Response Assignment #1
Posted by kscott on January 25, 2007
DUE ONLINE by 6 p.m. February 1st
Respond to one of the questions within the “Excerpts from Plato“ reading. I suggest that you take a look at the discussion questions first, so that you will have them in mind while reading (and can take notes or highlight as needed).
Inform me immediately if you are having problems accessing either the reading or the blog.
MAKE SURE YOU PUT YOUR FIRST NAME ON ANY POST YOU WRITE.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
3.
Plato seems to be much more concerned with the “makers” or “creators” of the tables than with the tables themselves: the tables are defined by how they were created. According to him, there are three tables present in this particular situation, made in different fashions by different creators. Firstly, there is the idea of a table, arguably created by God: before we can begin to identify objects, there must be some sort of initial notion of the object; secondly, there is a particular table made by a craftsman: of this we can use for whatever purpose we please; thirdly, there is the table designed by the artist (in this case, a painter): he takes the appearance of the table and places it upon his canvas. The table closest to the truth of existence is that which is a notion created by God, and thus God’s art can be considered most valuable: without it, there would be no particular or painted tables.
The table created by the painter is simply an imitation of the table created by the craftsman. It is subjected to the painter’s opinion and intention, of which Plato finds to be a terrible flaw: the painter “may deceive children or simple persons” by showing a painting and convincing them of it being something more than simple appearances. For, as Glaucon assures, “the art of painting [is] designed to be an imitation of things…as they appear.” This shows that the painter is not creating anything, simply imitating what he sees. He is placed on a level equal to a man holding a mirror who simply swivels about to ‘create images.’
Another reason given for why the painting is different from the object is concerned with the maker’s knowledge of the object. The example of horse’s reins is used: the only person who knows the horse’s reins best is the horseman himself — he has the most experience and is able to recognize the reins as being correct or incorrect. The craftsman will develop reins based off of what qualities the horseman imparts unto him (whether or not the leather is satisfactory, brass durable, etc.). The painter, however, knows none of this, and generally has no knowledge of that which he is painting. He is taking an image at face-value and copying it onto canvas, declaring it as an object when, in reality, it may be quite different. He may see reins as horse’s reins, but if they are not satisfactory, perhaps they will be discarded and therefore lose their distinction as ‘horse’s reins.’ Thus, the major factors in each table’s definition deal with the artist’s intention, background knowledge, and mode of creation, but little about the composition of the tables.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
#3. According to Plato, what would be the difference between a table and a painting of a table? Why?
Plato seems to put the craftsmen on a pedestal above the painter, because a craftsman builds something that is truth or real; let’s say a table.
In one sense, a table is an idea.
“But there are only two ideas or forms of them –one the idea of a bed, the other of a table.”
When a craftsman then builds a table, it becomes real. It is then a physical object that serves a purpose, and that is the only reason it would be built. Therefore, if a table is imitated or recreated in any other way that would make its function obsolete, then it is not a table.
Which leads me to the painting of a table, which Plato would say is imitative art. A table—or a bed in the specific example from the text—that would appear in a painting, would not be real according to Plato.
“But then I suppose you will say that what he creates is untrue. And yet there is a sense in which the painter also creates a bed?
Yes, he said, but not a real bed.”
This leads me to question what Plato is getting at. Does this just apply to a two dimensional creation of a table? From what I would gather, even if an artist made a life size dinning room set of a table and chairs out of paper, they would not be considered a real set of a table and chairs. It would merely be an artistic imitation. Plato talks about the reins and how only a horseman could make them to be the right form with the right materials.
“But does the painter know the right form of the bit and reins? Nay, hardly even the workers in brass and leather who make them; only the horseman who knows how to use them –he knows their right form.”
I feel this is important to emphasize how the painting of a table is different because it does not serve the same purpose at the real table.
Just as the horseman makes reins because of his knowledge of them, a craftsman builds a table. Plato also reveals that the table shows knowledge that the craftsman must have had in order to build it. An imitation of the table as a painting is only an image that shows no understanding or knowledge of the craftsmanship involved with building a real table.
“Here is another point: The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only. Am I not right?
Yes.”
Plato’s bottom line is that a painting of a table in no way matches the idea or purpose of a table. However, I will conclude with frustration towards Plato’s banter on this subject. Of course I agree with the fact that a painting of a table is different than a table, but who would ever say that just because someone paints a table they are trying eat off of it or show knowledge in the area of building tables.
