Reviewing the Arts – Summer 07

11 responses so far ↓

• 1    Gabriel // May 23, 2007 at 8:15 pm

  While reading Plato’s thoughts, I found that most of them completely conflict with my own, or mostly any other modern opinion on the issue. But Plato and Socreties were from the medival era and at this time mankind was still trying to define itself. Plato felt that the arts were a waste of time and diverted us from what was really important which was thought, intellect, and logic. In a sense I feel that is opinions were somwhat contradictive since thought and logic all are intertwined within the arts, and all lead back to the arts as an expressive outlit.

  In his conversation, Plato de-values art as being an imitation of what we see hear of feel and labels it as “imitative art”, which in some situations can be true, since this is before serielism, and abstract painting. But in most cases this is not true due to the fact that an artist has his/her own interpretation of what they paint, or produce. On the issue of the table being false but the idea of the table being true, I found to be goofy. But Platos idea makes sense about the painting of the table being an imitition of a real table, I get a little confused though when he says that the table isn’t real. Plato bashes all forms of art but seems to find the most value in poetry because it is a more direct outlit of intelligence, and thought, long as it’s not reciting somone elses.

  Plato see art and music as being somwhat dangerous, because some certain modes emulate differant emotions, some which do not promote free thought or some which may have a negitive influence. His statement about this would be shot down in a second today, but I feel has some truth to it. For example gansta rap, with its “cool” image, and catchy music has caused a lot of the youth to glorify drugs, guns, and having entourages of fluzies. So I can see where Plato is coming from on this issue.

• 2    John // May 24, 2007 at 12:57 pm

  While I disagree with most of Plato’s theories in these readings, I was able to understand his arguements. His ideas on imitative art make sense, but are too simplistic, and a bit elitist. The idea that a painting is just an imitation of a real-life object or thought is true. But to say that it is therefore pointless and “unreal” doesn’t make sense to me. This relies on essentialist notions of human nature, inherint meaning or absolute truth, which I don’t believe in.

  Plato defines three categories of art/artists in which he uses the example of a bed to explain: “Beds, then, are of three kinds, and there are three artists who superintend them: God, the maker of the bed, and the painter.” Up until this point, like I said, this theory made sense. As soon as he started talking about God, his claim lost all credibility. To claim that God creates the true meaning behind things (the bed) and that “his” definition of those things are and will be the only true ones in existence has absolutely no rational explanation or evidential support in my opinion. Since the existence of God, or any “higher being”, cannot be proven, and only holds meaning to some people, it is difficult to take Plato’s theories of art seriously.

• 3    Laura // May 24, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  According to Plato, art is dangerous. Why? Do you believe art can be “dangerous” today? If so, in what ways?
  In Reading Plato’s thoughts on art and what he considered art, I found myself to not agree with him at all. Plato values thoughts over actually creating something, where I find value in each. Unlike Plato I believe Art comes in many forms. Art is the thought a person had to make a table and artists are the people who make tables, who draw tables, who take photographs of them and write songs about them. To say that art is dangerous was where I disagreed with Plato the most.

  Plato thought fondly of art, I believe he thought it to be important and a great skill to have. Yet he wanted to control creativity because he wanted a perfect society ,to steer people away from dangerous thinking. If we were to censor art and control how creative people are because we think it is dangerous, we would never create anything new. You can’t control what people think or what people want to make, it is impossible. Being able to create and produce thoughts is what separates us from animals and wanting to put restrictions on creativity is unreasonable.

  Plato seemed to think art was dangerous because it offended him and others. Art offends people, it has in the past and it always will. Even today one of our Presidential hopefuls Rudy Giuliani was offended by a picture at the Brooklyn Museum where Jesus Christ at the Last Supper is represented by a naked black woman. He tried to get it removed from an ART museum. What offends people and what people aren’t familiar with, or have seen before usually scares them. Some people react like Rudy did and some people try and open their mind and see past the unfamiliarity and the fear. To better expand the thought process which leads to more creative thinking. Art is not dangerous; it’s the idea that we should control people’s creativity that’s dangerous.

