In class today, we began discussing Plato's view of art as it fits in his ideal society. His approach to art begins with the world of Forms in which the ideal, eternal, immaculate idea of an object lies (in the eyes of the gods). Take a bed, for example. The Form of a bed is non-changing and perfect - the "truth" of what the bed truly is. A step down from that would be the artisan's construction of a real bed, which is just a mere reflection of what he or she sees the Forms as. Finally, a painter's interpretation of the artisan's bed is only an imitation of what he sees - it is twice removed from the world of Forms and, therefore, twice removed from the Truth.
Because, in Plato's view, an artist is so removed from the truth, he should not be allowed in Plato's ideal society. The truth should be honored most of all. If an artist is allowed into society, his ideals would be infused into society and corrupt once-rational people into irrational, truth-fearing people. In the text, he writes as Socrates, "He'll [the artist] go on imitating, even though he doesn't know the good or bad qualities of anything, but what he'll imitate, it seems, is what appears fine or beautiful to the majority of the people who know nothing" (19). Art appeals to the inferior part of the soul that sympathizes with emotion instead of reason, because it is in our human nature to naturally hunger for these things. In Plato's view, this cannot be controlled, but the overindulgence in such emotional hedonism weakens us as humans and makes us unrealistic, irrational, "wretched" beings, which drives us away from ultimate happiness.
My question is, "Throughout the text's excerpt of the Republic, there is obvious contempt for artists through the eyes of Socrates. Doesn't this give him a subjective outlook on who should be entered into his society? Therefore, how can one be certain that what he says is for the best?"
Monday, February 8, 2010
Response #3.
In Skyla's blog, she asks, "What aspect of nature (whether it be a tree, flowers, the sky) do you find most appealing to view as a piece of art work and why?"
I've always loved the way trees turn out when interpreted as art, because it's so varied in how artists interpret them and it's always interesting to see what comes from the artists' minds. Trees, to me, have always been a symbol of both spirituality and the natural journey through life, i.e., we have roots in our families and where we grew up, but as we grow, we branch out and touch other people's lives until everything becomes an interlocking community of us and our lives and our emotions and feelings. It's a really symbolic, powerful image and when it's displayed in art, the meanings can be overwhelmingly beautiful.
My question is, "Why, in Plato's time, was the act of succumbing to grief seen as a 'womanish' thing to do, and why was it shameful for men to do if grief is a part of human nature?"
I've always loved the way trees turn out when interpreted as art, because it's so varied in how artists interpret them and it's always interesting to see what comes from the artists' minds. Trees, to me, have always been a symbol of both spirituality and the natural journey through life, i.e., we have roots in our families and where we grew up, but as we grow, we branch out and touch other people's lives until everything becomes an interlocking community of us and our lives and our emotions and feelings. It's a really symbolic, powerful image and when it's displayed in art, the meanings can be overwhelmingly beautiful.
My question is, "Why, in Plato's time, was the act of succumbing to grief seen as a 'womanish' thing to do, and why was it shameful for men to do if grief is a part of human nature?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)