Plato and a More Definitive Understanding of Art and Philosophy - Essay Example

Section/# Plato and a More Definitive Understanding of Art and Philosophy Within the Plato’s Republic, many definitions are put forward with regards to what can be defined as virtuous, good, and beneficial forms of art and/or artistic expression. Plato bases his argument upon several highly subjective and controversial premises: a) art in the Republic should first be didactic with the purpose of inculcating the virtues of being a good person, b) Those who merely seek the reflections of the forms and not the forms themselves are not artists and c) Most people view illusions as reality; only the artists/philosophers see the light. Naturally, theses statements not only represent a great range of issues, they encourage detractors to focus upon the inherent flaws and weaknesses that are therein represented. In this way, the following essay will seek to provide the reade with an informed understanding of the inherent weakness of Plato’s approach to the issue of art/philosophy. Naturally, the first level of argument which can be discussed is with regards to how Plato defines virtue. As one might expect, many pages and indeed entire passages of Plato’s work have been concentric on defining virtue in the means through which it can be maximized within our world. However, with that being said, it must be understood that virtue within the specific delineation of what defines arts and how it should be represented to the populace is ultimately a subjective understanding. In such a way, by promoting the belief that art should only be exhibited if it entails the possibility of fostering virtue and promoting the “goodness” of the person is something that cannot be defined by a single understanding and should not be presented as the benchmark by which art should be manifested. By providing something of a tangential analysis, the author can point to the fact that Nazi Germany fostered what they understood to be a “virtuous” society that fostered the goodness of the stakeholders that they deemed fit to be included within such a definition. Moreover, the totalitarianism of the Third Reich was not only visited upon the way in which ethnic minorities were treated, it also was expanded to the way in which political ideology, philosophy, and indeed art itself was presented. It does not take a great deal of historical analysis to point to the fact that the third right was heavily involved in promoting its own version of what art and artistry should entail. So much was the Third Reich interested in this specific understanding of redefining art that they even presented their own populace a traveling art exhibit which was dubbed as “degenerate art”. The ultimate purpose for referencing the third right within this understanding of Plato’s virtuous end good definition of art is with respect to the fact appointed to the ultimate subjectivity that a society and/or an individual may ascribe with regards to the way that art can and should look. Such inherent weakness points to the fact that an all-inclusive and simplistic definition of how art should be manifested should be shined and the individual should seek a more realistic delineation of the way in which art is defined and represented within a particular society/group. Another noted shortcoming with regards to Plato’s definition of art/philosophy and the means by which it should be integrated with the populace is with respect to the fact that he denotes that those who merely seek the reflections of the forms and not for themselves are not artists. Although it is with great respect that this author approaches the writings an understanding of Plato, it must also be understood that what is being referenced within this particular definition of what art should and should not be is a highly personal view upon what defines this genre. Ultimately, the definition of who is responsible for reflecting these forms and not focusing upon the form itself is a definitive right of the philosopher/artist to represent the subject matter in the way that he/she sees fit. When one begins to examine the construction of artistic appreciation that existed within many of the darker periods of human history, a definitive thread of commonality is represented. This has to do with the fact that a given worldview and/or a given approach was enforced within such times that constricted the way in which artistic liberty and/or philosophical musings could take place. As such, by seeking to define art/philosophy in such a narrow term and placing personal subjectivity into the mix, Plato decreases the overall level of freedom and/or development that can exist within these respective fields. Finally, Plato’s final argument with regards to the way in which art should be produced and interpreted is with regards to the way in which people view illusions that the artist/philosopher produces. Plato said that most individuals view the illusions as reality; thereby only the artists/philosopher is able to see the light. This in and of itself is a rather elitist standpoint. Although it is true that some of the finer points of art and/or philosophy have oftentimes been lost upon the majority of society, it is not fair to categorically state that only the artists and/or the philosopher is able to see ultimate truth and reality within the representations that a present. Oftentimes, and in arguable aspect of art is to represent a new way of thinking and/or a rejection of failed approaches to key issues. Naturally, the same can be said with regards to the way in which philosophy has changed and warped over the years. If it were not for the fact that individuals were able to integrate with the reality and the illusion that the artists/philosopher represents, it is doubtless that human society women not have evolved in the way that it has over the past several centuries and millennia. Whereas it is true that Plato has a definitive understanding of the fact that many individuals within society are able to grasp the true significance of art and/4 the differential between reality and illusion that exists, seeking to categorically state that all of it is only understood by the philosopher and/or the artist necessarily diminishes the impact that such levels of communication can have within the society as a whole. Naturally, it must also be understood that what Plato was saying was that not only the artists that was responsible for representing the given piece of art, and/or the philosopher responsible for communicating a given approach, with the ones who would understand the differential between reality and illusion. Rather, Plato is of the opinion that a society of citizens that were both philosophers and artists within the most effective means of integrating the differential between these two. However, when one stops to realize the fact that the society of the 18th, 19, and 20th century was not comprised entirely of artists and philosophers, it is still clear that key differentials with respect to the way in which human thought and philosophy were conducted were able to be integrated within broader society; thereby casting a level of doubt with respect to the approach that Plato is thus are defined. From the analysis that is thus far been presented, it can definitively be stated that even though Plato had a clear and definitive level of understanding with respect to the way in which society operated, the way in which art was represented, and the means through which philosophy should be conducted, the nuances of seeking to detach oneself from a subjective view of each of these elements and the importance of a striving a level of non-elitism to the way in which the world operates was lacking. Accordingly, by integrating the approach that is thus far been put forward, it is the view of this author that a more definitive approach to understanding art/philosophy can be integrated. Work Consulted Plato, Richard W. Sterling, and William C. Scott. The republic. New York: Norton, 1985. Print. Read More