• 4    Kaaren // May 24, 2007 at 3:18 pm

  1. Plato criticizes art that is “imitative.” What exactly does Plato mean by “imitative” art? And why is he so critical of it
  Plato believes that art is imitative because it is a representation of an object’s true form. The question and answer between Socrates and Glaucon in Plato’s Republic explains this concept with the example of a bed. God designed the ideal of a bed; He is “the author of this and of all other things” (Section I). A craftsperson will make a functional representation of this bed, the bed that humans will actually sleep on. While this crafstperson is a secondary maker of God’s original plan, the artist is accordingly a tertiary maker. The artist is removed from the forms, or “perfect ideals” (Plato’s Aesthitcs) that constitute all earlthy things. For examply, as is outlined in Plato’s Aesthitcs, the mathematical idea of a circle varies greatly from the human representation of one. Humans cannot recreate a mathematically proportional circle, because the measurements will always be slightly off. Therefore a true circle only exists in an ideal or Godly universe, not on Earth. Accordingly, Plato’s philosophies argue that the same concept would ring true with the artist’s representation of a bed. Since even the crafsperson’s recreation of a bed is not totally accurate or Godly, an artist’s drawing, painting, or other creative expression of a bed will be even farther removed from the original divine design.
  Plato was critical of imitative art because he believed that it led humans away from the real or true forms in the universe, in other words, from the ideal of God. Plato describes artists and poets in Republic; “they copy images of virtue and the like, but the truth they never reach” (Section II). Creative expression could be dangerous because it would lead humans away from focusing their attentions on the otherworldy, leading them into temptation instead of towards God.

• 5    Kaaren // May 24, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  (I don’t really agree with him though; creative expression is a natural human reaction to life on Earth.)

• 6    Elizabeth // May 24, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  Speaking of Plato criticizing “imitative” art, he criticized it because art can never really be imitated perfectly. If an artist imitates another artist’s work, the original meaning is lost on the audience. Even if one succeeds in capturing another artist’s work in thier own piece, it won’t mean a damn thing because it’s not “true.” Plato suggests, “…all poetical imitations are ruinous to the understanding of the hearers, and that the knowledge of their true nature is the only antidote to them.”

  Stealing ideas is okay, we’ve all probably been taught that in some form or another throughout out education. However, even if the idea is the same as another artist’s, the final work will be different because each artist has a unique eye and mind; a signature. Even “stolen idea work” has meaning because it’s not directly imitated. An exact copy of a painting, story, etc. doesn’t have meaning because only the artist who originally created the work knows what he/she was thinking about when the work was created. Bottom line: your work will have no meaning if it is not your own.

• 7    kscott // May 24, 2007 at 4:37 pm

  From Kevin:

  Imitative art in the eyes of Plato is the recreation of an original thought without the true understanding of its origin or make up. Plato’s criticism for the imitative artist arises from control the artist has over the replication of the original. For example the idea of the table, as mentioned, the original idea to have a solid mass to eat on, the craftsman creates a physical rendition of the table, the artist then imitates the craftsman’s rendition in his own likeness. Because the artist has replicated an unusable version of craftsman’s table in his own fashion he controls how the table is viewed, is it a good table is a bad table, because it’s unusable is it a table at all etc. This control that the artist has can also engage a viewers emotion and also create a passion that over powers logical thinking.

  Unfortunately, I don’t agree with Plato’s criticism of the artist but agree on the concept of imitation. An artist imitates all and in that imitation creates a sound or unsound point of view. The art of an artist is made to provoke feeling whether it is among the masses or within him. Emotion does at times take away for logical thinking; but emotions are a natural idea crafted by all.

