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

[sahra-t]

In Book X of the Republic Plato explains how art is 'worthless', as a representation of a representation. He believes art is thrice-removed from reality. There exists the "form" of the thing, the concept, the ideal. Then there are the real life instances of this thing, and lastly, there exists the thing's representation in art.

If we take an example of a bed, as Plato does: We all have a concept of what a "bed" is. We can also think of many instances of beds in the real world, made by a craftsmen who knew and understood how to make beds. Then we think of the artist who paints a bed. What does he know of the craftsmanship that went into the bed? Very little, probably.

So I come to my question; if Plato is right, that art is worthless because the artist knew nothing of what he made, what can we gain from art?

Is Plato wrong? Can we gain any knowledge from art?

[angellous_evangellous]

Plato is completely wrong in my opinion.

Art is like philosophy, it is a field in which those who discover truth and wisdom can express their findings without the constrains of language.

[sahra-t]

What about the artist who betrays us? Say, someone who paints a battlefield - but who has never been in one, or seen one.

Is there anything to be gained from his/her work by the viewer? Or is art purely a kind of cathartic hobby for the artist to express themselves ('without the constrains of language')?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

What about the artist who betrays us? Say, someone who paints a battlefield - but who has never been in one, or seen one.

Is there anything to be gained from his/her work by the viewer? Or is art purely a kind of cathartic hobby for the artist to express themselves ('without the constrains of language')?

No. It's more than a hobby. Art shows the soul of the artist, and tells us who we are, if indeed the artist is really an artist. There's no such thing as artistic betrayal, because we betray ourselves with our interpretation.

[Melissa G]

Art is a subjective thing. Some people find Damien Hurst's art, offensive, and Tracy Emin. Does Warhol's Campbell's soup tin constitute art ? I think art is with the eye of the beholder. I think a beautiful woman is a work of art, albiet it a temporary one.

Melissa G

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

What about the artist who betrays us? Say, someone who paints a battlefield - but who has never been in one, or seen one.

Is there anything to be gained from his/her work by the viewer? Or is art purely a kind of cathartic hobby for the artist to express themselves ('without the constrains of language')?

The only betrayal I see here is that of the viewer who approaches art with some expectations of interpretation firmly in place, such as that the scene depicted be of something experienced as real by someone. Then it is art that is being betrayed.

More than a hobby, art is an expression of being.

He believes art is thrice-removed from reality. There exists the "form" of the thing, the concept, the ideal. Then there are the real life instances of this thing, and lastly, there exists the thing's representation in art.

I can see that. The way I understood it, Plato, as an ideaist, believed that the ideal form was reality, the form we experience things by was less real (the illusion), and the form we can recreate with our efforts even less real. We cannot draw a "perfect" circle no matter how clever we may be. Art was allocated to that last, and earned Plato's contempt probably not just because it was imperfect, but because everyone else held it up as "real." In the world he lived in, art was held up in opinion by some as the ideal.

Talk about stepping on philosophical toes.

He did also admit that the artist makes a better representation of the ideal than the form we experience in nature.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

In Book X of the Republic Plato explains how art is 'worthless', as a representation of a representation. He believes art is thrice-removed from reality. There exists the "form" of the thing, the concept, the ideal. Then there are the real life instances of this thing, and lastly, there exists the thing's representation in art.

If we take an example of a bed, as Plato does: We all have a concept of what a "bed" is. We can also think of many instances of beds in the real world, made by a craftsmen who knew and understood how to make beds. Then we think of the artist who paints a bed. What does he know of the craftsmanship that went into the bed? Very little, probably.

So I come to my question; if Plato is right, that art is worthless because the artist knew nothing of what he made, what can we gain from art?

Is Plato wrong? Can we gain any knowledge from art?

Plato was talking about representational image-making, only. Unfortunately, he knew nothing about art, and so wrongly presumed that this is all an artist does: make representational images of things.

But this is not what artists are doing at all. Artists are actually exploring our perception of both the ideal object, and the specific object, by very carefully manipulating a visual representation of it. In the end, the art isn't about the ideal or the object at all, it's about the way we humans perceive and interact with the world around us. It's also about sharing that explorative experience of interaction with each other.

I've always liked Plato's pragmatism, and I love the Greek concept of 'logos'. But when it came to art, Plato was clueless. As are so many others throughout the centuries who seem to have felt free to expound and pronounce judgments on an endeavor they knew nothing about.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by PureX

I've always liked Plato's pragmatism, and I love the Greek concept of 'logos'. But when it came to art, Plato was clueless. As are so many others throughout the centuries who seem to have felt free to expound and pronounce judgments on an endeavor they knew nothing about.

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.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

In Book X of the Republic Plato explains how art is 'worthless', as a representation of a representation. He believes art is thrice-removed from reality. There exists the "form" of the thing, the concept, the ideal. Then there are the real life instances of this thing, and lastly, there exists the thing's representation in art.

If we take an example of a bed, as Plato does: