Platos Theories Have Proven Influential in a Wide Variety of Fields - Essay Example

Plato and Cinema Undoubtedly, Plato’s theories have proven influential in a wide variety of fields of knowledge, both ancient and contemporary. The impact of his works is still felt today, in the face of technological advancements and industrial progress. While Plato is well-known for his work, the Republic, it is usually in connection with social and political thought that the Republic is taken up. Epistemology and ethics are likewise areas of immediate reference. However, aesthetics or the philosophy of art is an area that is also tackled in Platonic thought. More interestingly, his views on art are rooted in his theories on universal Truth. In this paper, the author answers the question of the relevance of Platonic thought to the contemporary field of cinema. The discussion proceeds by taking a look at some major points of Platonic aesthetics, and then shifts to a discussion of cinema as examined from the Platonic perspective of art. Platonic Aesthetics The way Plato looks at art should be understood within the context of his larger enterprise, the Republic, where his views on aesthetics are located. What exactly is the status of art for Plato? The Platonic view of art is rather pessimistic. He believes that the state should be governed by reason, in the same way that an individual, if s/he is to be a just individual, should have the “passions and the appetites governed by reason” (Albert et. al., 1980, p.25). Considering how the ideal state is conceived as one where everyone and everything must work for the good of society, art in general is conceived as being subservient to the state in that sense. If art is to be practiced or engaged in at all, it must be in a form that promotes a just society. In discussing how a person acquires knowledge and skills, Plato argues that from childhood, a person learns through imitating that to which s/he is exposed. As such, if the state is to raise up guardians, then these guardians-to-be need exposure only to those that promote the virtues, and not to those that arouse negative or ill attitudes. In the Republic, Plato states: If then we adhere to our original notion and bear in mind that our guardians, setting aside every other business, are to dedicate themselves wholly to the maintenance of freedom in the State,… they ought not to practice or imitate anything else; if they imitate at all, they should imitate from youth upward only those characters which are suitable to their profession – the courageous, temperate, holy, free, and the like; but they should not depict or be skilful at imitating any kind of illiberality or baseness, lest from imitation they should come to be what they imitate. Did you never observe how imitations, beginning in early youth and continuing far into life, at length grow into habits and become a second nature, affecting body, voice, and mind? (Plato, 1973, p.83). Hence, if applied to arts, such as poetry, painting, and tragedy, only those images that are virtuous are to be portrayed and nothing else. Why is Plato generally wary of art? It is because he feels that art is dangerous for two reasons: first, art is dangerous because it is irrational, appealing to the feelings and emotions instead of reason, and second, because it tends to deceive anyone that perceives it. In other words, art is both irrational and deceptive. For Plato, art is good if it brings a person closer to the Forms, hence, the Truth. Generally, art is not good for Plato because it is already an imitation of an imitation. It is therefore twice removed from the Forms. If art and artists are to vindicate themselves, they should at least, for Plato, prompt a move back to the Forms. This translates as having works of art appear as “real” as possible, that is, as close as possible to the material world that art tries to imitate. This at least ensures a degree of proximity to the Truth. However, notice that the more “realistic” a work of art becomes, the more deceiving it also appears. Hence, it does not seem to escape one of Plato’s criticisms about it, namely, that art is dangerous because it tends to deceive. How is art deceptive? Art is generally deceptive because it is able to depict a thing or a situation that does not necessarily have to exist. In its capacity to do so, it can make a person believe that what s/he perceives is real. Consider how a person can be moved by a fictional work. Despite the knowledge that what s/he is reading or looking at is a work of the imagination, the said person can still be affected as if the image or situation was real. One can be frightened by a horror novel, or fall in love as a result of listening to a love song. Again, Plato would return to the context of the Republic to justify art as works that ought to portray only that which is virtuous. This means that art must retrace its steps in order to elevate the soul to the level of Truth. Notice how Plato takes into account the power of music in affecting a person. He refers to musical training as “a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful”(90). Thus, if a work of art, such as music, is to have the status of “good” art, then the musician must make sure that his/her music elicits positive feelings and attitudes, stemming from music’s hold on the “inward places of the soul.” Plato evaluates artworks based on abstract, transcendent concepts, such as justice, and morality. In other words, he looks at