Platos

The text of one of Plato's aesthetics, ION, is here on the Perseus Project web site.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=plat.+ion+530a

In case that doesn't work the PP home page is here
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

Look for the blue bar (link) 'Texts'

Careful, this stuff can be addictive!

(snip)

Ok, I've read it. Now, where were we, and what shall we do with it?

(Mark wrote in another thread) Nice point. But by this view, how do you distinguish Michelangelo from Rockwell?

Socrates' first argument is about positions, I think. Ion profess expertise in Homer, recognizes Homer as the best, and confesses that he falls asleep during Hesoid, but wakes right up when Homer is mentioned. Socrates goes to some length to argue that if Ion could love Homer on the basis of 'art' he would also at least 'know' Hesoid on that basis, and not fall asleep, at least. It all ends up with Sacrates showing Ion that his love of Homer, and also Ion's ability to say that Homer is better than Hesoid, is based on something other than 'art' or 'knowledge of art', i.e. divine inspiration as defined with Socrats metaphors about the magnets.

Following this line, is the distinction between Michelangelo and Rockwell possible on grounds other than 'art' (or whatever we think of as 'art' at any given time)? I think Socrates (Plato) would say yes, even if we didn't want to call it divine. We could discuss it in terms of the social or cultural, in fact. But this means that both examples have accumulated a lot of signification from sources other than their standing as works of arts from the point of view of the narrowest idea of what art is. I mean if we ask the question simply on the basis of of art (skill, technique, accuracy of rendering, color use and so on) M and R are liable to come up equal, or we couldn't make a solid argument that one was better than the other. It seems very absurd to me, but it is really fascinating to ask why it seems absurd.

Walter Benjamin spoke of the 'aura' of the work of art as a way of generalizing about any of several contextual circumstances in which the art appears. The idea of uniqueness and originality, the idea of value (how much is the Sistine Chapel worth?), the biography of the artist and so on. I think that these elements which collectively constitute the 'aura' would be, in Plato's aesthetics, belonging to the devine, that power and love which starts in heaven, attaches to the artist and the work of art, and attaches to the viewer.

So initially, I think this the the value of 'ION' to the discussion on aesthetics. It cleaves the subject into halves, one being 'art' the other being the 'devine.' As this is one of the foundation pieces on the philosophical inquiry of aesthetics, it sort of sets the stage for the subsequent debate.

Now it's coming to us in the post modern where 'culture' is substituted for Plato's 'divine.' What it really boils down to that there is the work of art on the one hand, with its intrinsic qualities, and the social context on the other hand, with it's extrinsic qualities. Together they are 'art' and apart they are 'parts of art.'

So, on the strength of the evidence in ION, I submit that aesthetics must consider both.

Can you give me a pictorial analogy for lang and parole? I know what they are, I'd just like to hear how, for you, they translate to visual art.

Ok, have I slipped to the other side? Let me know if I have.

I've just written a post for Mani where I address this. Is it ok if I direct you there for my response?

I think that's a good way to summarize it. Do we see Ion as an artist in his own right? Brando and Stern I do. I don't know if we are meant to see Ion that way. He is certainly a performer.

Well I don't know for sure that we can remove all context from a discussion of the relative merits of this or that painting. But I am interested in varying degrees of stress. I have to say that I am a little dissapoitned in the lack of discussion of pictorial qualities in a lot of writing today - it is usually substituted with biographical or morality writing.

Anyway, the thing that I am left with after all of this is that I'm not sure Ion represents, for me, enough of what esthetics is about (again, see my post to Mani) partly because I don't have much use for the Magnet analogy and what it implies.

Also, are Ion's ability to sing and his understanding of Homer separate issues - they seems so to me - and if so, does understanding of Homer guarantee excellent performance? Could another singer perform Homer better even if he lacked Ion's knowlege?

thanks,

I guess it's possible that that argument could be made, but I wouldn't make it. I don't think it does apply. But I was offering this as an example of how Critical Theory is not disconnected from the historical development of philosophy in Western Civilization.

