Plato is convinced that “the arts” form
a natural grouping and that what they all share a common Form (that which all and only Arts have in
common by virtue of which we recognize each to be an art and by virtue of which
each is an art.
Not so much an assumption, as the consequence of
his Metaphysical
Theory of Forms.
We rightly gather them together linguistically
because of a metaphysical reality.
As 20th Century Formalist Clive Bell
put is: "either all works of visual art have some common quality, or when
we speak of 'works of art' we gibber."
1. Mimetic Theory of Art‑
Think “Mime.”
Art is a mimicking of nature.
Paintings imitate visual scenes;
Sculptures imitate three dimensional objects
Drama imitates human behavior
Music was always difficult for this theory to
account for. Music doesn’t seem to be
imitating anything, at least on the face of it.
Marsilio Ficino, a Renaissance Neo-Platonist suggested
that it was the mimicking or representation of the Divine Geometry which orders
the movement of the celestial spheres;
To accept this theory of Art would seem to imply
that good art accurately imitates nature of bad art does not faithfully imitate
nature. Faithfulness to reality becomes
an evaluative criterion.
Plato on Mimetic Art:
Plato thought art was essentially was mimetic. But if art is merely a “copy” of nature, then
it is worthless, he claims. But he
presumes that mimetic art needs to serve some useful purpose or at very least
not be harmful if it is to be supported or even tolerated:
An Ancient Quarrel
“there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy
and poetry; of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of 'the yelping
hound howling at her lord,' or of one 'mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and
'the mob of sages circumventing Zeus,' and the 'subtle thinkers who are beggars
after all;
Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet
friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title
to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her --we are
very conscious of her charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth.
If her defense fails, then, my dear friend, like
other persons who are enamored of something, but put a restraint upon
themselves when they think their desires are opposed to their interests, so too
must we after the manner of lovers give her up, though not without a struggle.”[1]
In Book X of the Republic, Plato concludes
that in fact mimetic art does NOT serve some useful purpose. He further believed that not only did art
have no positive value, it had negative values and was teaching dangerous things. His criticism of art cover a spectrum of
perspectives:
(Mimetic) Art is Useless: Art was useless.
It serves no valuable purpose in society. As a mere "False Copy of Nature" it
adds nothing our knowledge or understanding of the world nor does it perform
any useful service to society. The same
value could be added by simply by holding up a mirror to the world. Note that simply holding up a mirror would
be far less costly and demand fewer resources then the "production of
art," but would have the same approximate value. According to this line of thought, if art was
basically an imitation of nature and it was "costly" one at that, it
should be worth the time and money we put into it. But it is not, concluded Plato. It was useless.
Further, art was mainly concerned with sensual
pleasure. Art seems directed entirely
towards pleasing the senses and ignoring the mind, intellect, or concepts. According to Platonic Mind/Body Dualism, our
senses/body are the least valuable, least permanent, least "real"
aspects of our personalities. According
to Plato, our senses are also incapable of providing us with genuine knowledge
since they only gather information from an ever changing physical world and not
the immaterial forces which guide, direct and sustain it (the Forms).
As such our senses, and consequently sensuous
art, are "metaphysically" and “epistemologically” misguided since
they are directed towards illusion and not "reality." Art serves to perpetuate and sustain this
misdirection, keeping us ignorant of truth, justice, goodness and
"real" beauty.
Metaphysical:
Recall Plato’s “Realm or Being” and “Realm of
Becoming.” The world of particular
objects is a reflection or imperfect copy of the timeless and eternal
forms. Particular objects of
“ontologically dependent” on the form (of which they are copies) and therefore
less “real.” Well then, pictures are
merely copies of the copies and thus “thrice removed from the throne of truth.”[2] Paintings are even “less real” then the
things they depict since that are ontologically dependent on the things to
which they refer and not the other way around.
Epistemological:
(See “Metaphysically and epistemologically misguided
above, but also) Art seems wholly
unconcerned with truth of any kind.
Indeed the whole point seems to be to deceive you. Not only are the stories dramatists tell
usually false, but they are no worse and no better as dramas if they were true.
Hence truth seems to be entirely beside the point. Also, mimetic art seems to be most successful
when it deceived.[3] Remember, Plato did not think real knowledge
came to us via our senses. But this was
all art appealed to. It was literally
concerned only with appearances: surfaces and what is superficial.
