Activity 2.3- Plato's Criticisms

-

 



Plato had three main criticisms of art. First, he argued that art is twice removed from reality because it imitates the physical world, which according to him is itself a copy of what he referred to as true forms. Second, he believed that art had the power to stir up strong emotions in its audience. Finally, because of this emotional influence, he argued that art could have a negative moral impact on individuals and society.

According to Plato, art is a form of mimesis or imitation. He believed “they offered mere imitations of things in our world, which themselves were copies of the Ideas.” (Freeland, ch.2) When we look at art, we are not encountering a truthful representation but a deceptive likeness that takes us further away from true understanding. For Plato, art could mislead the audience into mistaking an illusion for reality and even suggests that artists themselves lack true understanding of what they are depicting.

Plato also argued that art could provoke strong emotions within its audience such as pity and fear. Unlike Aristotle, who claimed the catharsis that happens through these emotions is beneficial, Plato felt that these emotions could lead to a loss of self-control. When art appeals more to emotion than reason, it weakens our moral compass and self-discipline. Because of this, he felt artists should be promoting the moral ideals required for society instead of appealing to the audience’s emotions.

There is truth to the idea that art is a form of imitation. In its history, art has captured portraits, historical events, landscapes and countless other scenes, representations rooted in the physical world. However, to claim that art is only imitation is to overlook what art is and what it has become.

While it is true that art once served as a moral guide for society, especially when churches and other religious institutions were a major patron, art has progressed alongside the world that produces it. Artists are no longer bound by patronage or bound to depict reality as it appears. They are free to interpret and express themselves in ways that are a far cry from replication.

                Even Aristotle and other classical thinkers understood that art has the potential to affect its audience in many varied ways. Imitation may be one of art’s origins, but it is far from its limit. Plato’s definition, which reduces art to an imitation of an imitation, ultimately restricts the essence of artistic creation and takes away one of its most vital qualities- imagination.

 

 

 

Sources

Boston University. (2012, November 12). Defending Plato’s Renunciation of Art. The Nerve Blog. https://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2012/11/12/defending-platos-renunciation-of-art/

Doyle, J. (2023). Week 2- Plato, Aristotle, Warhol. Art Theory and Criticism.

Freeland, C. (2003). Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activity 1.3- Taste and Beauty

-
Image
      HUME Hume believed that taste was subjective. That each person’s individual taste came from a variety of sources. We have all had different personal experiences throughout life, we have different cultures, backgrounds, and education. This leads us to have different preferences, different levels of emotional sensitivity and different prejudices. When we are all so varied, how could we ever hope to have the same preference in what the standard of taste should be. Hume stated that while taste is subjective, he does believe that there are some chosen few of us who have the qualities needed to judge taste. These people possess certain abilities, those being, the ability to notice subtleties, exposure to many works of art, the ability to compare works, impartiality, and a general good sense.   The question arises then of who is judging the judges? Who gets to decide who the chosen few are? A question that arose when I was pondering Hume and his work, is how...
Read more

Activity 1.4- Blood and Bodily Fluids

-
Image
  Bodily fluids have been used in artistic practices for centuries. Some of the earliest known artworks used pigments mixed with animal blood or saliva as binding agents, and blood has been used in a symbolic way in depictions of rituals, sacrifices and war. Civilizations such as the Aztecs even created elaborate vessels to hold the blood collected during sacrifices. While these practices often emerged from necessity or because of religious beliefs, the use of bodily fluids in art has taken on new meanings in recent years. In modern and contemporary art, the use of materials such as blood, spit, urine, and sweat, among others, has become increasingly visible. These substances are often used for their ability to provoke strong reactions. In a world crowded with artists and artworks, unconventional materials like these can serve as a strategy to command attention, spark controversy and shift the narrative toward the work. Artists, especially women artists, have begun using menstrual ...
Read more

Activity 1.5 - Shock in Contemporary Art

-
Image
  For most of the history of art, artists created their works primarily for others. Their work served clear purpose, external to their own creative process. They made works recording historical events, adorning public spaces, completing works for paying patrons, or competing in public exhibitions. These systems were not only cultural but also economic. Creating for audiences, like patrons, was how they made and secured their livelihood. Over time, however, a shift started to emerge. Art increasingly became valued for its own sake, and artists gained more freedom to experiment with what and how they created. They could choose the subjects, explore personal interests and experiment outside the pressure of a patron’s expectations. Yet, even with this newfound freedom, a familiar pressure still existed: their work still needed to be marketable. Creative freedom expanded, but it continued to coexist with the reality of the pressure of producing art that could be bought. When we talk abo...
Read more