artworks but does not try to examine them through the elements within the work itself. Instead, he looks at standards that lie outside the works. For example, if Plato were to look at a painting, he would not consider the technical details of the work at face value, and judge the work based on how well the colors were used, or how clean the strokes were. Rather, he would consider how such technical elements come together and have a particular effect on an individual. If the work, as a whole, elicits attitudes of baseness or ill feelings as a result of its components, then that work should not be permitted. If on the other hand, the work provides upliftment of the individual’s mind and soul, then that is a good work of art. Thus, it is clear that in evaluating the artwork, Plato relies heavily on the effects that artworks may have on an individual. This practice points to standards that are technically not found in the work itself. If Plato were to look at an Abstract Expressionist work made up of wild swirls of vivid colors, he might likely label it as a work that is inappropriate for society to view. The wild and violent composition might incite negative feelings of violence in a perceiver, and this might find expression in mainstream society. On one hand, Plato does insist that the members of society be exposed to images and portrayals of good character, but he also believes that anything that might imply or lead to bad character should be discontinued and censored. Plato’s idea of censorship is founded precisely on his notion of art as mere imitation. Because art is only a copy of a copy, that is, art depicts objects and situations in the material world that is in turn a copy of the Forms, it leads people farther from the Truth. Therefore, art should be regulated in terms of its content. This is the heart of censorship. Notice how contemporary notions of censorship find justification by appealing to the need, real or otherwise, to protect the state from whatever element that can undermine society. This includes works of art that portray themes of rebellion, immorality, perversions, and similar other images that depict negative character or behavior. Notice how such themes can be present in any form of art, from visual arts like paintings and sculptures, to literature and poetry, all the way to music and even theater. Plato insists that only those works depicting “hymns and praises to the gods” should be allowed in the state, if the state is to keep itself stable. From the Platonic perspective, this is the reason why censorship is important. Perhaps the actual practice of censorship today may differ from the ancient Greek times. The differences may be found in the application of censorship. For example, in modern times, nudity may be cause for censorship, but during Plato’s time, the human form was celebrated. Acts of violence may also have been censored rather differently, since it is fairly obvious that Homer’s stories contain a noticeable amount of violence in them, but were nevertheless tolerated. Plato did not think highly of Homer, and this causes some kind of “philosophical embarrassment” (Nehamas, 1988, p. 214). In other words, while the concept of censorship itself has been largely unchanged, the applications are much more varied. What is important is the fact that the Platonic view of art includes in large part, an idea of censorship that is ultimately rooted in his theory of Forms. Representation and Cinema Modern-day cinema can be conceived conceptually as an adaptation of theater. The concept behind theater is precisely about the representation of situations and individuals in as vivid a manner as possible, in line with the imitation theory of art propounded by Plato. The limitations of theater, however, are that focus on the most important elements is not always possible because of spatial limitations: the audience is necessarily far from the actors. Further, distractions from any part of the stage can take place at any time. These limitations are addressed in cinema, film, or video, through the technology of the lens. Coupled with the discerning eye of the director, the camera can zoom in an actor’s face, or to any scene, in order to emphasize and set a particular emotion or mood. Obviously, this is not always possible in a theater environment. The above actions serve to highlight the focal point of the film, while at the same time “eliminating possible distractions” (Carroll, 1997, p. 123). But the significant philosophic question about cinema involves going to the fundamental inquiry: What makes cinema art? Interestingly enough, for all of Plato’s criticisms about art, he seems to provide a clear answer to the question about cinema. If the mimetic view of art is taken, then cinema is justifiably even more “artistic” than all other art forms, since the representation and imitation occurs at the highest degree. The actors and actresses participate or engage in the portrayal of characters that perform in specific ways. These actions can be considered representations of particular persons, although if understood from the Aristotelian perspective, film is an imitation not of person but of actions (Aristotle, 1999, p.36). Regardless of the perspective, the point that cinema is of a mimetic nature remains. Again, it is mimesis of the highest degree, because of the quality of the representation. Noteworthy is the point that, as shown earlier, the more realistic a work of art becomes, the higher the