The Purpose of Art (transcript): Episode 13

 

 

What is the value of art? What is its purpose? How can art pull us into a world of imagination? Is art dangerous? How does the field of art relate to the world of ideas and philosophy? And most importantly how can art help me to live a life worth living?

 

Howdy and welcome to Lucky episode number 13 of the Plutarch Project Podcast. I`m your local art cognoscente host Josh Nieubuurt. Just a few announcements before we get started on our topic today. First and foremost thank you to all the beautiful souls who have shared, commented on, and subscribed to the podcast, website, facebook stuff. You’re all amazing. If you’re picking up what we are putting down… and liking it don’t forget to share and/or review and help get information on the fascinating subject of the humanities out there to the world. Thanks.

Alrighty then, that about covers it! So put on your best doo-rag, some big golden chains- 2 or more should suffice, grab your favorite leather bound poetry book, a fine glass of boxed wine, and your driest bathrobe because we are once again headed back to ancient Greece!

Plato- you know him, I know him, we know him and just might love him. He’s going to be today’s starting point. For those of you folks just tuning in we have talked about Plato several times in past episodes- feel free to travel back and find out a bit more about him.

Plato is really unique in that he was pretty much the first analytical philosopher whose work has survived into contemporary times. We have bits and pieces of other great thinkers- Socrates included- but a lot of their work that is available to modern audiences has just been mentioned in other works by later authors. Quite often they are available only in in short quotations- basically other thinker’s works are preserved like horderves- just enough to tantalize the tastebuds of the mind but not enough to really stunt the hunger pains of the philosophically inclined. The main course has been lost to time but a few crumbs remain behind for us to chew on.

Bear in mind a lot of these people before Plato-including Socrates- taught orally. Their works often used the literary devices of poetry and metaphor to communicate abstract ideas. Their messages might not always be easy to understand using contemporary sensibilities or mindsets. We’ll do our best to make sure we don’t lead you astray on points that could be taken out of the historical and social context of their time. So let’s kick things off with Plato and his thoughts on art…

Plato himself can definitely be considered an artist. His dialogues are polished and dense and are rather like prose versions of Ancient Greek plays. These plays, if you have never encountered them before are a far cry from the elaborate nuances of Shakespearean stage plays a few centuries ago and Hollywood movie magic of today’s world. These crazy things we take for granted now were not even a twinkle in the collective subconscious of humanity yet.

These ancient plays were essentially a bunch of characters chatting it up on stage. Of course some of them were particularly remarkable and lad the brickwork for quite a few modern narratives and scenarios that play out, but they weren’t as action packed and attention grabbing as they have to be today.

Plato wasn’t interested in being a writer for literary or artsy fartsy reasons. His primary goal was the dissemination of knowledge- not just any knowledge but what we could now categorize as philosophical knowledge.

Today we can find his works in bookstores across the globe, open source websites in dozens of languages, and even for free at the Amazon kindle store. But he didn’t publish them. They were used at his school, The Academy. Their purpose was to get students at the school up to par on the big issues of philosophy and to give them a chance to see what it was like to engage in conversation with his own teacher-Socrates- who had long since passed on to the next life.

Today we will be looking closer at his work “Politeia” better known under its Latin title, The “Republic.” It’s in this work that Plato argues that rational scientific minded philosophers should be the ones in charge of designing how society should function. In book X of the Republic Plato takes on the role of art, more specifically poetry and drama, and its purpose within a society.

Let’s step aside here for moment. For this episode when we discuss art we will have a clear distinguishment between the pragmatic arts-the art of medicine, the art of law, the art of shipbuilding or whatever and what we would now call the fine arts: poetry, painting, musical composition and so on.

For Plato non pragmatic art was merely a form of imitation of an imitation reaching-but never quite able to grasp- what it was trying to imitate. Thus making it inferior. Now what do we mean by “an imitation of an imitation”? For Plato art is the copy of an object of the senses, which is only a copy of an idea. It’s like using an original HD clear and crisp photo-lets say its a photo of an delicious succulent juicy apple- through a photocopier.

 

then taking that copy, placing it onto the scanner and copying it again. If you have ever used a photocopier to make copies of copies you’ll be well aware that with each time a copy is copied the picture begins to blur and lose more and more of its essential information… until eventually its illegible. This is where Plato’s reasoning comes into the picture. He raises the question that if we are getting a copy of a copy are we really capable of seeing the ideal picture as it should be seen?

In book X of the republic Plato uses the example of a bed. The perfect idea of a bed was made by the creator- the creator works within the world of forms or ideas. The ideal bed therefore is imagined and created by a creator or God or whatever the essential being is.