This reminds of the painting entitled “La Trahison des Images” or in English “The Treachery of Images,” by Rene Magritte. The painting is simply a pipe for smoking tobacco with a caption underneath it saying, “This is not a pipe.” I feel Magritte is saying of course this in not a pipe, because it is a painting of a pipe. It seems Magritte had no intentions of the painting serving the same purpose of a pipe, showing his knowledge of pipes, or even saying that he smokes.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
1. What does Plato mean by “imitative” art, and why is he so critical of it?
To Plato, art is “thrice removed from the truth.” The artist is simply the third in a chain of creation: first God invented an object such as a bed, a craftsman built a bed, and lastly an artist painted a picture of a bed. The purest form of truth is God’s origination of the bed itself. The craftsman copies God’s plan, but creates an object that can be used with purpose. Plato says the artist is just a “creator of appearances,” he neither invents nor creates, and therefore is simply an imitator of that which had been made before. In this way, he is not as honorable as a craftsman, because he does nothing to better society. He does not have an original idea to share with the world, instead, he presents a copy of someone else’s idea. Because of this, there is no value in what the painter creates.
Plato goes on to suggest that the art a painter creates is not a truthful representation of reality because of the perspective from which he paints. An object can be seen from any number of directions and lights, but it can never truly be considered reality, because there are any number of realities other people perceive. It is the artist’s own interpretation of reality, and is therefore untrue.
Plato criticizes imitative art because he believes it is only a semblance of an object, idea, or emotion. He says people look at art to express and experience all of the emotions and ideas they would be ashamed of expressing in their own person. Their own emotion “which is kept under control in our own calamities is satisfied and delighted by poets.” Plato suggests there is no room for personal growth when humanity releases their emotions through things like reading and writing poetry. When people hide their emotions except during a performance, they never gain the strength to release them, unashamed, during a real personal trauma. Instead, humanity is content with their imitative emotion.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Discussion Question #4 -Is art dangerous?
In an excerpt from The Rebublic, by Plato, we find Socrates and Glaucon discussing ‘imitation’.
Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, argues that art is basically nothing but a cheap
imitation of life, and really life is just a cheap imitation something that he calls “the really real.”
The really real are things like beauty, justice, peace, perfection; things that can be imagined and
comprehended but never 100% fully achieved or attained. Plato uses the idea of a table; the original
idea of a table came from God he says and the carpenter imitates the original idea that God came up with,
and the painter/artist imitates the carpenter. The painter/imitator is so far removed from the original
idea of what the ‘truth’ is, his work is not to be appreciated/held at a valued level.
Plato basically asks, what’s the point of imitating the carpenter’s table, if you could just
be the carpenter and imitate God?
It really seems like Plato had a personal vendetta against the arts, the online document,
Plato’s Aesthetics points out, ‘he is said to have been a poet before he encountered Socrates’.
Could he possibly have been a failed poet waging war on the arts?
Maybe he thought, ‘If I can’t be a successful poet, I’ll prove art to be a sham!’
Plato does argue a valid point regarding his stance against the arts.
He’s concerned that since the arts are far removed from what’s ‘really real’,
it influences us to think and act along those same lines; not thinking rationally
and instead, thinking and acting on our emotions. In The Republic he says,
‘because he (art) awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason.’
So when you have art influencing many people, and no one’s thinking rationally,
things can get out of hand, especially if there are many people gathered together.
And Plato says that the negative is always more easily imitated, though the positive is hard to imitate.
‘the wise and calm temperament, being always nearly equable, is not easy to imitate or
to appreciate when imitated.’ That’s the way it is today, everyone loves ‘art’ that has
to do with violence, sex, crime, misfortune, while people aren’t so concerned with positive ‘arts’.
Plato also talks about how when we feel down we control our emotions but we feel that it’s
ok to listen to music or poetry, or any art where the subject matter is depressing.
People still do that today, when you feel down, you listen to sad music, almost living
through the singer and his words. You’re too embarrassed to cry about a girl but the singer
isn’t so you live through their mellow drama. What Plato is saying is that if you’re
associating yourself with an artist that isn’t thinking about virtue and rationality,
which he considers ‘evil’, then you too are aligning yourself with evil.
So today art can still be dangerous, it’s definitely influential, just like the
latter statement, people listen to sad music and it puts them in ruts of depression,
or songs about murder or hate, while the singer/actor says, ‘it’s only a song/movie’,
people do get influenced by art and make irrational decisions because of the artistic influence.