Moral:
Art was unconcerned with morality, sometimes even
teaching immoral lessons. Plato could
cite The
Iliad as an example in which Achilles refuses to fight for his country
out of spite. This story is told even
though the poem glorifies Achilles as a hero.
Plato worries that such art would encourage immorality in the citizens
of this state. People might uncritically
accept and admire immoral, vicious traits when they are attractively packaged
by skilled artists (distinction between truth and illusion/ physicians and
cooks/ beauty and glamour.) Like a
skilled chef, artists are only interested in pleasing the palate, even if it
poisons the diner. Since (mimetic) art
is institutionally divorced from truth, goodness or any concern with 'real'
beauty, it creates an environment of superficial "flavors" where all
sorts of atrocities can be made to seem a tempting confection.
Psychological:
Art was psychologically de-stabilizing. Human existence is, in great part, a struggle
to master the emotions and sensual urges by using reason and intellect
according to Plato. Therefore art was
dangerous and counterproductive to this end since it appeals not to reason and
intellect, but to the psychological forces which constantly try to over-through
reason, namely passion and emotion.
Plato suggest that art “feeds and waters the passions instead of drying
them up; she lets them rule, although they out to be controlled if mankind are
ever to increase in happiness and virtue.”
(The Republic 602)
Political:
Art was politically dangerous, a threat to the
common good. Similar to the point made
earlier, Plato worried that strong art which appeals to emotions stirs up
negative emotions which we are trying to control. But this is more than just a problem for the
individual. A people with a history of
"mania" would certainly view strong, emotion-stirring art as a threat
to the good of state/community. It was,
therefore, correctly the concern of government. Remember, Greece had suffered from waves of
mania, episodes of mass, irrational, emotional, destructive behavior. The ecstatic, and often violent and
destructive, dances of the Maenads may have been episodes of mass hysteria,
triggered perhaps by disease and pent up frustration by women living in a
male-dominate society. On at least one occasion these dances were banned and an
effort was made to chancel the energy into something else such as poetry
reading contests.
With this as precedent, it is not surprising that
Plato was deeply concerned about dramatic arts (the roots of which were
festivals to Dionysus) which intentionally caused people to cry and weep
presumably without any real reason.
(see “The Paradox of Fiction”).
This is similar to the criticism raised by some today of the violence
and sex in the media. Like Plato, they
argue that violence and sex in the media cause us to be a more violent,
sexually obsessed culture. Therefore, it
affects not just the people who consume the violent images, but the entire
community of which they are a part.
Plato recommends driving artists from the city,
but recognized that artists were the creators of great beauty (in the REPUBLIC). He
equates creativity with some sort of divine madness since artists themselves could
not explain beauty nor how they came to consistently produce beautiful things.
Thus the creation of art along with its appreciation could not be seen as a cognitive
process since, though on some level conceptual, does not seem to be consciously mediated by concepts.
Side note: Romantics agree with Plato that
artists can't give reasons for what they do.
Thus Plato thought art was essentially was
mimetic, and being so, that it had no positive value, but was pernicious (had
negative values, teaching dangerous things).
Note: Dance (at
least the Public Ceremonial Procession-Type dance) was seen as neither mimetic
nor as worthless by Plato. Indeed, for
the very reason Plato thought that dance was not really art, he thought that is
was a valuable practice in the good state.
In such dance people participated in the communal organism, each finding
and knowing and doing their vital part.
As such this was not seen as in imitation of public/social order and
harmony, it was rather a manifestation of it.
However, as dance did not share in the condemnation of her sister arts,
neither did she share in the rehabilitation of art’s reputation by art’s later
champions.
However, we must be careful here. Arthur Danto reminds us, "Plato did not
precisely propose that art was mimesis, but that mimetic art was
pernicious." When Art is mainly
concerned with sensual pleasure it becomes superficial and dispensable, or as
Plato cautioned, something more toxic.
And this criticism is actually quite modern-sounding. Many artists working today activity reject
"realism" or representation entirely for similar reasons.
Humankind
lingers unregenerately in Plato’s cave, still reveling, its age old habit, in
mere images of truth. (Susan Sontag)
It must be
admitted that if imitation is the sole purpose of the graphic arts, it is
surprising that the works of such arts are ever looked upon as more than
curiosities, or ingenious toys, are ever taken seriously by grown-up people.
