Response to Andrea's Question about whether skill is needed in art

Knowing different skills in art does make you a better artist. Art skills have been developed over long periods of time and increasingly allow individuals to make more accurate representations of the world around us. These are important skills and create interesting art. An individual does not have to use them to create good art, but someone who can only draw a couple of things is limited in the expression of their ideas. The more skills they have the more capable they are of creating representations in whatever way they choose to do so. If they do not have the skills, they are limited in what they can try. Having done some video editing work, I can say that I do not always design things the way a teacher may have suggested but I am able to use what they taught and incorporate them into my own way of doing things. For most people, they can only go so far without someone to teach them. That does not mean that people who do not go to school are worse artists necessarily but learning the skills helps most people’s development. One could say the same thing about philosophy. I do not need to know what philosophers have thought to think with a philosophical mind set, but my ideas will only progress so far if I do not read and hear other people’s opinions. I may never get beyond a flaw in my logic that I could see if I read someone else’s opinion. An artist’s work may never become more interesting, if they do not learn what others have thought in their chosen medium. Everyone can benefit from attempting to improve and one of the best ways to do so is through education. People often enjoy the challenge in learning new ways to do something they enjoy and it helps them develop. We have seen people sing, dance, draw, and play an instrument that lack training. In most cases we do not enjoy their creations. People also develop confidence and pride once they have skill and then feel more comfortable adapting and trying new things.

Should an artist only expose themselves to what they consider good art or is there something worth from all forms of art? Should an artist attempt to focus on learning about their medium or can learning about other mediums be just as helpful?

Landscapes and other art

Are landscapes an imitation of an imitation? They could be described as the creation by God or the gods of an idea that came from them. This seems problematic though because if a god developed the idea and created it they are imitating their own concept, and imitation is usually described as copying someone else. Then if an artist paints a landscape, it would only be an imitation because they are copying only a higher power and not the middle figure of the craftsperson. This does not change the meaning of Plato’s idea because the purpose of the landscape would still be to the emotions. It would also still be the same idea as holding up a mirror. It creates the illusion of three dimensional space without having it. Films and television also create the illusion of three dimensions while having only two and usually serve the purpose of appealing to the emotions. They can serve other purposes though. A documentary can expose people to different ideas and forms of reasoning, but it is imitating either the people that choose to be interviewed, the aspects of nature it includes, or the crafts involved. An abstract film is not based on any previously developed form and comes directly from an idea. The film The Critic pokes fun at this quality be showing abstract images and adding a voice over saying things like “I think this is symbolic. I think this is symbolic of junk.” His confusion is based upon his not understanding film based on form and not imitation. The concepts that Plato expresses are not as clear as they may appear at first glance. Landscape art surely existed at the time he was writing, yet even this does not seem to clearly fit into his definition of art.

If God has an idea and creates something based on it is he imitating his own idea?

Some potential flaws in Plato's theory

Plato describes three stages of form where art is the third and therefore an imitation of an imitation. Form as the idea is the first, the second is craft and art is the third and final. An obvious exception to this is modern art which does not appear to directly copy any craft and seems to follow form more directly. Another issue with this is certain crafts. Many people would consider model ships as more of a craft than an art. It is a skilled work that involves the use of materials like wood. It is in Plato’s theory clearly an imitation of an imitation. Model ships imitate the look and design of ships and often are smaller scale models of specific vessels. This would mean that a craft can also be an imitation of an imitation while art does not have to be. There is also the assumption that being an imitation of an imitation means that something is useless and only appeals the emotions. Sales people often used to have small scale models of homes and other large items so they could show potential owners exactly what their purchase would look like before they bought it. This is an obvious imitation of an imitation but it is useful. When someone translates a text into another language they are imitating the original which is based on an idea. This is an imitation of an imitation. Yet these texts can teach us a lot about others reasoning and practical information.

Is Plato’s conception of art too outdated to be useful in the modern world, is it correct, or are the basic principles worth incorporating into modern theories of art?    

Emotion and Reason

Plato’s theory of art provides an interesting explanation of art’s place in society. Finding that art is simply an imitation of already created forms, Plato reasons that art serves no practical purpose in society. In its appeal to the emotions, which most would agree is an integral part of art; it actually detracts from society as it distracts people from reason. An obvious question that develops through this explanation is whether reason is always superior to emotions. The question itself means that reason and emotion are separate categories that we have the ability to choose between. Often we use reason to help our emotional state. An individual might reason through various options of how to spend their day and base their decision on which would make them happiest. People do not usually choose a holiday vacation based on which picture makes them feel better, they look at various options, their costs, and the activities available and then decide which they like more. Emotions can also lead people to make positive decisions. If one sees an injured animal and takes care of it they are probably acting on an emotional response. Reason might tell them that the animal will be a lot of work and they already have a lot of responsibility. Reason might also tell them that animals suffer and suffering is a negative state so they should help it, but this decision would only be made if one understood the emotional state of suffering. That means emotions are necessary for helping others. This mean emotions and reason probably should not be separated on two ends of a spectrum where emotions are to be discouraged. Another problem with removing emotions is that they are naturally part of the human experience is that they are still a part of us. If people do not express their emotions they are likely to come out at various and perhaps inappropriate times. If a person is angry at someone and never says anything, they may end up taking that anger out on a friend or family member. They will not mean to, but it will still happen. I do not believe that it is possible to remove emotions, only to not act on them in specific situations. And the emotional response that is not acted on is still there. People cannot choose to no longer feel.   

Can someone be a good person without feeling any emotions?