Now a carpenter makes a bed with their pragmatic art of carpentry. It’s a close approximation of the ideal bed, but alas it cannot be perfect because it is within the physical world- no matter how perfectly it is made it cannot match the idea made by the creator.

Then a painter comes along- “Ah what a beautiful bed! I must paint it!” and so they paint that bed. Now this painting is neither the idea of the bed, nor the carpenters creation of the bed, but a copy of a copy- a mere visual appearance of a bed.

Being that both the carpenter and the painter are imitating the idea of a bed they are therefore, [quote] “a long way off the truth, and can do all things because he lightly touches on a small part of them, and that part an image” [unquote]( republic loc 77). Plato is less harsh on the craftsman or those using or making things for pragmatic purposes.

In a way it makes sense. The carpenter makes a bed for people to sleep in. A cobbler makes shoes to put on peoples feet, an blacksmith makes metal goods for all kinds of purposes. But an artist, using Plato’s example of the painter, only knows how to duplicate the image and furthermore, only to duplicate it from a specific vantage point. Let’s see if we can illustrate this now.

In your minds eye let’s imagine a little cottage next to a stream. Beside the stream is a dense green forest. To the right of the cottage is a little cobblestone road, here and there a few potholes present themselves. The cottage itself is a weathered white with a chimney rising over the left side. Small tufts of smoke rise from the chimney. Keep it in your minds eye for a few seconds.

Indubitably, your small cottage, stream, cobblestone road, and every other details mentioned are going to be similar to my idea of them. But without a doubt they are not going to be exact. Even if I were to describe to you every minute detail of the scene it still wouldn’t match with my own. Many folks gripe about how a director or producer interpreted a film that they had read in book form; especially particularly popular films and books such as The Hobbit, Harry Potter, or even 50 Shades of Grey. Their ideas originating with the signs, signifiers, and signified just don’t match up. But the words are the same for both people… wouldn’t the idea be the same for both?

If we are of the same species, use the same language and sign system but come up with different results how coulw we be on par with a universal being who-in order to exist- must be leaps and bounds beyond our own cognitive abilities? Plato noticed this trait in regards to how language functions and applied it to other arts that use the senses to describe or represent a grander idea.

Artists therefore only know and understand a very small part of the grand idea they are trying to illuminate- and their audience perhaps even less than they do.

Plato writes, “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only.” Going back to our example a few moments ago I know nothing about how cobblestone roads are made, who walks on them, where the rock is sourced from, not to mention what the ideal form of a cobblestone road is. And it’s pretty likely you don’t either. But we can arrange the words cobblestone road to match a similar image in each of our minds… if we have been previously introduced to the theory of what a cobblestone road is.

[pause]

To put it another way all things are copies of some divine or ideal state. Anything existing in the physical world that can be perceived by our senses is a shadow of the “real” thing.

Plato refers to this as “Mimesis” (imitation or miming). Plato claimed that our world and everything in it was nothing but flawed or imperfect copies of the absolute being and the absolute reality this being inhabits. This world of forms is located in some transcendental, immaterial, eternal realm far away from the 3 dimensional world we inhabit.

We can frame this absolute reality as if we were 2D disney character. The world of forms would be the disney workshop back in its hand drawn heyday. Although we find ourselves in the impractical, often flawed Disney universe-the origins of our own existence lay in a whole new realm where the ideas of the world we live in originate from. Countless beings with countless kinds of knowledge would keep adding more and more to our world- each, at least in our 2D minds- having their own essential ideas of the world that creates my world.  

Now without the ability to incorporate this ideal realm into our own world the best we could do was to seek out the ideal forms of living in this imperfect existence. Which, I guess you can boil down quite a bit of ancient philosophy to be just that- trying to find the best way to live. And if we are trying to find the best way to live how can we incorporate the various forms we encounter here into that schema?

In Book X of the Republic Plato lays all this out and then ponders over the role of art- specifically storytelling and poetry in his ideal Republic. After much debate Plato decides that poetry and storytelling should be outlawed-unless that can be censored by the aforementioned philosopher rulers.

Yeah, you heard it. Plato wanted to limit what was available to people fearing that art and the power of imitation could be used for ill. These philosopher rulers would have the power of veto over what could be published and disseminated. He feared people could be exposed to literature, poetry, or other forms of art that could mislead them or alter the way they think or feel in irrational ways. This veto power would be used to help stifle the effects of mimesis.