(Roger Fry)
Note: But do we beg
the question against the arts by looking exclusively for propositional
knowledge (see renderings of molecules).
Aristotle’s Critical Responses
Aristotle also believed that Arts was essentially mimetic,
but claimed that art has a positive value and defended art against Plato’s
charged.
Aristotle was Plato's most famous student and
greatest critic. While disagreeing with
much else that Plato said, Aristotle agreed
that art was essentially an imitation of nature. But, he maintained, art was not useless nor
dangerous.
First, and crucial to Aristotle's defense of art
is his rejection
of Plato's dualism and embrace of Empiricism. Man is not an "embodied" intellect,
longing for the spiritual release of death, but rather and animal with, among
all the our other natural animalistic faculties, the ability to use
reason. Aristotle also reject Plato’s
“Rationalism” with its rejection of empirical investigations. Instead he embraces Empiricism. We must study actual humans empirically as we
would study other animals to discover what their "nature" is. Among the species, who are the thriving and
successful members and what activities do they engage in? This is how to determine what is and is not
appropriate for a human to do and for human societies.
(Mimetic) Art is Useless: Art
was useless.
Art is not useless; it is natural:
Claims that it is natural for human beings to
imitate. Any human society which is
healthy will be a society where there is imitative art. Nothing is more natural than for children to
pretend. (Note: the inability or lack of
desire to engage in spontaneous games of pretend is a symptom of developmental
disability- perhaps Autism.) Nothing is more natural than for human beings to
create using their imagination. We could
never eliminate art from healthy human society according to Aristotle. Furthermore, since art is imitation, it is an
imaginative use of concepts; at its heart, art is
"conceptual," "intellectual."
Art production and training is a necessary part
of any education since it uses and encourages the imaginative manipulation of ideas.
Further Mimesis is NOT merely
copying particulars in nature, but the representation of ideals. This too requires the intellectual act of
abstracting the essential nature from a group of particulars.
Art is defined by Aristotle as the realization in external form of a true
idea, and is generated out of the natural pleasure humans take in their
innate ability to imitate and imagine as well as the pleasure humans feel in
recognizing likenesses. Contrary to Plato, Aristotle claims that art is not
merely “copying.” Rather, in art, the artist idealizes nature and
compensates for its deficiencies. It is
an intellectual (cognitive) process where the artist seeks to make manifest the
universal type in the individual phenomenon.
Metaphysical:
Rejects the dualism of Plato and the notion that
the world of objects is “less real” than the forms the objects possess.
Epistemological:
Art is not entirely deceptive according to
Aristotle because artists must accurately
portray reality to be successful.
Drama must accurately portray psychological
reality in order for characters to be believable and their actions
understandable. Convincing and powerful
drama is convincing and powerful
because it reveals some truth of
human nature. It teaches effectively and
it teaches the truth.
Also, Aristotle introduces the concept of " Organic Unity."
Organic Unity: refers to the quality a work of art or an
organism has when each of the parts
contribute to the overall success of the whole.
Excellent, successful works of art have this quality.
As in nature, there is a "unity in
difference." In order for a work of
art to be successful each element in the work must contribute to the overall
success of the work; there must be a "unity among the parts." This is the first time in western aesthetics
that a formal characteristic is
offered as a value principle. Aristotle believes that it follows from a
mimetic reading of nature; just as in biological organisms each part
contributes to the overall health and well‑being of the creature, so too
in works of art each element must contribute to the thematic development. This is another way in which works of art
reflects or imitates reality.
For reasons stated above, Aristotle did not believe
that art was solely concerned with the sensual pleasures, but rather was/should
be an intellectual, conceptual affair.
Furthermore, Aristotle did not believe that the mind was one thing and
the body was something else. Aristotle
did not suffer from the sort of "Mind/Body Dualism" that Plato did
and therefore Aristotle did not have the bias against physical pleasures that
Plato did. The only way of acquiring
knowledge at all, according to Aristotle, was through the senses and so
developing, exercising and sharpening those senses through art was a healthy
thing to do.
