Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s Views on Art

Introduction

What is art? This question has been asked for centuries, and many different answers have been
given in response to it. The vast majority of people are of the opinion that art cannot be defined.
This issue can then be addressed in different ways. Art is usually regarded as the product or
process of intentionally arranging elements in a way that is appealing to the emotions or senses.
It consists of a diverse scope of human expressions, creations, and activities such as paintings,
sculptures, film, literature, and music. The sub-discipline of philosophy that explores the
meaning of art is referred to as aesthetics, according to many scholarly sources. Nonetheless,
generally, art is understood as any product or activity carried out by people with the purpose of
communication or aesthetics. It is something used to express an emotion, an idea, or, more
collectively, a world view. Art is part and parcel of culture, designed to reflect a society’s social
and economic substrates. Through it, values and ideas that are inherent in every tradition are
transmitted through time and space. This paper analyzes how some of the most prominent
philosophers in history, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, understood art.

Socrates’ Perspective of Art

Plato, Book X of The Republic, is home to what is perhaps the earliest theory of art in the West.
In it, Socrates defined art as an imitation. Socrates declared that it is not difficult to create a
perfect imitation, and a mirror can accomplish this function very well. His intention was to
demonstrate that art is to be found in the domain of dreams, illusions, shadows, and reflections.
He then went ahead to depict the universe as a product of three degrees of reality, the highest of
which belongs to the domain of ideas, how things are formed. According to Socrates, ideas are
formed in the mind. The second degree of reality is found in ordinary objects, such as those
created by carpenters. The knowledge of the artist goes only as far as to what the ordinary object
looks like, which is seen in his drawings or paintings. The artist’s knowledge is thus lower than
that of the carpenter, whose knowledge creates a bed that holds the sleeping body (or more
emphatically, bodies embracing in love). So, according to Socrates, the highest knowledge is
possessed by those who can form the idea of an ordinary object and understand how it works; the
lowest knowledge (if at all it is knowledge) is the one possessed by the artist, who can only draw
a picture or present an appearance of the ordinary object.

It can be seen thus, that Socrates did not hold art in any high regard. His view of the taste of man
was rather hierarchical. In his view, the highest of a person is that of the one who exists in the
first degree of reality. The next in order are the people who thrive in the world of objects because
the form is embodied in the object. The artist comes last, resigned to the deepest depths of
cognitive uselessness, doing nothing other than imitating the very image of the world of forms.
His is a world of shadows and illusions.

Aristotle’s Perspective of Art

Aristotle’s attribution of much of art is to the ability of the intellect to recognize patterns and to
the tendency of humans to imitate. It is worth noting, in advance, that Aristotle does not hold
artists in the same low esteem as Socrates. According to Aristotle, humans are often invariably
pleased with the discovery of likeness, and it is from this pleasure that the compulsive need to
develop art emanates. Be that as it may, the purpose of art is not limited to imitation only.
Aristotle took his definition a step further by suggesting that other than capturing what people
see, the artist attempts to make art more extraordinary by eliminating the imperfections in it.

From Aristotle’s point of view, artists create art in an attempt to capture the universal truths
found in individual experiences. As such, he focused most of his interest in the concept of
tragedy as it is depicted in art, describing tragedy as action imitated. Aristotle describes tragedy
as the representation of a meaningful or serious, finished or rounded, and a rather far-reaching or
extended action- a representation that is impacted not by mere narration but by action. It is
accomplished by depicting events that invoke pity and fear in the observer’s mind to purge or
purify these emotions and regulate or extend their sympathy. It is, therefore, a way of
homeopathically curing the passions. While art generally universalizes specific occurrences,
tragedy removes the observer out of the individual and selfish standpoint by depicting critical
and passionate situations. Aristotle’s perspective of the concept of art was entirely different from
that of Plato, his teacher who, like Socrates, viewed art as useless and potentially harmful. In
short, Aristotle was opposed to the opinion that art is useless and dangerous.

Plato’s View of Art

Plato's relationship with art can best be described as a love-hate relationship. Despite his
apparent lack of enthusiasm, he must have had a soft spot for the arts, going by the way he often
spoke about them. His remarks also proved that the attention he paid to what he heard and saw
was somehow undivided. He is also said to have been an excellent story-teller as well as a good
literary stylist. Rumors even have that Plato was a poet before he ran into Socrates (or Socrates
ran into him?) and turned into a philosopher. Several of his dialogues are masterpieces of
literature. On the other hand, he was almost threatened by the arts. At one time, he proposed that
playwrights and poets be sent out of his ideal Republic (or have their material censored, at least).
Even worse, painting and music, in Plato’s opinion, should have been severely censored.
According to Plato, art has a powerful impact on character. As such, arts ought to be strictly
regulated in order to create an ideal society with ideally trained and protected citizens.

The influence that Plato had on western culture is, in general, quite robust. It includes a huge
impact on art and art theories. However, that influence is not very direct when it comes to arts
and the aesthetic theory and can only be best understood by delving a bit into his philosophy.
Plato viewed the physical world as a changing, decaying, and poor imitation of an eternal,
rational, and perfect world that does not change. From this point of view, Plato viewed art in two
aspects. For one, art is an imitation. It imitates the events and objects of ordinary life. In short, a
work of art is a second copy of a form (a copy of a copy). It is less of an ordinary experience
than an illusion. Based on these precincts, art is entertainment at best and a dangerous illusion at
worst. The second aspect is that art is powerful and, as a result, dangerous. The emotions of a
human being are dramatically stirred by dance, painting, music, drama, and poetry. All of these
arts have a powerful effect on people. For that reason, Plato suggested that drama, poetry, and
music (particularly music) should be taught to the young people of his ideal Republic, but must
be censored with strictness to provide only what is good, at least at first. And then, only when the
young citizens are prepared should they be exposed to the forms of art that depict evil and are
more promiscuous, especially music. The only difference between Plato’s and Socrates’ views
on art is that the former, unlike the latter, did not think that art is completely useless.

Conclusion

From the perspectives of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle alone, it can be explicitly seen that the
meaning of art to different people differs broadly. In recent years, the problem has even gotten
bigger with the introduction of forms of art that were never present during these philosophers’
times, such as pop art. Anyhow, as far as Socrates and Plato were concerned, art in all its forms
is useless. But to Aristotle, art is an indispensable part of human existence. By the way, Plato
was Socrates’ student, and Aristotle Plato’s.