But I don’t think Plato is entirely right because art is definitely motivational also.
Maybe that’s what he meant when having the idea of censoring some art.
Maybe he thought positive art, that pushes you, whether it’s an inspirational movie or song,
to do something amazing was great for society. If Plato was appalled at what he saw and
read 2400 years ago, it makes you wonder what he’d think today. Would he change his theories,
or would the things he saw and heard only cement his theories?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
THREE. According to Plato, what would be the difference between a table and a painting of a table? Why?
Plato is a thinker. That’s what he does; He thinks. And with any thinker truth is ultimately the desired outcome of his thinking. Plato makes it clear that he seeks truth, and in Plato’s example of the table, he recognizes God as being the rawest form of the reality of a table—the source of truth; “the author of this and of all other things.” This is the first step Plato identifies before he can explain why a table or a crafts man of that table is superior to a painting of a table or its painter; one comes much closer to truth.
A table is real—it has a function: You can eat off a table. Plato recognizes that the physical incarnation of God’s idea, in this case his idea of a table is clearly closer to truth—more in “accordance with the idea.” Where as a painting is the third step removed; a ersatz of the craftsman’s table and that table a recreation of natures table—an invention of God. This third creation is of no use as an actual table. You cannot pull a chair around it or eat from it. Its an imitation and nothing more—an imitation of the physical manifestation of truth. In the same way, the painter of the table shows know real knowledge of what expertise that go into making a functional table. He “knows nothing of true existence.” The painter, by definition, is at most an imitator—a contemporary copycat.
I believe in his response, Mr. Binder, was on the right track when he recognized “Of course… a painting of a table is different than a table.” It seems elementary but I found myself shouting at Plato as he argued—which is silly because it is not really Plato arguing but a written account of his arguments—an “imitation” of Plato’s words. What of Plato, “the thinker”? He is merely having thoughts on paintings of tables of God’s design—possibly a fourth “in the chain of creation?” Mr. Binder’s commentary was brilliant with his insight and association of Magritte’s “The Treachery of Images”.
I would like to sit Plato in a white room with no windows or doors—just “this is not a pipe” hanging on the wall. Then we will drop Salvador Dali in there and Plato and him can get into a fistfight.
And then… I’ll paint the whole thing.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am
“La Trahison des Images” by Rene Magritte
“Nature Morte Vivante (Living Still Life)” by Salvador Dali
February 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
From Sheena (originally posted under “Attn Students”):
Plato believes that there is no such thing as “true art.” There is imitative art. There is no one higher than the creator who creates the ideas of actual objects. The creator which is God himself. He is the one who creatd earth, heaven, plants and animals. He belives he is the one to make the first creation or idea.Plato refers to God as the”one who is the maker of all the works of all other workmen.” In example of a table and a bed. Plato says” there are ony two ides or forms of them…no artificer makes the ideas themselves, how could he?” Meaning that there is no other artist except the creator. Everything else is imitative art.
A painting or another reproduction of something automatically takes away the true form. It is then a replica. It is not the real idea. There are numerous ways to describe how something is imitated.Televisions, chairs, stereo, curtains etc… yes there is the initial idea, but a product is constantly changing to improve quality or style, shape, and size. The whole world is full of imitative art.That is what shows the artistic side of another creator and his or her vision. To take an idea and create history from that idea is what puts ownership to creativity.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Discussion Question #4 -Is art dangerous?
In an excerpt from The Rebublic, by Plato, we find Socrates and Glaucon discussing ‘imitation’. Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, argues that art is basically nothing but a cheap imitation of life, and really life is just a cheap imitation something that he calls “the really real.” The really real are things like beauty, justice, peace, perfection; things that can be imagined and comprehended but never 100% fully achieved or attained. Plato uses the idea of a table; the original idea of a table came from God he says and the carpenter imitates the original idea that God came up with, and the painter/artist imitates the carpenter. The painter/imitator is so far removed from the original idea of what the ‘truth’ is, his work is not to be appreciated/held at a valued level. Plato basically asks, what’s the point of imitating the carpenter’s table, if you could just be the carpenter and imitate God?
