http://fotios.org/files/fotios.cc/papers/phil/Plato_Theory_of_Art.htm
Plato’s Theory of Art
Plato’s theory of
art is not included in the favorite subjects of study for modern philosophy
scholars and there are some very specific and good reasons for that. On one
hand his theory may be considered weak considering the fact that in his various
works he does not present us with a satisfactory scientific account of his
views on the subject. On the other hand, his views change considerably as he
matures. This latter fact justifies the differences of opinion on the matter
that one may find comparing works completed in different periods of his life.
In his attempt to make Art fit in his general philosophical framework he
suffocates it under his “hard-core” reasoning. Platonic
“Ethics” mutilate Art into what may be called “Educative
Art” which is the only kind of Art that gains the privilege of being
accepted in his “Ideal State”.
This account of Plato’s theory
of art will be based on his dialogues : “Ion”,
“Phaedrus” and “Symposium”, which although were written
in different periods1 they provide a relatively coherent -
but not entirely devoid of contradictions - idea of his conception of Art.
In “Ion” one can
understand that there is a rather prominent distinction between what is
generally considered as art and what he considers to be art. For Plato, Art is
or ought to be a very specific system or mode of thought that submits to
reason.2 It is important to stress at this point
that the whole portion of the dialogue does not treat poetry as some kind of
art.3
In fact poetry is considered by him as a kind of “Oracular
Testament” given through the poet by divine authority.4 Artistic
inspiration is not considered a normal, well integrated in the human mental
pattern, process but is perceived as a state of “possession” by the
Muse. According to Plato, in poetry the rational element is absent.5
In Plato’s opinion this theory
of poetry is upheld by the fact that poets, generally considered as bad, have
from time to time produced excellent poems. To him there is little doubt that
this way the gods demonstrate their intervention in poetic creativity.6
In my opinion, Plato’s views as
I presented them above show some degree of insensitivity to the sentimental
nature of man. It seems that at the time this dialogue was written, he
considered such qualities as beauty and inspiration alien to the human soul and
as a consequence of that he tried to explain any trace of them that he would
find by considering it of divine origin. This is the main difference between
this dialogue and the other two in account.
In “Phaedrus” one can
notice again Plato’s distinction between Art and Philosophy. They both
share the presence of “Reason” but they appear as two quite
distinct entities, probably by virtue of knowledge.7Plato’s
conception of Art is again presented in a sketchy and unclear manner but in
this dialogue there are two major factors that help the modern scholar
understand his theory. Namely these factors are his use of
“Symbolism” as an efficient tool to reach the desired result1
and the introduction of “emotion” in the general pattern of the
human soul.
The element of symbolism is well
demonstrated in his description of the nature of the human soul as a
“pair of winged horses and a charioteer” but it is also prominently
present throughout the dialog’s portion. This use of symbolism may well
be interpreted as a recognition from Plato’s part that there are certain
cases where “poetical figures” are more efficient in describing or
even explaining an object or an “Idea”2. By
expanding this notion we can fairly say that Plato considered
“symbolism” and in turn Art as part of the reasoning process. This
in turn would mean that he would have to include art as a whole in his
“republic”, but it is unclear if he finally did so. In fact it
seems that he did not and that may serve as another example of his incapability
to form a sound theory of art.
Plato’s vivid description of
the soul introduces the emotional part of its nature which exists by virtue of
“beauty”.3 If such a notion is to be introduced
through poetry then it is fair to say that Plato should conclude that any
“emotional” situation is best expressed by poetry or art in
general. Thus art becomes a necessity as long as it is a fact that the human
soul possesses an emotional side.4
At the start of the portion of
“Symposium” in account, Plato views art as a lowly kind of wisdom
and he matches that wisdom with that of handicrafts.5 One may
comment here that, if viewed from a utilitarian point of view, arts can be
found to be even lower in “virtue” or “goodness” than
the handicrafts and in fact this is done by Plato in some other dialogues.6
The views that are expressed in the
rest of the portion are quite incongruent to the notion he presents at the
start. Specifically he kind of apologetically7 generalizes the notion
of art to include any kind of practice that realizes or creates8 what is
envisioned.9 Plato then proceeds with further
puzzling the reader by admitting that wisdom and virtue in general are
conceived by artists (!)10. More specifically he theorizes that
the creativity in the inventor’s soul is expressed by art (poetry).
It is important to mention here that
as it seems - especially in his dialogue - there is a close connection in
Plato’s mind between “Beauty” and “Art”. Beauty
is reached and grasped through reason.11 This knowledge of
beauty is the “Science of Beauty”.12 On the other hand
beauty is also found and appreciated in art. Now the major problem here is: Did
Plato consider the process of art making a rational process (a process
involving the use of reason) or not ? If he did then everything in this
dialogue makes sense. If not then we have a major contradiction here; for how
can beauty (which is a Form) be realized or conceived and amply expressed by
that which is irrational ? I believe that somehow he understood that
shortcoming and that is why his explanation of the rational or irrational
nature of art is very fuzzy.
In the last two dialogues in account
Plato - being more mature philosophically - does not use the divine element to
explain human creativity or drives in general. Instead he tries to generalize
his principles and provide complete human-centered explanations of everything.
The Platonic philosophy overstates
and overemphasizes the rational element of the human nature. Emotion and more
specifically emotional pleasure detached from reason has little or no place in
his theories. This creates a major barrier that blocks the way to a clear
understanding of Art; a barrier that Plato never really passed. Although Plato
can be considered an artist himself he finally fails to provide a framework of
thought about art that is solid.
1 Ion is written in the “Socratic
period” of Plato while “Phaedrus” and “Symposium on his
period of maturity.
2 “No one can fail to see that you
speak of Homer without any art or knowledge”, “rules of art”.
3 I must make clear here that by the
term “Plato’s theory of Art” I mean his theory on what is
generally considered Art today.
4 “The gift which you possess of
speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an
inspiration; there is a divinity moving you”
5 “so the lyric poets are not in
their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains”.
6 “these beautiful poems are not
human, or the work of man, but divine and the work of God;”.
7 Philosophy aims at knowledge while Art
not necessarily.
1 “I have made and paid my
recantation, as well and as fairly as I could; more especially in the matter of
the poetical figures which I was compelled to use”.
2 The Sensible and the Intelligible.
3 “the beauty of the beloved meets
her eye and she receives the sensible warm motion of particles which flow
towards her, therefore called emotion”.
4 Although this seems a quite reasonable
conclusion, it is never clearly mentioned by Plato.
5 “all other wisdom such as that of
arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar”.
6 At some point Plato theorizes that a
painting of a bed is less “real” than an actual bed since it is
merely a picture of it . To him that means that Painting is less
“virtuous” than Carpentry.
7 At this point he probably realizes
that his previous understanding of art was kind of shallow. This kind of
radical changes in opinion show that there was a great deal of difficulty by
Plato to conceive a proper definition or description of art.
8 Becoming.
9 “All creation or passage of
non-being into being is poetry or making, and the processes of all art are
creative”.
10 “And what are these conceptions?
- wisdom and virtue in general. And such creators are poets and all artists who
are deserving of the name inventor.”.
11 For Plato beauty is another
“Form” which is fully realized in the world of
“Ideas”.
12 “and at last the vision is
revealed to him of a single science, which is the science of beauty
everywhere.”.
No comments:
Post a Comment