Herein lies the questions for the week 2 of blogging.
A prima facie reading of Republic lends itself to the interpretation that Plato was a severe advocate for the censure of art. Plato argues that poetry (poesis: greek for 'making') is an imitation of an imitation and thus thrice removed from the realm of truth. A memetic theory of art does not require his intricate metaphysical system, and so I shall not address that here. Also vital to his seeming condemnation of art is that art appeals to the emotional aspect of the human psyche, one in constant tension and struggle with the rational. Rationality is of utmost importance to Plato, and as such any entreaty to the emotional is seen as dangerous. Johnston argues in his lecture that a closer examination will beget a more complicated and sensitive image of Plato and his view. Johnston maintains that Plato was well aware of art's potency and how it affected even him. Plato uses art often in Republic, and even Republic itself is a work of fiction. Johnston argues that this is indicative of Plato's acceptance that art may indeed be useful for the dissemination of truth and virtue. It strikes me though, that anything Plato has said via his poesis could have as easily been articulated absent fiction. As students and teachers we do not resort to fiction to articulate the meaning behind the allegory of the cave nor Plato's reasoning of Republic. So while Plato did use art, he did not need to. Plato was well aware that he did not live in his ideal city; art may have been currently useful, if still not useful in the ideal city where all citizens could grasp nonfictional articulations of truth and virtue.
What is your interpretation of Plato's view of art? Be sure to mention its relationship with truth and its potential utility in the dissemination thereof. Once you have done this, agree or disagree with Plato and explain why.
Fictions do present actions and events that did not happen; in this way Plato is correct about their divorce from truth. Is he, however, correct that because of this, art and poetry do not, and cannot, depict truth?
After spending the last week talking about Plato, his interpretation of art, and the theory of imitation of imitation I have been able to conclude my own interpretation of his findings. My personal understanding of Imitation of Imitation is that it is the taking of a perfect unchanging ideal in a very spiritual almost godly world where ideas are at their purest point, and attempting to manifest it into the physical/metaphysical world into a form that will never be as pure as it had been prior to this manifestation. This theory then connected to the world specifically of visual art gave me a completely different outlook on what art actually is. As someone that takes part in such visual arts such as drawing and painting, I can agree in some way that Plato’s theory is correct. I always assumed it was a perfectionism I had with my art but everything I’ve ever drawn or painted has never come out exactly how I wished it would, but if I apply Plato’s theory to my art, the reason why I feel as though nothing ever comes out exactly the way its suppose to could be because I am taking a pure and perfect ideal and trying to manifest it onto my canvas or drawing paper. In this case there is no way that I could ever replicate that perfect ideal, so it would be considered an imitation of imitation. My only struggle with Plato’s theory is how it affects nature. Nature untouched is the purest thing I believe we have in our physical world; I question whether it could be considered a pure ideal in our own physical world?
ReplyDeleteI responded to your question on my blog.
ReplyDeletePlato's view of art, as we've discussed in class, is faulty at best, yet extremely intellectually intriguing. I personally don't agree with his views, being an artist myself and therefore very appreciative of unique, original works. Putting my discriminations aside, I would have to say that Plato's theory is a model of steps. As Jacob mentioned, poetry - one of the forms of art Plato mentions often in The Republic - is "thrice removed" from the realm of truth. The realm of truth, in this situation, is what we've learned to affectionately call the world of forms. Forms, in Plato's model, are the gods' creative ideas that become the blueprints of everything physical on the Earth. One main barrier between the world of forms and the Earth is that everything in the world of forms is true - perfect, eternal, and true. On Earth, however, everything is physically existing, therefore not eternal nor perfect. Truth also doesn't exist on Earth, in Plato's argument, however truth is used in place of the word "original". This is because Plato believes everything is modeled after the gods' forms, and therefore imitates its form. Art, however, is further removed from the world of forms because art - like poetry and visual art - imitates something that exists on Earth, which happens to imitate its own form. This is why Plato says art is the imitation of the imitation. In regards to what Jacob called "its [art's] potential dissemination in the utility thereof", I think Plato has an obscured vision of art. Although we've already concluded that Plato was very backstabbing to his own opinions between The Republic and The Symposium, I still think he was too carried away to place artists in a further place from truth than craftspersons, and I'm sure today's society would agree with me. Art is a staple for learning and enhancing creativity, and arguably holds more intellectual value than anything produced by a craftsperson.
ReplyDeleteEnough rambling from me, I'd like to hear from my peers; Which do you think is more intellectually stimulating and valuable; the works of a craftsperson or the works of an artist?
Also, Carlys14, I am responding to your question on my blog
ReplyDeleteI responded to one of your questions.
ReplyDelete