It really seems like Plato had a personal vendetta against the arts, the online document, Plato’s Aesthetics points out, ‘he is said to have been a poet before he encountered Socrates’. Could he possibly have been a failed poet waging war on the arts? Maybe he thought, ‘If I can’t be a successful poet, I’ll prove art to be a sham!’ Plato does argue a valid point regarding his stance against the arts. He’s concerned that since the arts are far removed from what’s ‘really real’, it influences us to think and act along those same lines; not thinking rationally and instead, thinking and acting on our emotions. In The Republic he says, ‘because he (art) awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason.’ So when you have art influencing many people, and no one’s thinking rationally, things can get out of hand, especially if there are many people gathered together. And Plato says that the negative is always more easily imitated, though the positive is hard to imitate. ‘the wise and calm temperament, being always nearly equable, is not easy to imitate or to appreciate when imitated.’ That’s the way it is today, everyone loves ‘art’ that has to do with violence, sex, crime, misfortune, while people aren’t so concerned with positive ‘arts’.
Plato also talks about how when we feel down we control our emotions but we feel that it’s ok to listen to music or poetry, or any art where the subject matter is depressing. People still do that today, when you feel down, you listen to sad music, almost living through the singer and his words. You’re too embarrassed to cry about a girl but the singer isn’t so you live through their mellow drama. What Plato is saying is that if you’re associating yourself with an artist that isn’t thinking about virtue and rationality, which he considers ‘evil’, then you too are aligning yourself with evil.
So today art can still be dangerous, it’s definitely influential, just like the latter statement, people listen to sad music and it puts them in ruts of depression, or songs about murder or hate, while the singer/actor says, ‘it’s only a song/movie’, people do get influenced by art and make irrational decisions because of the artistic influence. But I don’t think Plato is entirely right because art is definitely motivational also. Maybe that’s what he meant when having the idea of censoring some art. Maybe he thought positive art, that pushes you, whether it’s an inspirational movie or song, to do something amazing was great for society. If Plato was appalled at what he saw and read 2400 years ago, it makes you wonder what he’d think today. Would he change his theories, or would the things he saw and heard only cement his theories?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I think Plato spoke too soon when he labeled the painter as nothing more than a mere imitator, who, too far removed from the reality of their creation, cannot be considered legitimate. He draws the line between the artist and the craftsman based on functionality, placing the craftsman one step closer to reality not because he came up with the idea, because that’s God’s job, but because he creates an object with an obvious purpose, free of ego and pure in function. But to me it’s difficult to draw a line between a craftsman and an artist based solely on the end result of their effort, seeing as how both created something that was supposedly already there. “…no artificer makes the ideas themselves: how could he?” In the case of the craftsman, he builds a table that before only existed as God’s idea. Yet as the craftsman works, he must make choices that have nothing to do with the functionality of the table. These choices could be looked at as artistic choices, which could possibly affect a person sitting at the table, which in turn could alter the function of the table, as well as turn the craftsman into an artist. So the difference between the craftsman and the painter is their intention, which can transform their creation’s purpose and meaning, depending on the maker’s idea of the truth. While the honest painter chooses an idea, which could be as simple as an emotion like anger or rage, the craftsman already knows his idea because he is working in the physical world, where in the case of the table there is a physical problem that needs to be solved… people need to eat dinner somewhere. If art had no affect on the physical world, then I would agree with Plato when he places the artist lower in reality ranking than the craftsman. I feel art can and does play a significant role in defining reality, but that could be because I don’t believe in a God. Maybe Plato feels the way he does because he was living in a time when it took a lot longer for the masses to be exposed to art, where nowadays a single photograph can have a huge affect on the physical world. The 1945 photograph “Raising The Flag On Iwo Jima” had a huge affect on U.S. moral at the end of WWII, influencing not only the soldiers that were there, but also a large portion of the American population. This is a lot to be said about a photograph that has been debated to be staged, demonstrating the fact that a single piece of art can have an affect on the physical world. So if there is a God, and he creates truth, then he created man, who creates ideas that God already knows, which are then turned into tables, which are then painted and shown to others, eventually spawning newer ideas and even newer tables.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
above = #5
February 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Elena Shtern
Q1.
The word “imitate” means to copy, reproduce, to impersonate. It conjures up ideas of “fakeness” or “unoriginality”. When Plato speaks of “imitative art”, he means quite literally that. According to his argument, “imitative art” reproduces reality, therefore it is not the “real” thing itself, it cannot be. A painting of a flute, for example is an imitation of a physical flute. It has no reality as a physical flute does. It is merely a copy, an appearance of a flute. Plato through Socrates argues that a person who paints a flute has essentially no knowledge of what a flute is. The painter’s flute is only an imitation of the real thing. (According to this view, it may be concluded that all art is imitative since it never creates anything, but simply reproduces things already in existence. I suppose Plato would say that the term “original art” is an oxymoron.) However, not only is it an imitation, it is thrice removed from the really real flute, which is the Form (created by God) of the flute. Whereas the flute maker imitates the Form of the flute to create the physical flute, the painter imitates the physical flute (which is already an imitation) thus removing it from the truth even further. This is why Plato is so critical of “imitative art”. It shows people not what really is, not the truth. Just as an object’s reflection in water is distorted, he says, the artist distorts the truth.
