Which Philosophy Is True?
There has been great debate over whether life imitates art, or if art imitates life. Each has its own philosophy that holds merit.
This argument is as old as time itself though popularly Plato and Aristotle are often cited with their different opinions.
Move forward in time and you find Oscar Wilde chiming in a difference of opinion reversing some of the philosophy. Men such as George Bernard Shaw tend to agree with Wilde although again with variation. If I must choose a camp to agree with I would choose Aristotle but it is a very poor argument and fit that I also believe is wrong. Why?
To know Wilde and Shaw one must know more about the men. This is especially true of Shaw who was a genocidal maniac that agreed to a creation of a pure and superior race. By his claim every human should justify their existence or be discarded by society. Indeed he is on record with these claims. The foundations of philosophy for these men were more than flawed.
Despite this age old argument it simply comes down to intellectuals who believe they know more than anyone else as they attempt to justify philosophical reason for their existence. In truth they are all wrong and art theory stands in contrast to their beliefs. That statement should raise more than a few eyebrows. Allow me to explain.
Plato’s Vs Aristotle’s Philosophy
Plato stated that if mimetic art is a copy of nature then it serves no purpose and is worthless. In Book X of the Republic he concludes that not only does art serve no purpose but further claims it teaches dangerous things.
His views were as a result of his theory founded within the Metaphysical Theory of Forms. I cannot help but to wonder what he would have though of the coming Hellenistic Era.
From the onset as a result of his beliefs mimetic art could only be dangerous. He believed that art was not concerned with morality and would teach immoral things. He felt that these moral issues were portrayed within the Iliad. Achilles refused to fight for his state out of spite and anger.
As Achilles is portrayed as a hero the concern with Plato was a moral question pertaining to the citizens of the state. He believed these well packaged designs in art would undermine the morality of Greece seducing them away from what was pure. I find his philosophies fascinating in terms of desire to control what art should or should not be.
Furthermore is his belief that since art serves no real purpose that it should cease to exist. Plato had the markings of a great dictator. He completely ignores individual responsibility. A man who claims to be so rational disregards a people who also can make rational decisions for themselves.
His belief was that creativity was in part some kind of divine madness. Artists he says could not define beauty nor justify their claim to each creation which was made as being beautiful. He begins to sound a lot like George Bernard Shaw and his love of the Fabian society.
Aristotle was Plato’s most famous student but also his greatest critic. He did agree with Plato in that art imitated life but rejected the idea that it was useless or dangerous. Aristotle would fit better today in modern science with ideas of evolution in that mankind is a mere animal and should be studied as such.
Needless to say both men completely miss the point of art and its real purpose. I will detail more on this soon yet their philosophies were bent in order to justify their philosophical beliefs. In reading their arguments it is a far more dramatic version of realized vs stylized art in modern time.
Oscar Wilde Life Imitates Art
Along comes Oscar Wilde with his claim that life imitates art. In his work “The Decay of Lying” the core principle is that the self conscious aim of life is to find expression. Be careful with words. Note “find expression”. Allow me to explain.
He believed that peoples appreciation for things in life was found through what artists taught them to find. In other words people could not appreciate life without first an artist showing them how to appreciate it. This becomes much like the chicken or the egg, which came first?
How would the first artist be able to create a work to teach what to appreciate if there was no initial realization to begin with? I cannot help but wonder what Wilde would have to say concerning the work of Andy Warhol.
What is little known about Wilde today, for it is not commonly taught within our education, was that he was a passionate Fabian and socialist within his time. He and Shaw shared many commonalities.
Throughout many years these mens ideas have perpetuated and propagated our education systems as they are filled with ideas of small men with a major superiority complex. Wilde was Plato’s worst nightmare come into realization. He was a hedonist that would partake within any immorality imagined as he refrained from little in his life.
As one begins to read Wilde’s ideas on aesthetic socialism and how he believed it would allow artists to be free from capitalist pressures it should raise an eyebrow. Continued reading would show how his ideals are founded upon nothing more than a unrealistic Utopian world with no boundaries or restraint. That is except for the restraints on those who he saw as being the oppressors. In short he was a lunatic.
The Intellectual Mind Cannot Grasp Art
The problem with intellectuals is that they always are seeking to justify their philosophy knowing “they are right”. No matter the amount of evidence which can be provided to the contrary of what they believe it cannot change their mind. In fact when opposing evidence becomes too great it is villainized and then silenced by whatever means is necessary.
