Plato looked down on art as mere imitation, not even useful imitation, but as a copy of a copy. It is merely something that is meant to have an emotional impact, and emotions are things looked down upon. As Plato states, "We pride ourselves if we are able to keep quiet and master our grief, for we think that this is the manly thing to do and that the behavior we praised before (i.e. the loud lamentations of characters in poetry and plays) is womanish."
Here is where Plato goes wrong. It is quite clear that Plato views men as "strong," in complete control of their emotions, and never letting them show, for to show emotion is a "womanish" thing to do. Inherent sexism aside, I beg the question: if "men" are not supposed to show their emotions... why do they have them in the first place?
The answer is simple: men, as well as women, are meant to SHOW their emotions. If we FEEL this emotion, it necessarily comes with the obligation to let the emotion show. Art's power comes from that it is the essence of emotion, captured in time. It may be a "mere imitation of an imitation of the true form," but it is no less valuable. If the bed is an imitation that is praised for its utility, then a painting of a bed must be praised for it's representation, for capturing the bed, and the emotions that are inextricably linked to it.
Is Plato right to call Art "mere imitation?" I believe so. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You agree with Plato in your blog... however you also claim that men and women are meant to show emotion. Im slightly confused.
Is art justifiably still an imitiation if its showing an emotion even if it is not useful to the human world?
I agree with Plato's definition of art. I DON'T, however, agree with his conclusions about it.
Art is an imitation, but it serves a purpose. It captures emotion in such a way that any observer can look at it and attach their own thoughts and feelings to it, and to that end, it is useful, I dare say VITAL, to the whole human.
Are you saying that an artist "captures" the emotion of themselves? Of the subject/sitter?
Are you saying that art elucidates an artist's emotions, while the viewer autonomously rejects or accepts these emotions? When we think of capture, we think of something being siezed, imprisoned. A work should be free to express, to carry on a conversation through the ages, and to interpret/be interpreted. An artist may have been feeling a certain way when they created the work, but does that mean they "captured" their emotions? Art could also be an addition/extension of emotions and not limited to, or enslaved by them. For example, Beethoven wrote some of his cheeriest music while he was miserable. What he was feeling, and what he projected/wrote was something entirely different-almost extreme opposites. And this in turn, as with art, is open to infinite iterpretations by the listner/viewer. When you say art is "VITAL" to us as humans, I think you are absolutely right.
What if people were not meant to feel emotions? More or less put on the earth to complete one task and complete that one task and not think about what they were doing without question. If individuals have no feelings or emotions, ideally, nothing can go wrong; utopia.
I think we most likely wouldn't have emotions if we were not "meant to feel." We should explore what one task would be so important, that whoever put us here "on the earth" would entrust us to complete. The Utopia you describe sounds frightening, like an endless landscape of factories pumping out useless product. I offer a different perspective of Utopia, one filled with love, hope, fear, concern, joy-these are just a few of the possiblities emotions offer us and without them I think the world would be a pretty dull place.
Post a Comment