I don't really know, Mark. I'm referencing other discussions from a few months ago. My impression was that you were advocating a position that was not part of any social or cultural context, which would be meaningful when you grapple the question 'Why is one painting better than the other.' I thinks its a very good question, and I only suspect that it could be asked from the position you are advocating. I'm just trying to understand what that position is. I mean, what are we going to consider relevant to the question, and not. I don't think its a bad idea to restrict a discussion this way

Omygosh

mark Webber <...> The 'what' and the 'how', you know....

And if we can accept this distinction, of form and content, then we might ask ourselves which of these things has more to do with the success or failure of a work? <...>

Just a loose association: When Tony Pittman published his first version of Tiny Basic for homebrew computers, the memory space allowed only two error messages: 'What' indicating that the interpreter could not parse the meaning of a phrase, and 'How' referring to a situation where the phrase filled formal criteria, but was impossible within the rules. I used to muse why Pittman left out the most important 'Why'.

It is a question I often pose to an artwork. F.ex. when What is Virgin Mary, (not an unworthy subject) How is elephant dung (with certain skill and beaty), the 'why' is a key question, I think.

- lauri

Now that's beautiful.

The point of art, to me, is 'Why not?'

Erik,

Don't you love them?

Danto calls it philosophical reflections. My own idea of a poetics of visual art is my fantasy that one day people will write about painting the way that they write about poetry. Poetics to my mind goes way beyond theory. Isn't art theory always attached to an historical context, whereas poetics spans the years? I thought the way Mark was writing about form and sensibility in painting to be poetics. Poetics as in Seamus Heaney (Government of the Tongue) or Gaston Bachelard (The Poetics of Space & The Psychoanalysis of Fire.) more recent than Ari.

Thanks for your book tip, will try to get a hold of it.

I hope I explained it a little in my response to Mark. There's a cat on my lap & I hate to kick her off, so I can't get at my references and you know how I like to use quotes. (hope you're not thinking, ya sure, like the dog ate my homework.)

But many don't accept this notion, Mark. They see contemporary theory as something completely disconnected from tradition, rather than the extension of tradition into the present. But the relationship between art and language is another issue entirely. You know I'm always ready for that one, but I'll set it aside in this discussion, although it may come back as we iron out these ideas about aesthetics. (as if we really could???)

I suspect the Greeks, or at least Plato, uses words like 'divine' as tropes, to signify something else in a very general way. Like the idea of the visitation of the 'Muse' to an artist. I think you have to 'read' Plato as a rationalist who generalized the things he thought were not 'logical' this way. This is just a supposition - I'm very 'Plato Challenged' in fact.

It doesn't seem 'alien' to me, insofar as I understand it, but it does seem weak to me in some areas. But let me qualify that

I know, yes, and I personally don't care for this. I don't mean black and white; I don't *forbid* discussion of subject or context - not at all. I just don't address them unless the work is formally strong.

And the idea of wanting art to be about 'more than itself' strikes me as very disengaged. If a painting is good enough, I don't need it to be about anything more than 'lookin' good'.

Maybe there is an answer there: maybe if one is looking at crap, and the crap doesn't offer enough visually to engage one, one *needs* the art to be about something beyond itself. Does this ring a bell for anyone?

Well, first of all, I think you are refering to my response to a Caravaggio, so I don't think that qualifies me as un-modern.

Second, the reasons for the physical details don't have to do with depictive issues - that is, draw a nose to look like a nose - rather they are formal issues - how much nose and where, to what visual effect.

But most important, I don't think Modernism is about breaking with representation for the sake of rebellion. I think most successful Modernism breaks with representation as a result of exploring new ways to work with form.

If modernism means being a rebel for the sake of being a rebel, then, no I am not a modernist. If modernism means allowing formal concerns to overide representation concerns, at the expense of depiction, then yes, I am a modernist. But not a very daring one, because I like making pictures *of things*.

I'll tell you though, I don't put much stock in the popular notion that an artist has to be daring or avant guard. A number of really excellent painters this century have upturned that paradigm, thankfully.

thanks,