Since according to Plato an ideal human life strives for Truth, this kind of art is unacceptable. Not only that, but since the poet (who is also an “imitative artist” since he reproduces actions and feeling of men) “aims to be popular” he will naturally imitate “the passionate and fitful temper”. Thus, not only is he presenting “an inferior degree of truth,” he is now “concerned with an inferior part of the soul.” The inferior part of the soul, Plato argues, needs to be strictly controlled. Emotions such as anger, lust, desire, etc that ought to be suppressed are in fact indulged and encouraged by poetry. In essence, Plato states that imitative art could not possibly usher, and in fact is quite likely to hinder “mankind(‘s)… increase in happiness and virtue.”
To recap: imitative art reproduces appearances of reality. Plato does not allow for the possibility of these “appearances” to give humans insight into reality; but rather argues that they can only do damage since they may be mistaken for reality by the ignorant. Worst yet, even the “good” may come under this influence. “Imitative art” will nourish the inferior part of their soul making them less happy and virtuous.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
4. According to Plato, art is dangerous. Why? Do you believe art can be “dangerous” today? If so, in what way/s?
Plato thought that art was dangerous but still needed to be known by everyone. Music, poetry, dance, painting, and drama, were all art forms that Plato thought were dangerous but should be taught, even at school. He believed that children needed to learn it, but it just had to be censored enough. Only after seeing the good art you could see the bad art. All forms of art didn’t do anything except mix up emotions for people.
Plato’s theroy exsists even today. There are still people that think that the power of art influences people more than what is safe, and what will eventually lead to someone who could cause destruction. Plato saw the devil in the art that was so good that it could completely alter a persons mood. The bad art was meaningless and caused no emotion at all, therefor did not matter and should not even have time wasted on looking at it. But the good art was so good that it moved you, and could make you do things that you would not normally do.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
1. Plato criticizes art that is “imitative.” What exactly does Plato mean by “imitative” art? And why is he so critical of it?
When Plato criticizes art that is imitative he is talking about it not being the truth. According to Plato with anything in the world there is the creator of the idea-that being God; the maker of the idea; and the artist who imitates the maker. Plato feels the artist can only imitate reality because an artist can only perceive something in reality from one angle or from one perspective and can never convey the whole reality.
To illustrate this point Plato uses beds as an example and talks about three artists- “Beds, then, are of three kinds, and there are three artists who superintend them: God, the maker of the bed, and the painter”. Plato finds reason and purpose for the creator and maker of the bed-for the creator creates truth, and the maker practices this truth, but the imitative artist only copies and cannot add or practice truth. He is not creating or adding to reality only copying it. According to Plato he is then thrice removed from God and the truth.
Another huge criticism Plato has with imitative art (especially with poetry and the art of theater) is that it lets people indulge in emotions and feelings such as pity, anger and sorrow that we need to overcome and put aside in order to lead rational, productive, contributing lives.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
According to Plato, art is dangerous. Why? Do you believe art can be “dangerous” today? If so, in what way/s?
For a man who touts himself as a visionary and sought to create an “ideal republic State,” Plato has lost his way when it comes to reviewing the arts. To say that art is dangerous is both misguided and arrogant. Plato believes that art can sway someone’s emotions and ambitions like they had none to begin with (which may have been the case in the days before underwear); I believe that an intelligent person viewing an artist’s creation has the ability to allow himself to be transcended by the piece or merely view it by a passerby’s glance.
Plato often speaks with contempt about artists and poets, regarding them as “imitators of appearances” and likens them to “wizards” who are rendering the world on paper to dupe simple-minded people. In his perfect State, he would control the output of creators so only straightforward pieces of art and poetry, those which were not created to inspire, arouse, or elicit emotions (trickery!), would be allowed for use by the public. Isn’t restricting art & creation the same as wizardry? Not allowing people their own reactions and views is equally as dangerous as “the imitative poet who aims at being popular.”