An author of a play, a work of literature, or a poem is in someway attempting to imitate the world. Art as an imitation of existence. This removes it twice from the realm of ideas and creates a greater chance for it to be flawed-leading people toward irrational choices in their existence- taking them further and further away from being able to find the ideal way of living. These philosopher rulers would act as filters to keep people from reading or seeing art that doesn’t align with the views of the state: in Plato’s case the pursuit of rational living.

Even today this idea still rages on. Rather than poetry or dramas the medium of cultural artefacts (artefacts with an “e”) such as movies, video games, lyrics, YouTube videos, whatever kind of art you can shake a stick at has the ability to affect society in a malevolent way.

The cultural paradigm that either they are family friendly or evil or bad or whatever negative label is placed on something has its roots in the dialogues of Plato’s Republic. For Plato his worries lay in the theory that these ideas weren’t analytically based and hadn’t been thought out in a logical or scientific way. Therefore they couldn’t be true, and were deceptive or problematic for consumers of these works who probably didn’t carefully engage with the ideas being presented. Personally, I don’t think this is something that has changed. How often do you look at your friend or significant other or spouse- heck even your pet hamster after watching a film and ask them what the meaning of that work was- or how watching it has benefited both of you- or how you can learn and grow from that work. All the kids call it Netflix and philosophize. Sure sometimes films or photos or any kind of art can make us do that. But sometimes you just want to zone out and be entertained.

Let’s take a look at another example how often have you sang the lyrics of a song and been completely oblivious to their meaning until one day it hits you like a freight train. Wham! Oooooooh that’s what they were talking about. We’ve seen this happen to an entire generation in the last couple of years in regards to a very popular Christmas song- …Oh, the weather outside is frightful, but the fire is so delightful…”

Which, not so coincidentally, people seem to have forgotten the context and historical time period the song-thus misinterpreting the nuances that are obvious for older generations. Perhaps this misunderstanding the connotative and denotative meanings of the lyrics can be attributed to Plato’s imitation theory.

With each copy of the song, which hasn’t changed over generations of people, the original idea and intent behind it has now become blurred and nearly unrecognizable as the world has changed around it. Without the aid of older folks or folks more wise in the ways of the world these misinterpretations occur all the time… and not just in the realm of art. Modern day politics, a subject you can investigate outside of this podcast for yourself, has similar problems.

And guess what? None of this is new. These are the same damn stories being copied and copied and copied and passed on to the next generation. The next time you hear an argument on  whether video games, or whatever new tv show scandal that will come next, you can tell your grandmother or your cat or pet turtle that this isn’t a new phenomenon and that the earliest records we have of it date back to Plato. I’m sure they will be deeply impressed. Your Grandmama might say, “Oh yes, that’s nice dear.” and your turtle might retort, ” cool story, burh. Can you tell it again?” But you’ll know the truth and you can try to find out how to think about how it applied to your own pursuit of a life worth living.

In the end Plato gave art a pass with a very strict restriction- that it should be heavily censored. Plato didn’t seem to think about how ridiculously implausible this would be to do in his time. But later thinkers did. If you’d like to look into two very different thinkers and their ideas on censorship and essentially thought control through media control check out Geroge Orwell’s, “1984” or Aldous Huxley’s, ” A Brave New World.” I’m sure you will discover some incredibly potent ideas that relate to the world in which we currently live in.

Going back to the ancient world, Plato’s student Aristotle expounded was that art isn’t an artists attempt at copying an object. Rather it is the artists way of idealising the core idea that is the object. An artist doesn’t view the bed as the carpenter or the blacksmith, rather they attempt to pierce through the common conceptions of what a bed is to exhibit the core idea through the lens of the senses.

Rather than copying a copy they are trying to show or express the ideal version of a bed through their own existence. Like shining a torch or flashlight into a dark room and what ends up being illuminated is their ideal version of whatever form they happen to shine their light on.

 

Plato deemed this phenomenon as a kind of “Divine Madness.” It was divine because what sprung from it were awe inspiring creations but it was madness because the artist themself has no real understanding of why they did it. Maybe an artist has a plan, Michelangelo plotting out the design for the cistine chapel, but how that plan and furthermore how the end creation came to literally exist and why it came to exist is really a kind of madness. To the artist their opinion is right, but how does it know that it is right?

Let’s take a step back and think about it for a second. We are  thinking self-conscious animals, why do we find it necessary to create art? It serves no pragmatic purposes as Plato alluded to. It doesn’t-at least on the surface-appear to help up exist and yet we find it a useful way to use some of our time.

From the pre-historical humans drawing in caves to kindergartners across the globe fingerpainting with their teeny tiny fingers, to the greatest of the greats throughout time- what’s the point or benefit of exploring creating new things through the medium of art?