Moral:
Aristotle believed that drama was an excellent
way of teaching morality. In a Greek Tragedy the main character always
comes to a bad end because of a character flaw. Thus Greek Tragedies teach moral truths: When
trying to understand how tragedies achieve their peculiar effect (fear &
pathos), he notes the psychology and morality on which they must be based. The main character must not be totally evil
(or else we would not identify with him and feel happy when he met his
comeuppance) nor must he be totally good (or else we would find his misfortune
repugnant). Instead the main character
must be basically good, but flawed and it is this flaw that is his
undoing. Pathos is achieved because while we commiserate with the fallen
hero, we nevertheless understand that the outcome was inevitable and
proper. The "moral truth" that
all tragedies teach is that immoral actions or character flaws lead one to a
tragic ending. In doing so, drama
reinforces morality and the ultimately rational structure of the universe
rather than challenging it.
Bear in mind that Aristotle
believed that drama imitated not only "events," but actions. As such they imitated intentions,
psychological forces and the unseen "inner life" of persons. The art of dramatic poetry, though it is an imitation of human actions,
it is not a mere “chronicle” of events (history). While (un-philosophical)
history is limited to what has actually happened, poetry depicts things in
their universal character.
"(P)oetry
is more philosophical and more elevated than history" says Aristotle
because “while the latter records what did happen, the former reveals what
should happen and what must happen” according to the laws of the universe and
human psychology.[4]
Fiction does not teach us history, but because art imitates human
actions, good art has to depict character,
character traits and personality. These
latter things are real so it teaches us moral, psychological lessons; what it
is imitating is real and applicable to our lives. We can learn a lot from these false stories
because though they are false in one sense, they are in another sense “true.”
Note: I want to make a further point here. It also displays and transmits this knowledge
in an unique way. The audience must
understand the universals at work in the drama to be carried away by the drama,
and in that sense they must internalize
the knowledge of human nature and morality utilized by the playwright. This is different from the sort of “book”
knowledge one might get from a psyche text.
Psychological:
Aristotle believed that
strong art did stir up negative emotions but, he also believed that these
negative emotions were then purged in an harmless, healthy way. This was his doctrine of "catharsis".
Catharsis: refers to a cleansing or purification that one achieves
from art that invokes strong emotional responses.[5]
Therefore strong art was
neither psychologically de-stabilizing nor politically destructive, but actually
a therapeutic part of the healthy life of not only the individually, but of the
nation. Again this is similar to
arguments made today in defense of graphically sexual or violent art or even of
pornography or of violence on television.
Defenders sometimes claim that we are naturally sexual and naturally
violent. Images of depicted sex and
violence allow us to purge these otherwise negative and potentially destructive
emotions and a harmless way. It is odd
that a debate which started over 2000 years ago between Aristotle and Plato has
still yet to be resolved. Aristotle says that art has a positive value.
Political:
Since art was not psychologically destabilizing
it did not pose political threat that Plato thought it did. But more than that, Aristotle argued that
artistic education was the responsibility of the State.
Aristotle on Artistic Education:
“Children should
during their earliest years be carefully protected from all injurious
associations, and be introduced to such amusements as will prepare them for the
serious duties of life. Their literary education should begin in their seventh
year, and continue to their twenty-first year. This period is divided into two
courses of training, one from age seven to puberty, and the other from puberty
to age twenty-one. Such education should not be left to private enterprise, but
should be undertaken by the state. There are four main branches of education:
reading and writing, Gymnastics, music, and painting. They should not be
studied to achieve a specific aim, but in the liberal spirit which creates true
freemen. Thus, for example, gymnastics should not be pursued by itself
exclusively, or it will result in a harsh savage type of character. Painting
must not be studied merely to prevent people from being cheated in pictures,
but to make them attend to physical beauty. Music must not be studied merely
for amusement, but for the moral influence which it exerts on the feelings.
Indeed all true education is, as Plato saw, a training of our sympathies so that
we may love and hate in a right manner.”
Consequences for Dance
Note: He unwittingly set up two
functions for dance-as-art to fulfill; to imitate human
actions (drama/ literature) and to imitate "organic unity" (music,
architecture). At the earliest this
shows why dance inherited a place subordinate to other arts since, in a sense,
these other four could do everything that dance could do as art, but
better.
Aristotle’s defense of Art was accepted for
generations of artists, philosophers, aestheticians, and art critics. Along with his defense they bought into his
account of Art, that art is imitation, and that faithfulness to reality was
goal and the standard of evaluation of art.