degree of deception it is capable of. This is best illustrated by film. It is undeniable how powerful the cinema is in terms of presenting something that is not really there. Consider how films like Superman or E.T. left a lot of people amazed because it did seem to appear possible for man to fly, or for an extra-terrestrial to really exist and cohabitate with humans in the ordinary world. Consider as well how a classic film such as Gone With The Wind portrayed a fictional relationship that seemed just as real as any heterosexual relationship. One is reminded of the earlier point about fictional works, that it is interesting how people are still affected emotionally despite knowing a work to be fictional. Recent examples include the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter series, both appearing in written and cinematic form. Watching the film, one gets taken in by the images that the “un-reality” of the work is momentarily forgotten, ironically, because of the “realism” of the experience. In other words, it is as if dragons and elves and other mythical creatures do exist in the material world. Notice that these examples only pertain to fictional film. Documentaries and “reality shows” are another matter, and these open up a different set of difficulties. Are these types of shows, art? If yes, what makes them so? Does being part of the cinematic genre immediately qualify them as works of art? It seems that the closeness of these types of representations to the material or physical world is what is being played up and given value these days. The more drama shown, the more realistic it is, hence, the better it becomes. This formula seems to be at work behind many of these shows, from portraying the struggle of a baby crocodile in National Geographic, to showing the dramatic side of boxers in the Contender, what appears to be the basis for judging the realism of a show is the amount of humanity that can be depicted. If indeed Plato is correct in arguing that art must bring the perceiver closer to the Forms if it is to be good art, then documentaries and reality shows must necessarily have that capacity. Perhaps therein lies the appeal of reality shows, and accounts for the recent upsurge of such kinds of shows. One can literally think of a facet of daily life, and almost assuredly find a reality show based on that. Notice however, that is this is the sole criterion for judging or evaluating this type of cinematic experience, then home and family videos must necessarily be the most realistic, hence, the best type of film. But this is obviously not the case. Put in another way, are home videos artistic in the Platonic sense because of their realism? In sum, Plato may have a low regard for art as a whole, and he might even have more disdain for cinema. Considering how cinema offers a very high degree of deceptive capacity, Plato would probably be more cautious of cinema’s power to influence people; hence, a greater degree of censorship would most likely be required by him. What could salvage cinema from complete censorship would be depictions of noble and virtuous characters. Plato would probably recognize the power of cinema to induce certain states and conditions as well as elicit particular emotions and attitudes, taking into account the combined potency of visual imagery with the accompanying music. Hence, the status of cinema for Plato would be one of dangerous potency for either the upliftment of society or its destruction. This approximation of cinema as dangerous and deceptive vividly captures the essence of the shadows in Plato’s allegory of the cave, where a group of prisoners inside a cave are chained in such a manner that allows them to see only the shadows of objects projected on the cave wall. One gets the same feeling upon entering a cinema house, and the uncanny resemblance is significant. In the same manner that the prisoners in the cave are deceived to believe the shadows to be real, cinema likewise has that capacity to deceive moviegoers that what is shown on the screen is reality. Of course, Plato’s allegory refers ultimately to how the material world tends to make people believe that it is the ultimate reality, when it is simply a copy of the Forms. Nevertheless, if taken down another level, the same allegory can just as smoothly be applied to the relationship between the material world and cinema. Bibliography Abel, L. 1963. Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form, Hill & Wang, New York. Albert, E. M., Denise, T. C., & Peterfreund, S. P. (Ed.). 1980. Great Traditions in Ethics, D. Van Nostrand, New York. Antin, D. 1975. Video: Distinctive Features of the Medium, University of Pennsylvania, USA. Aristotle. 1999. The Poetics, in Contextualizing Aesthetics, eds. Gene Blocker & Jennifer Jeffers, Wadsworth, Canada. Carroll, N. 1997. The Power of Movies, in Aesthetics, eds. David Goldblatt & Lee Brown, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Cavell, S. 1971. Audience, Actor, and Star, Harvard University Press, USA. Eco, U. 1997. Television and Aesthetics, in Aesthetics, eds. David Goldblatt & Lee Brown, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Kivy, P. 1984. Sound and Semblance, Princeton University Press, USA. Nehamas, A. 1997. Plato and the Mass Media, in Aesthetics, eds. David Goldblatt & Lee Brown, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Plato. 1973. The Republic and Other Works, trans. by Benjamin Jowett, Doubleday, New York. Read More