Plato himself was an incredible artist. So perhaps it wasn’t obvious to him. Taking a look at his works side by side with Aristotle’s you notice a very obvious difference. Aristotle’s works have a much more scientific high and dry kind of feel to them. They lack the artistic edge visible in Plato’s works. It’s from their differences that Aristotle was able to recognize something that Plato couldn’t. Philosophy and art are actually two different spheres of thought both aiming at the same goal. For Aristotle the goal of art is a copy of the original idea. It’s a way to display to universal through a particular medium.

To return to Plato’s metaphor, The painter doesn’t regard the bed as a tool for sleeping, they find the particular universal aspect intrinsic within the idea of a bed and capture that fleeting eternal thought, freezing it for all time for others to gaze upon and attempt to understand.

The artist doesn’t create a sculpture or painting or work of literature to adhere to the faithful images apparent in day to day life. They take these ideas as suggestions and try to pull out the eternal essences which are imprisoned just behind the objects facade.

For most people they only see the objects image. “Oh wow it’s a bed. Looks comfy.” But for the artist they see something hidden within that picture that is meant to speak volumes to those looking to read it. Their goal as an artist is to exhibit whatever is universal about that particular image. Whether or not the audience gets it is another story.

The goal of both art and philosophy is the ability to capture and understand the “Absolute” or the “Ideal” version of a concept that lies within the realm of the absolute. They are just going about it in different ways. Art is one path to helping to understand life, in past ages and in our own, and a guide to help lead us toward the best life. But they are not the same thing. Just as two roads that converge at some point are still different roads altogether-so are philosophy and art.

 

Philosophy, art, and although we won’t discuss it today, history- all lead to a greater understanding of the world and help us toward our pursuit of living a life worth living.

Let’s imagine these three subjects as book. On top would be Philosophy; it is concerned with the universal as it really is- the original not the copy. Art would then be second; it deals with finding the bits of the universal in the particular parts of the world- it’s a copy illuminating the truest bits of the universal. And History would be placed third. This is concerned with the particulars as they are. Together they form the basis for what has helped people lived live’s worth pursuing.

To separate art and Philosophy it might be helpful to place them into a simple metaphor. Imagine a large crystal- the most pure crystal to ever exist. This will be philosophy. Placed over the crystal is a cloth. Through the cloth you can see glimpses of the magnificent universal but never directly. The goal of philosophy is to view the crystal without a wrapping regardless of how opaque or transparent the cloth surrounding it is. Art uses gaps in the cloth to glimpse a piece of the universal. Both are important, both are attempting toward the same goal- but both are indubitably going about it very differently.

Although philosophy might be considered theoretically higher in its attempts, it doesn’t mean that art is lower or worthless. Rather the highest must rest upon the lower- remember our stack of books earlier? You can’t take away one of those books without harming the understanding of the others. Therefore they create a symbiotic system with the goal of living the best life.

The next time you find yourself examining a piece of art ask yourself, what is the universal quality the artist trying to express in this work? When you find yourself questioning the moral, ethical, or even just the plain value of a work of art … “gucci gang gucci gang gucci gang”… Try to search out the universal even if it doesn’t seem like it’s there.

The next time you have an experience that you feel pulls you into another world say a concert an edm event, a particularly incredible work of fine art… ask yourself what it is that you feel pulling you? Is it Plato’s world of forms? Is it God or some other divine presence? Maybe hidden behind your own biases, and those biases and lenses that you’ve been given from those before you, you’ll find a piece of timeless wisdom that will add value to your existence. Thanks for listening and goodluck making this life the best of all possible outcomes. Onward.

 

Hey there, thanks for stopping by and learning something new!

If you enjoyed this podcast consider supporting us! -Even clicking an ad on the old website plutarchproject.com – keeps us up and running!

Remember support doesn’t have to come from your wallet. some of the most important kinds of support come from that b-e-a-utiful mind you’ve got.  Writing a review, telling a friend, sharing this podcast with a lover-or an enemy, subscribing to our YouTube channel or Facebook page. are all ways that you can lend your support. If you’re listening on YouTube you can find our Podcasts (with a slightly better audio profile) on all major podcast services including iTunes and Stitcher and castbox.

If you Are really looking to help out you can use our amazon banner located on the bottom of the website- all it takes is a click from you but every penny adds up for us. We also have a patreon page if you’d be willing to give us $2 bucks a month we will immortalize you on our patron wall with a photo and quote of your choice. Check us out at Patreon.com/plutarchproject for that. Thanks for your time and attention… Good day!