• 8    Malia // May 24, 2007 at 4:41 pm

  The questions stirred within, as I read throughout Plato’s ideas. I have learned to appreciate art in many fashions. I do agree that Plato has some credibility to the reality of “concept”. Ideas are important, and should be valued. After all, it takes an idea to develop a concept, which leads to inspiration, (or vice versa) and the expression of, “art”. However, I do not agree that the “concept” is the only thing that matters in art. Which leads to my next point that, every individual is unique. Each has been blessed with different gifts and talents, and a sole way in expressing their creative ideas, and inner being. Therefore, each aspect of art is important. It takes an individual’s creative mind to develop a concept or idea, which then, can be interpreted and built upon by other creative individuals who have the talent to make that “concept” a “reality”. After that, another individual may draw inspiration from that “reality”, interpreting it in different medias, and mediums, imposing a new reflection upon that “reality”. This turns into a viscious cycle which can breed art in various manners. So, who is to say that there is only one creative mind to attribute throughout this cycle?

• 9    Nicole // May 24, 2007 at 5:47 pm

  I would like to be able to say that I completely understand what Plato is trying to explain here, but I cannot. Maybe I can’t because he is only representing or “imitating” his concept through the assorted symbols and conventions of language which are an artform unto themselves. Plato is in fact performing a mimesis of knowledge and thought that has been given to him from previous generations, as well as relationships with his contemporaries. His ideas, which he prizes as the ultimate reality, are not entirely different than the artworks he criticizes. It is important to address the idea that Plato is constructing this conversation of Socrates. How does that function as a truth? It seems more like a manipulation, one intended by the artist to subvert historical fact/reality. Plato accuses the artist of trying to imitate reality, but who said that was what they were doing? There is a huge difference between imitating reality and trying to represent the essence of a person, place or thing. An artistic makes formal decisions which contribute to this essence; these decisions can be maed based on ignorance or knowledge of the particular subject matter. This reading go me thinking about the stages of brain development as it relates to children and the learning of basic human maneuvers. Children naturally go through different stages of mimicking, imitation and simulation. They learn and gain knowledge through these operations of attempting to do what adults do. A child cannot learn virtue and happiness without simulating those things from an adult.

• 10    Carolyn // May 24, 2007 at 6:21 pm

  Although I do understand the conceptual ideal of Plato’s theory, I find that it is derogatory and negative. Yes, ideas and conceptual means behind something is crucial in the process of creating a new. However, I think of many ideas that were not spawned from a clean slate and self contemplation, but rather from seeing prior imagery or interacting with art that could then potentially reveal an idea in someone’s mind. An example that comes to mind is architecture. Piet Mondrian’s pieces have subsequently been made into architectual structures by countless architects.
  On page 8, he talks of art being “far removed from truth,” and therefore we as humans are so too removed from truth, and left with no “healthy aim.” The objective of art, in my mind, is to inform, inspire, and move. If that is furthermore developed into a new idea, then that in of itself is a contradiction to Plato. Art has and continues to inspire the minds of individuals to create new concepts and new ideals.

• 11    Michael // May 29, 2007 at 12:20 am

  Plato reveals that when an artist creates a piece of art it becomse an imitation of something that is real. This is not a hard concept to follow once one realizes that objects, such as a bed, are created by an artisan for a user who uses this real object during their life. An artist that does not create beds but creates paintings of beds is therefore making an imitation that is not real. One cannot sleep on a painting of a bed in Plato’s theory which turns out to be entirely true. The painting is not the real object and therefore the artist who makes the painting has no real skill at developing a real bed. The artist wants to represent the bed as being real by creating something that is an imitation. The artist is trying to sway the emotions of the on-looker by creating their paintings or their poetry. Plato found flaws in imitative art because of this reason, that people’s emotions could be turned on by art and this would not be good because emotions to Plato were dangerous. A race of people could become enlightened or devastated by art because of the way that people’s emotions could be turned, according to Plato. This is the way imitation was described by Plato and it is very eccentric compared to how artwork is viewed today.

Leave a Comment