I can concede that types of art are dangerous, but none more so than advertising. This, I believe, is where Plato’s fears have come to fruition. A group of people come together to analyze on every level what would drive a person to something – color, design, texture, scent, etc.- and using this profile create an object or image to coerce a person toward their product. As previously mentioned, the intelligent person will see through this and buy the brand-less soap for its interior worth, however, the “simple creature who is likely to have been deceived by some wizard or actor whom he met, and whom he thought all-knowing” will buy the $60 dollar, beautifully designed soap that has 3/4 less product inside because “he himself was unable to analyze the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation.”
Plato may have had grand intentions when he stated that art & poetry “ought to be controlled, if mankind is ever to increase happiness and virtue,” and he probably would be elected speaker of the extreme right-wing conservative’s house, however, when you start setting limits, who is it that decides not only where the line is drawn, but from where the line starts. He is worried that the artists “imitate only that which appears to be good to the ignorant multitude,” but who is he to decide what is for all? The right thing for mankind is hope. You have to hope that your art will not become lost on the faces of your viewers and you also have to hope that those who create art with malicious intent will be exposed by their viewer and discredited. There is a path to his perfect State, however, it should not begin with restraint of creativity.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
#3. The difference between a table and a painting of a table? why?
Plato always talks about how he dislikes any type of imitation which today would probably amount to a lot of things. He always refers to having “three beds one existing in nature, which is made by God, as I think that we may say for no one else can be the maker. there is another which is the work of the carpenter? and the work of the painter is the third?” What he is saying here is that God is the one that first created the bed the carpenter is the that makes them and the painter is the one who imitates them. therefore getting to the point of the difference of the table and the painting of the table is that the table is more realistic because you can touch it and do tings with it such as placing things on there or eating on it or placing chairs around it to sit down. As where a painting of a table is unrealistic because it is just an image which give the perception of it being a reality. You can not sit at the painting or place anything on it. The painting has only two dimensions and has no truth to it as the real table is three dimensional. As Plato said, “there are many ways in which the feat might be quickly and easily accomplished, none quicker than that of turning a mirror round and round– you will soon enough make the sun and the heavens, the earth and yourself, and other animals and plants and all the, other things we were just now speaking, in the mirror. Yes he said; but they would be appearances only.” he is saying that paintings are just mirror images of things that exist in the world that are real. Would you rather have something that is real or just a painting of it? Would you rather have something that is authentic or fake? Plato’s point is that there is a certain authenticity to reality as to images and paintings because the one who is the maker knows the facts about what he is making as where the artist only knows what he is painting but without any facts about it.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The kind of art that Plato values is the kind of art that we all value. Art gives us a common ground to stand on. It gives us a place to share our human experiences regardless of what we look like or where we are from. The “imitative” art that Plato refers to is art that is not capable of sharing the human experience. As a film major this is no more apparent than the current state of cinema. Week after week films are released by the handful that have little or no redeeming quality. Most of these films are imitations of the latest trends. Plato refers to art as being dangerous. This is mostly true, especially today. Our current society is so consumed with fear it is up to art to challenge our beliefs and question our actions. The carpenter can be compared to Hollywood. The carpenter represents a form of imitative art that only exists to be sold. As opposed to the independent filmmaker who strives to delve deeper into who we are and how are actions affect others around us.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:25 am
4. According to Plato, art is dangerous. Why? Do you believe art can be “dangerous” today? If so, in what way/s?
Art can be dangerous solely based on the knowledge that a different thought/idea c-/would sway an individual [or group(s) of individuals] from the common/totalitarian ideal – from the extremes of the problematic/negative political standpoint of anarchy and dissention to the *positive* paradigmatic shift in genres/movements/et cetera. Ultimately, whether or not “art” is “dangerous” is simultaneously a matter or personal opinion and a catch 22.
As to whether or not I believe art can be “dangerous” today? Well, let us split rabbits in twain…
For the most part, I belive that [a gross percentage of] “art” hasn’t so much become “dangerous” as much as it has become (and been made) unintelligent, or for lack of a better term, fucking stupid; there is neither admiration nor respect for anything greater than themselves i.e. the artist(s) in question, ergo fulfilling the base human requirement of being hypocritical and solipsistic resulting in more self-absorbed bullshit.
Likewise, “art” has every opportunity to be *beneficially* “dangerous”; to positively reinforcing change by any means necessary…alas, it is not art’s station…
“Self-improvement is masturbation.” – Tyler Durden