4 Different Theories of Art: Plus some others

Organic Unity

Catharsis

Consequences for Dance

1. Mimetic Theory of Art:

Think “Mime.”

Art is a mimicking of nature.

Probably the Oldest Account of “Art” in Western Though
From the ancients until the 1700 accepted the view of art.
Art is an imitation (later a representation) 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.

“But now consider [596c] what name you would give to this craftsman.” “

What one?” “

Him who makes all the things that all handicraftsmen severally produce.”

“A truly clever and wondrous man you tell of.”

“Ah, but wait, and you will say so indeed, for this same handicraftsman is not only able to make all implements, but he produces all plants and animals, including himself, and thereto earth and heaven and the gods and all things in heaven and in Hades under the earth.”

“A most marvellous sophist,“ [596d] he said. “

Are you incredulous?” said I. “Tell me, do you deny altogether the possibility of such a craftsman, or do you admit that in a sense there could be such a creator of all these things, and in another sense not? Or do you not perceive that you yourself would be able to make all these things in a way?”

“And in what way, I ask you,” he said.

“There is no difficulty,” said I, “but it is something that the craftsman can make everywhere and quickly. You could do it most quickly if you should choose to take a mirror and carry it about everywhere. [596e] You will speedily produce the sun and all the things in the sky, and speedily the earth and yourself and the other animals and implements and plants and all the objects of which we just now spoke.”

“Yes,” he said, “the appearance of them, but not the reality and the truth.”

“Excellent,” said I, “and you come to the aid of the argument opportunely. For I take it that the painter too belongs to this class of producers, does he not?”

“Of course.” “

But you will say, I suppose, that his creations are not real and true. And yet, after a fashion, the painter too makes a couch, does he not?”

“Yes,” he said, “the appearance of one, he too.”

Republic Book X

Metaphysical Criticism:

Recall Plato’s “Realm or Being” and “Realm of Becoming” distinction. 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 Criticism:

Mimetic 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.

Mimetic 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 would be no worse and no better as dramas if they were true. Hence truth seems to be entirely beside the point. Also, mimetic are seems to be most successful when it deceived.[3] Remember, Plato did not think real knowledge came to us via our senses. But the senses, it would seem, is all that mimetic art appeals to. It is literally concerned only with appearances: surfaces and what is superficial.

Ethical Criticism:

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 tempting confections.

Psychological Criticism:

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 suggests that art “feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.” (The Republic 602)

Political Criticism:

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. As a people with a history of mass "mania" they would/should 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-dominated 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 (origins og Greek tragedies).

With this as precedent, it is not surprising that Plato was deeply concerned about dramatic arts, perhaps not surprisingly 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 to the violence and sex in the media, video games, etc.. 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 that very reason, Plato thought that dance was not really art. He thought that it 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.

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’s Critical Responses

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. 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. Thus is represent in interior of humans as well as their obvert behavior. 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 and 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 historically false in once sense, they are in another sense “true.”

Note: I want to make a further point here. Drama 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, that is, 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, etc.) 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.

[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 reveal 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] Despite the attention Catharsis now receives, Aristotle himself did not say much about it. Consequently it is not clear whether he meant that strong, emotional art provides a harmless outlet for strong, negative emotions that would otherwise be destructive to the individual and/or society, or whether he meant that it substitutes for them or that it transforms them. The most popular interpretation is the former.