Too few know the fathers of the 20th century in this way. This mindset was founded in Britain and then imported into America and Germany. While within the United States the cultivation of elitist thought was tempered due to fighting the self proclaimed “pure bloodline of Germany” in World War 2, in time it has still reared its ugly head.
Intellectuals must seek to understand, categorize, justify, and then theorize while they play god with society. Each time they find power the only result is mass death and destruction for every people and nation they come into contact with. It is the small man syndrome where they are better than everyone else.
Education is not meant to do this. Intellect today is often defined in different ways than the late 19th and early 20th century. Education should not attempt to shape or mold the minds to the desire of any other man. Yet this was the Fabian fantasy.
What Is The Philosophy Of Art?
Simply put there is not a philosophy which can capture art therefore it has none. Art rather serves a purpose contrary to Plato’s beliefs. Let’s use his society to prove this point. Much of what we know about the Greeks come from two points of archeology. Their writing, and their artwork.
Art is a time capsule. It is a historical recording of a people as it captures their beliefs, systems of society, their ideas. There are many cultures which we have uncovered that we would know very little about if it were not for their art. The Minoan society and many native cultures are among those this would apply to.
Art can give context to a people. Rome is a great example in this principle. They had little which was theirs alone. Much of their influence was imported from conquest. The context of their people as being conquerors is undisputed. They indeed were technologically advanced for their time yet blood thirsty more than artistic.
Plato, Aristotle, Wilde, and others missed the point. Indeed art is an expression yet it is individual in nature. An artist creates based upon what may inspire them without regard to what it may or may not reflect. It can serve as a statement to a movement or to a feeling one experiences.
Beauty does not need to be defined in a quantitative way. Abstract concepts can bear real world concepts in application. The right time and place within the world is everything.
What Does Art Reflect?
Sometimes nothing. Sometimes art will reflect everything. It cannot be understood with reasoning on an individual basis. To understand it intellectually it must be viewed as the sum of the whole. In reality it reflects a society and its thinking, beliefs, direction, it is a fingerprint. This is how it is viewed within archaeological contexts.
Attempting to use intellect for social understanding or influence is hijacking the pure purpose of art. If this is accomplished we find where people are suppressed and all art reflects the same ideology. Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany is a great example of how approved art was only displayed. This does not embody the idea of capturing the true imprint of a people.
Rather when intellectuals are allowed to rule society as Plato or Wilde would prefer the real identity of a people is lost to time and history. The real impressions, beliefs, and way of life for that people will never be known. Instead we are given replacement history with grand ideas to act as lies covering the truth of who we are.
Art was never meant to be harnessed or bridled like an animal. Never have I seen a horse paint or a dog sing an opera thus the artist cannot be studied as Aristotle’s animal thinking. Art is a picture of a people. It embodies who we are and where we hope to go, and sometimes what we inevitably become despite those hopes.
Education is critical. It is vital. It is absolutely important. Yet the intellectual mind that knows all for the good of everyone is a very dangerous thing.
Art Is More Than Expression, Art Is Freedom
To quantify or classify art one could say that art is freedom. If a people can freely express without fear then with this will come some lack of inhibition. Yet contrary to Plato’s beliefs there will come a time when people figure out what works, and what does not work. After all we are more than animals.
Evolutionists today would trend more in line with Aristotle. If we are mere animals then what is to keep the intellectual from herding the cattle? The very presence of art and our ability to create with our inspiration should bring realization that we are not defined so easily. One cannot be within a herd and still be free.
If art cannot promote freedom and evidence to the contrary of popular beliefs then truly one would be forced to agree with Plato or Wilde. If we could not dream, have vision, or pursue hope then perhaps Aristotle could have his animal farm. The point is that the human consciousness is not as a result of mere accident or a freak of nature.
Not all art is moral. Not all art is good. It never will be. It could perhaps be a barometer to measure the health of any nation or people. To know its trends and shifts is to see the moral health of any people. It will at times bend too far to the left, and at others too far to the right. Nevertheless it must always remain free.
I call the musings of those such as Plato, Aristotle, Wilde, and Shaw the rambling of men who could not understand truth and meaning. They lacked the vision to know the definition of freedom and inspiration. Furthermore they had no idea of its source. Freedom is not found within the ideology of men for all men seek power and control.
Art is more important to our world than any philosophy class or philosopher can categorize. It cannot be captured. It cannot be harnessed. It is more than an idea. It really is more than expression. Art will always seek to be free whether to good or evil morals. What it becomes will depend on what we as a society learn by taking responsibility for what we become.
The fingerprint we leave in time to what we became will one day be measured to influence another culture in the future. I only hope the egomaniacs are able to be seen for who they are with the record of history.