Plato Says Art Is Shit, Aristotle Says It's More Like Shitting

Plato was wholly fed up with the education system in his native Greece. If he heard one more obnoxious rhapsode, waxing ludicrous on some Homeric verse, he was going to tear what hair he had left out of his head. He wanted to reform the Greek schools, take the poetry-based curriculum, throw it out into the Aegean, and replace it with Philosophy. Homeric verses were a thorn in his side- he saw them as contemptible and detrimental. So, he set out to prove why art and the artist had no place in a decent, progressive society.

First, he defined art as a mimesis of reality. He pictured the artist as a nincompoop with a few skills, but no knowledge of his subject. For Plato, the artist was a dull fellow, simply holding a mirror to nature, imitating it without purpose or thought. He saw that most artists were disconnected from the things they depicted, they had no knowledge of it and didn't bother seeking knowledge before replicating the thing's external appearance.

For Plato, our world is divided into two: The day-to-day one we dwell in, and then the world of perfect forms. When he thought of ordinary carpenters or blacksmiths, he saw that they created things that copied the ideal form. The carpenter pondered the ideal form of a table and set to work imitating that in the physical world. The artist, however, was further removed from the world of ideals. The artist, he perceived, imitated the carpenter's imitation and was thus three times removed from the original. Where the carpenter copied the perfect form, the artist copied one specific copy of a perfect form. The carpenter, at least knew about his table - how the legs fit into the body, how to construct it. The carpenter would consult the inevitable user of the table to find out the most appeasing qualities of a table, whereas the artist would only copy the external appearance of the table, without making any knowledge-seeking inquiries. He just dumbly replicated. He held this as utterly contemptible.

His second major bone to pick with the arts was that it appeals solely to our emotional nature. Since for Plato, our rational nature is the only one which allows us to solve our problems, he saw that art was harmful and led people in the wrong direction. He wanted the focus shifted to Philosophy, and dreamed of a rational society where everything ran smoothly. Art was a speedbump to progress.

His third criticism had to do with this neat little thing we now call the Principle of Psychological Identity, which is a faster, more pretentious way of saying that we as humans tend to imitate what we're exposed to. Since the truths portrayed by the arts were far removed from reality - The Trojan War, Gods, Monsters, Improbably Events - He saw that the audience would be lured in by the excitement and then identify with these impossible characters and try to repeat their behavior and mannerisms in their own lives. He dreaded us all becoming as emotional as the tragedy's characters.

Now, Aristotle, Plato's student, heard these arguments thousands of times. Being a thoughtful sort of fellow, he ran good old teacher's theory over his tongue and brain a bit to see if what the old man said was true. Aristotle came up with a different answer.

Aristotle accepted Plato's definition of art as mimesis of nature… However, he disagreed on the nature of that mimesis. For Aristotle, mimesis was not some mindless mirror-holding, but a thoughtful way of reflecting specific truths about nature. He saw that human beings, from birth, learn by mimesis - the imitation of our parents and peers. He saw that mimesis brings us delight and instructs us. Aristotle saw the artist as an expert editor of reality, one who craftily selected snippets of life and reflected those pertinent victuals to relate truths about the world. For Aristotle, there was one world-ours-and the artist wasn't merely imitating appearance, but was re-creating truths. He compared the artist with other people associated with the playing-with of reality and existence: The Historian and The Philosopher/Scientist. He saw The Historian as someone who carefully chronicled all the things that have happened, The Philosopher/Scientist as someone who dealt with general truths about what might happen, and The Artist as a fair mean between those two, dealing with specific truths about what might have happened or could still happen.

He looked at art's effect on the human audience and disagreed with Plato in seeing it as an incendiary spark for the emotions. Instead, he saw it as a therapeutic way to release pent-up emotions… Like flatulating with your feelings… he came up with the notion of catharsis - a kind of vague term for experiences and things, like artwork, that allow us this release. For Aristotle, the viewer would be sucked into the art, identify with it, let out the emotion steam, gas, angst that the character did, and go home released, eased, drained of their load, and with a bit more knowledge about the world. "Yay, art!" - Aristotle.

In the case of Plato and Aristotle on the issue of art and the artist, the apple fell pretty far from the tree. Both were concerned with the nature of art and the artist, and with the extra-aesthetic (This isn't the right word) value of art, that is to say, whether the art warranted any merit beyond its aesthetic value, such as introducing knowledge morsels, morality, etc… (Para-aesthetic? Bah! I give up.) However, they came up with opposing positions. (Aristotle was just a rebellious youth)

When I think of art and its effect on human beings, I see merit in both old Greek guys's arguments. While I disagree with the definition of art as a mirror of reality, citing artists like Reinhart, (The all-black paintings) Pollock, Mondrian and the contemporary (well, 1960's-ish) Light Movement artists, I see that while a great deal of art is mimesis, that's not an all-art-encompassing, viable definition, it's merely a general, semi-accurate description. However, I agree in part with Aristotle's catharsis - I get a good emotional workout when I'm moved by art. Music makes my body move and kinetically gets the kinks out, which calms a tense me… Many movies also, reduce me to a flushed, heated mass of giggling and sobbing flesh-in-a-chair. Books and paintings and cartoons and statues have, at times, got the old emotions rocking around and left me a placid, Buddha-like being.

If art left me I the state Plato suggested, I wouldn't be able to argue so rationally as I do after a piece of art with others who shared the experience with me. 'Cause believe me, I love to argue about art. However, I give Plato some credit in that some art works have left me in a wound up, worse and emotionally muddled state than I entered the experience with. Fight Club, the movie, for example, left me feeling charged and violent, charging into my friends and growling like a beast - but you didn't hear that from me.

But overall, I tend to agree more with Aristotle's evaluation of art and its effects, I disagree with both fellows's definitions as I said before, but see, I don't have a sussed-out definition of my own yet (it's easier to criticize than create) and agree mostly with Aristotle's evaluation of the artist as a careful, skilled editor of reality, not as some fool with a looking-glass. However, some art, especially stuff post-1900, makes me wonder. Some art makes me feel Platonic- well, like Plato does, about the artist. Some art seems like contrived crap erected by some self-centered, prissy moron in black who wants to share his austere, grand old bleak, dark, geometric, ugly, post-modern cigarette and coffee-stained whim with the rest of the world… but that's rare. I pick my exhibits carefully.

Go Home

Antiquated Aestheticians



Merrily, Merrily, Merrily, Merrily - Life Is But A Dream.