We all know that Plato expelled from his ideal state to dramatists and epic poetry, in addition, it appears that the Athenian significantly appreciate the natural beauty around him, as attending the place where he was, the environment that served for discussion or merely physical rest, depending on their usefulness. Not looking at the world and admired its beauty, but was in the world and appreciated its functionality for certain times and circumstances. With this background, we could conceive of the personality of Plato as insensitive to beauty, but the reality is more complex, and not without contradictions, if it is fair to recognize his lack of interest in natural beauty, not so with human beauty, and with that created by our civilization.
The reason that Plato expelled almost all the poets from his Republic was due to moral and metaphysical reasons, but this did not imply that felt no appreciation for the compositions of Homer, for example, or you do not have a certain admiration: "We praise lot of Homer", " I speak, even though the fans and reverence for Homer, who in my youth I have mastered, I do so retract" and " are willing to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of the tragic " are textual samples Republic pointing the obvious that Plato professed respect for that.
art of appreciation for the beauty that produces art (or, rather, is the art itself.) Any theory of art must be based on the notion of beauty. For Plato, beauty really exist, and this in the world of the senses involved or derived from a universal beauty, of which sensible things were more or less successful approaches. There are varying degrees of beauty: a beautiful object is ugly when compared with a beautiful woman, a funny chimpanzee is never more beautiful than a handsome man, and he always will be ugly in front of a god. The universal beauty, for its part, does not comprise a part of beauty and ugliness another, nor beautiful in relation to certain things and ugly in relation to others, but like all ideas, is "eternally self-subsistent and uniqueness herself. "
It follows that the universal beauty is not something material, can not be translated into a thing of beauty, the beauty is universal, as any form, supersensible, so that works of art (painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, dancing, singing, music, etc..) is inevitably fall into a lower dimension within the range of Beauty. Beautiful things are under our senses perceive it, while the Beauty archetypal, universal, it applies only to intelligence.
One difficulty in establishing a definition of beauty applicable to tangible manifestation occurs when beauty is equated to the utility, efficiency "useful everything is beautiful " said Socrates Hippias Major. So one school of diligent and obedient student, you get superb academic results, it is beautiful? A mechanic whose skill fix our car is beautiful? Even A gas cylinder is beautiful by the mere fact of competition heated with water from our shower? Way to leave this predicament follows Socrates drawing attention to determine whether this utility is used for a purpose good or a bad one, what works for one purpose can not be beautiful ruin, says Socrates, but just how good it is, if only what we consider good is beautiful, then, says Frederick Copleston, " the beauty and goodness can not be the same, since neither the cause and effect can be identified ." Socrates concludes by stating that perhaps the beauty is that which produces a pleasant feeling to the sights and sounds (music and beautiful voices, women and men handsome, well-made statues, etc..). But if this is the universal beauty, how to identify it with the intangible that is proper to it? How can the universal beauty, a transcendental form, according to Platonic metaphysics, be appreciated by our senses? If everything beautiful object creates pleasure and satisfaction, in full view either ear, then they must have some common character which gives them their beauty and is present in both. And what is it? Perhaps the pleasure to serve for any purpose that is useful, we produce an emotion, an impulse, an incentive aimed at rewarding action? But if this is so, as Socrates says we're back to square one, and we have not really solved anything, a mere circular reasoning. Neither beautiful nor useful. Any skill or ability
generates "real objects products (pencils, books, buildings, made by men, and rocks, plants and men, made by the gods), or" images, which mimic but not actually perform the functions of the original. The images are false imitations of reality, and even have part of it (if not, would not images, but another example of the same thing), so are in a second degree of detachment from reality of Forms: indeed, imitative art is " two degrees below reality, because it is simple like ," the artist does not copy objects with accuracy, but mimics the simple appearances. The painter, says Plato, is a pseudoartÃfice , not drugs, which have genuine ability, but as cosmetics, that give the appearance of health rather than health itself.
know something is to capture its eternal form, but the arts, imitations of imitations (imitation of specific forms of the sensible world, which in turn are true copies of the Forms) can not produce themselves be knowledge . However, a work beautiful art treasures possessing a relationship with the Form and, sometimes, the artist, unconscious of what he is doing, can have a moment of inspiration, or intuition, reaching true knowledge and directly, perhaps be possessed by a god.
For this reason, the arts can and should play a role in the social order of the State. To find out what we must first examine what effect in men. On the one hand, art gives pleasure, it has beauty, and it is a pure pleasure, in the sense that it is generated by other causes (eg, eating when hungry), but, however, Sometimes the art gives way characters (in dramatic poetry), which change their own reality, behaving undesirably and acting without honesty and dignity, its natural produce false pretense and vulgar pleasures in the auditorium, so they should, says Plato, be punished. However, given that the arts have the quality to influence attitudes and behaviors of the people, must be specified for the ideal state which can be appropriate behavior and what harmful, Plato is confident that the artistic imitation of a bad attitude or behavior is a call for individuals to do the same, imitating such behavior in their lives, and consequently all pages that distils improper or immoral behavior, whether heroes or gods should be removed from the education of the Republic. By contrast texts indicate appropriate virtues and powers must be read and distributed, and even created if there are, for the sake of the younger generation.
If properly used and properly channeled character education, dance, music and poetry are essential tools and very beneficial for the formation of citizens, says Plato. Despite its severity to the application of the arts in society, the Athenian recognizes its value and greatly respected, but always stresses that the artist should show irreproachable social responsibility, so that would guide their creations to the good of the community, transmit values \u200b\u200band human attributes that enable people to improve their condition to get closer to virtue.
Plato The restriction proposed for the creative dimension of the artist, therefore, is not due to a bias on the arts, to a certain fanaticism that despises those aesthetic manifestations that do not fit our tastes, but it fits in the mood Platonic ideal of a state where all its elements, including those that depend on both the sleep of reason, aim to provide stability and a spirit of righteous men.
art Should stick to a merely social, restricted to the collective good, rather than creative freedom of its practitioners that may cause deviation in the behavior and modes of behavior considered correct? In today's society we have an obvious answer to this question, would, however, wonder how far the role of "arts" (today we would speak more correctly means) in us, and how far it is beneficial to do so, and also could question why certain individuals, unable to distinguish between an attitude suggestive artistically or socially acceptable and desirable to adopt and discard a the other (known cases of violence or aggressive behavior after viewing a film, television, or after a few hours with some video games), without recognizing that the mere presentation and appearance in a television series or a computer game not is the necessity or expediency, to transfer it in any way real life life where there is no button to close the screen, or "opponents" virtual as flesh and blood, nor the ability to start, never a new game.
0 comments:
Post a Comment