked the group why it was there, and what they thought it was intended to "mean", if anything.

His point was that most human beings don't have any idea how to look at a work of art, and he made his point loud and clear by showing us all that even a group of graduate students, studying fine art in one of the most prestigious art schools in America, had no idea how to look at even the most simple creative act. And he was absolutely right.

Artworks are a record of human activity ... of a specific kind of human activity, in fact. And we need to learn how to "read" that record, if we hope to have any idea what it's attempting to share with us. But no one teaches people how to read a work of art. Not even in a lot of art schools. And the natural result of such mass ignorance is that art is very often completely mischaracterized and misunderstood even by people who call themselves artists.

Real artists know this, and must continually struggle with this mass ignorance to survive. It's the reason that Magritte made that painting of the pipe, with the words "this is not a pipe" painted on it. And it's why Plato, even as intelligent as he was, thought art was just a form of mimicry.