Like his mentor Socrates before him, Plato liked to do things his own way. It was this almost rebellious attitude that got him in trouble with the Athenian government and Socrates executed. Plato, for example, wrote many of his philosophical musings in the form of a dialogue between characters, instead of a plain discourse or lecture.
Bernard SUZANNE, a student of Plato’s teachings, explained this unusual practice.
| Plato wrote dialogues rather than philosophy treatises…because his purpose was not to tell his readers what he himself thought, what were the answers he himself had given to the most fundamental questions in life…but to teach them to think by themselves so that they could find their own answers to those questions, because he knew that, in such matters, neither he nor [we] would ever get ultimate, “scientifically” demonstrable, answers (SUZANNE). |
Similarly, answers to questions concerning the nature, function, and value of art in society are varied and disputed almost endlessly. The problem may be that there are no universally right or wrong answers. As Plato would say, our goal should then be to seek the answers closest to the truth through philosophical intercourse.
So, in the spirit of Plato, and in hopes that it will ignite the minds of its readers to finding their own answers, I now proceed to address the question of the value of art in the form of a Platonic dialogue:
The Professor seemed intent on not saying another word until one of us started the debate.
Not wanting to disappoint him, I began, Well, I for one don’t think that Art should exist solely for Art’s own sake.
You can’t just make an assertion like that and not back it up, interjected the Professor.
Okay then, let’s look at an example. If Art should exist for Art’s sake, then does it matter what the reaction to it is?
It shouldn’t, said Bonnie – a brown-haired girl in the back of the class. Art is art, even if a person isn’t educated or open-minded enough to accept it or understand it.
Then what if a film is horribly made; if the director, actors, and crew are inexperienced and sloppy in the production? Suppose even those involved regret making it. Should the film have been made in the first place? Can a badly made film with no redeeming elements justify its own existence purely with the argument that because it falls, by default, under the general umbrella of “Art”, it has the right to be made?
Yes, because there may be someone out there whom the story touches. Or maybe the film inspires the director to learn from his own mistakes and go on to make better films.
You make a good point, Bonnie, I said. But by doing good, Art is acting out a utilitarian role; it is being used for something. Art for Art’s sake implies that it doesn’t have to be good for anything; that it is “good” by the mere fact that it “is”.
Bonnie quickly and coolly responded, I still believe that Art shouldn’t be required to DO anything to be labeled good. There is good art that is appreciated by no one and yet it remains good. I recently saw a documentary about a place of worship that had many rooms and corridors, some of them seldom if ever seen, let alone used. The original carpenters did exquisite work on the banisters and interior work on that part of the building, but it is never seen or appreciated. It does no one any good, for no one knows it is there. Yet, I can’t believe that its not being seen diminishes its value any. If Van Gogh’s Starry Starry Night, with its ground-breaking style of color and texture, was locked away in some attic, never seen by anyone except the artist himself, it would still be a masterpiece.
While I am in danger of finding myself extremely unpopular with the class for arguing against that, I feel I must. In order to combat your worthy argument, Bonnie, I must pose another question. What makes a piece of art “good” or a “masterpiece”. Value must come from somewhere. It cannot be intrinsic, or naturally occurring within the piece, because there are so many widely differing opinions as to what is good and what is rubbish.
Those who don’t see it aren’t sufficiently educated, or they would also recognize its intrinsic value. What is beautiful to one, will be beautiful to all if its values are properly explained.
It is true that why one finds a certain piece of art beautiful can be explained, others don’t have to accept it. As the Russians say, “Of taste there is no arguing.” Often one does not even know why he or she is touched by a certain piece, but they know that it is meaningful to them. And that, Bonnie, is what I am trying to get at. The value of Art is only created by the connection between man and Art. It is the spark of emotion, the deepening of thought, the touching of the heart that gives Art its meaning. Just as man, God’s best creation, is given meaning only as he connects with his Creator, so is Art given meaning only as it connects with man. “Good Art” makes a connection with people. And that is why opinions differ so much on what is “good”. Different people need and want different things. For some a particular piece presents an answer, and for some it does not. But the “good” comes from within man.
At this point, the Professor finally stepped into the conversation. That brings up a good point, he said to me. What is Art? Is a canvas with paint splattered on it Art? What makes it Art? Is it the skill in the making of it? Is it the emotions undergone while making or experiencing it? What excludes a piece from the category of “Art”? The Professor once again leaned back on his desk and waited for answers.
Bonnie immediately spoke up, I read somewhere where someone defined Art as “the practice of creating perceptible forms expressive of human feeling” (Black 166). I’d like to amend the ending there to read “expressive of the human experience.” I believe Art addresses more than just feelings, it also addresses issues, situations, relationships and other things a little broader than just feelings.
I agree with that definition of Art, but I believe it only works because it is so broad. It can encompass all conventional art and art forms, but it also spreads beyond that for personal interpretation. Of course, with such a big umbrella other things may fall under this definition of Art that definitely isn’t art, like hurting another living thing to express anger or frustration. But, since this definition, unlike so many others, is inclusive of all that normally would or could be dubbed as Art, I’m willing to support it, too.
The Professor looked at us two with a shocked look on his face. Well, we certainly haven’t exhausted the subject, but at least we have got a few of you thinking. And since we’ve hit a spot where our two most outspoken class members agree, I’ll take that as a sign that this discussion is over…or has it only begun?
And to that question, we had no answer.
Bibliography
SUZANNE, Bernard. Plato and His Dialogues. 30 Aug. 2003
.
Black, Dianna M., and David B. Paxman. Writing About the Arts and Humanities. Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing, 2003.
By Joe Draschil