Note that the standard for excellence was art's
relation to something external to art, the "real world." Further all seemed to agree that art had to
"sing for its supper," that is, that art had to perform some socially
productive work (education, moral instruction) in order to justify the amount
of time, money and other resources that we typically spend on it. They accept with Plato that if art cannot
demonstrate its usefulness then is does not deserve our support or attention.
Key to the Rehabilitation of Mimetic Art is the
rejection of the notions that Mimesis is “Mirroring.”
Rejections “Mimesis = Mirroring Nature”
–
Mimesis ≠ Imitation
(Mirroring)
–
More like:
•
Rendering
•
Depicting
•
Construing
•
Idealizing
•
Representing
NB: Unlike mirroring, these are acts of
intellect.
•
Poetry is more
Philosophical than History
–
"poetry is something
more philosophic and of graver import than history (He means a mere chronicle
of events here.), since its statements are of the nature rather of universals,
whereas those of history are singulars."
–
Poetry describes "not the thing that has happened" as
Aristotle imagines history does "but a kind of thing that might happen,
i.e. what is possible as being probable
or necessary"
–
Thus a mere “mirror” of
history is NOT art. Art is
necessarily conceptual/cognitive distillation of particulars.
After Aristotle:
The Mimetic Theory of Art was accepted by for
generations by artists, philosophers, aestheticians, and art critics; that to
say they believed that art was the faithful imitation of natural ideals.
In mimetic theory, the main criterion for the evaluation
of art was how closely the work imitated real life. The standard for excellence
was art's relation to something external to art, the "real world" or
at least, the "real world idealized." Now this criterion implies
that there is are objective standards of realistic representation.
Further the adherents of the view also presumed
that art had to "sing for it's supper," that is, that art had to
perform some productive work (moral, religious, educational, social) in order
to justify the amount of time, money and other resources that we typically
spend on it.
Questions:
These questions boil down to three fundamental
ones:
(1) Is representation (or, more narrowly,
imitation) adequate to define the essence of art?
(2) What would be an adequate explanation of
representation? (For example, is Plato's concept of imitation adequate?)
(3) What value would the arts have if the
mimetic theory were correct.
•
[1] Plato’s Republic Book X
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#2H_4_0008
[2] “The tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other
imitators, is thrice removed from the throne of truth.” The Republic Book X
[3] Parrhasius was a celebrated Greek painter from Ephesus who had a
contest with his rival Zeuxis to see who was the superior artist. Zeuxis, it is said, painted some grapes so
naturalistically that birds came to peck at them. This seemed to assure him
victory, however, when called on Parrhasius to draw back the curtain covering
Parrhassius’s painting he discovered that it was in truth only a painted
curtain. Zeuxis conceded the contest: he had deceived the birds, but Parrhasius
had deceived him
[4] Dramatic representations come in two varieties; Comedy and
Tragedy. Such imitations may represent
people either as better or as worse than people usually are, or it may neither
go beyond nor fall below the average standard. Comedy is the imitation of the
worse examples of humanity, understood however not in the sense of absolute
badness, but only in so far as what is low and ignoble enters into what is
laughable and comic.
Tragedy, on the other hand, is the representation of a serious or
meaningful, rounded or finished, and more or less extended or far-reaching
action -- a representation which is effected by action and not mere narration.
It is fitted by portraying events which excite fear and pity in the mind of the
observer to purify or purge these feelings and extend and regulate their
sympathy. It is thus a homeopathic curing of the passions. Insofar as art in
general universalizes particular events, tragedy, in depicting passionate and
critical situations, takes the observer outside the selfish and individual
standpoint, and views them in connection with the general lot of human beings.
This is similar to Aristotle's explanation of the use of orgiastic music in the
worship of Bacchas and other deities: it affords an outlet for religious fervor
and thus steadies one's religious sentiments.
[5] While Aristotle introduces the concept of catharsis, he does not
really elaborate on it very much. It is
not entirely clear what he meant. He may
have meant that strong, emotional art provides a harmless outlet for strong,
negative emotions that would otherwise be destructive to the individual
(perhaps the most popular interpretation currently), or he may have meant that
it substitutes for them or that it transforms them.
3 views about what he had in mind:
1. purgation: (to get rid of the emotions of pity
and fear)
2. purification: (not actually purged, but
restructured, transmuted and “rationalized” when placed in relation to beliefs
and other cognitive states.)
3. pleasure: (the arousal of fictional pity or
fear gives pleasure that actual pity and fear does not: "horror movie
model”).