~Walid Yaghy, Class of 2011, BARSC
Characters: Walid Yaghy and Plato
Setting: Outside a Museum of Art
Walid: Plato! What on earth are you doing here?
Plato: Why, I was just taking a walk, thinking about art and its place in the world.
Walid: Wonderful! Art is a beautiful thing, isn’t it? I’m a musician myself, and am continually amazed at how powerful and affecting art can be.
Plato: Well, that’s exactly the problem with art. Yes, it affects people and it is powerful, and because of this, it is dangerous and detrimental to society.
Walid: I’m not sure I understand you, Plato. I feel that art enriches society and garners a sense of cultural identity. Art seems to embody the spirit of an age like no other and, because of that, a timeless sense of continual communication between the numerous eras of history is achieved.
Plato: Yes, communication is no doubt a central element of art. Information, feelings, and ideas are directed from the artist to the viewer. However, this communicative link between the creator and the viewer allows for the edification and persuasion of the latter. In a way, the artist is
able to alter the views of an individual who views his work, and when such a change occurs, it is, most of the time, for the worse.
Walid: Well, Plato, aren’t you assuming that art always seems to carry some sort of message with it?
Plato: How is it possible for art not to carry a message? Considering the importance of communication in art, one could say that art, like language, is basically another form of communication. Something must be passed on from one person to another for the communication to be valid, and the thing that is being communicated is a message, is it not?
Walid: That seems to make sense, but how about instrumental music? Music is absent of any direct resemblance to the world. For example, a poem or play is built from words and language, something that many are familiar with. The reader of a poem only needs to understand the meaning of the words to understand some sort of message. Instrumental music, on the other hand, is built of pitches and sounds. Because of this, music cannot be compared to what one sees, as in the case of visual art, or to the meanings that words carry, as in the case of poetry and theatre. How is there any way to derive a message from such music?
Plato: Art is the representation, or rather the imitation, of things that already exist in the world. In the case of music, the imitation is of emotions.
Walid: I have to disagree with you on that point. While I do believe that music has a strong influence on the emotions, I don’t see how, if music does indeed imitate emotion, a theory of music can be developed.
Plato: When a piece of music is heard, an emotional response is evoked, just as in the perception of any work of art. Certain collections of notes will evoke certain kinds of emotions in people. For example, the collection known as the Phrygian mode has a war-like characteristic about it and will therefore evoke a belligerent emotional response. The sweeter-sounding Lydian mode, likewise, evokes a calmer response that has no chance of causing any sort of hostility to arise.
Walid: It might interest you to know that Spanish folk music is characterized by its heavy use of the Phrygian mode, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the Spanish being more belligerent that any other culture. However, I will admit that, to my ears, music that is of a “major” quality (or Ionian mode) sounds happy, while music of a “minor” quality (or Aeolian mode) sounds sad, but I don’t think an individual of a different culture, who is more familiar with a different kind of music, will agree with me. My point is that a specific pitch collection or harmony becomes associated with a particular emotion as a result of the whims of a culture. In effect, each culture has its own ideas about what kinds of emotions are represented in a given piece of music.
Plato: While your application of cultural relativity to artistic interpretation shows that a universal system of relating music to the emotions cannot be achieved, it still admits that music can cause an individual to feel a certain
way. Sometimes, such a change of feeling can affect one’s character. That kind of music which makes individuals act against virtue should be never be heard…it should be kept from the people. The same should apply to all of the arts.
Walid: I don’t see the relationship between one’s character and artwork, Plato.
Plato: Like I said before, art imitates entities in the world, and the world as we know it, is already a vague imitation of the true, timeless world of Forms. Therefore, art is twice removed from reality; it is merely a copy of a copy. This kind of thing appeals solely to the emotions, not reason. The powerful and stirring nature of art leads one away from the truth and towards illusion. If the realization of truth is the greatest good, then the embracement of illusion is the greatest evil.
Walid: It sounds like you’re not really a fan of the arts. If you believe that art moves people towards the greatest evil, why do you even consider it?
Plato: While art has the potential to be dangerous, this only occurs when people are free to enjoy whatever art they please. I don’t think all art is bad, though…it only needs to be controlled, that is all.
Walid: This seems absurd; don’t you think that people should be free to make and view art as they please? If it is controlled, “art” as the people know it, will only include what is tasteful to the rulers. The enrichment of
society cannot be achieved when creativity is restricted and controlled since only certain aspects are represented, while the others are cast away.
Plato: That’s exactly my point: the good aspects are the ones that are represented, and the bad aspects are restricted. You see, while art is inherently dangerous, if it is controlled, it can serve a wonderful purpose. Good art, or art that evokes admirable characteristics like virtue, should be used to educate the young. As a pedagogic tool, art molds and shapes one’s character, but the knowledgeable rulers are the only ones who know what works for the best of the people.
Walid: You have reduced the power and greatness of art to fit into a purpose pragmatic in nature- that of nurturing the youth. Do you realize that in doing so you are essentially controlling the opinion of people? To me, it sounds like you think art should be used for propaganda, not pedagogy.
Plato: If by propaganda you mean the directing of a society towards an ideal, then yes, you are correct. Don’t you see the value in this? The people in charge should, reasonably, be of the wisest and most virtuous character. They are the ones who have the best understanding of right and wrong, good and evil. Through this knowledge, the rulers can secure and protect the goodness of a society. Most people are not able to use freedom for their own good or for the good of their society; if people are free to make a choice without being fully aware of the consequences, then the wrong choices will inevitably be made.
Walid: I cannot bring myself to agree with the censorship of art. You claim that this method will prevent people from being clouded with illusion, but I feel that it will destroy the most rewarding aspects of art for the sake of eliminating anything negative that could possibly arise from it. This method is similar to the parents who try to shield all the potential “evils” of the world from their children. The children, through some way or another, eventually become aware of such “evil” things and formulate opinions on it according to experience. Additionally, the subjective nature of art points to the idea that a work of art for one person could mean something entirely different from another person. Your idea of censorship of the arts creates an “appreciation” of the arts that is one-sided. That is, if art is something that is thrust upon people, then it eliminates any form of opinion. Using art in the way you prescribe assumes that objectivity exists in something that is clearly subjective. Your system leaves no room for interpretation, and assumes that everyone will find the same meaning in a particular work.
Plato: People should not be free to “interpret” works of art. There can only be one meaning for any work of art. Interpretation leads to false ideas about a work of art. The best art is that which unequivocally expresses a truth about the world. No other kind of art is necessary. What is so rewarding about the freedom to experience art as one pleases? This can only lead to social decay.
Walid: As I said before, the spirit of an age is captured in its art. Society and culture are developed and enriched, and this occurs through the portrayal of the events, feelings, and ideas that resonate most with the individuals of the era. Artists are the ones who are able to express such
subjects in a subtle, indescribable way that arguably gives the most accurate representation of the feeling of a particular age. In a way, the essence of a period is captured and immortalized in art. The greatest advantage of this is a continuous dialectic of feelings and ideas between societies that are separated by time. A society develops and realizes its identity through its art. Through art, each age can better recognize its place in the history of humanity. It is an endless variation on a theme, the theme being the embodiment of zeitgeist. Would you like to see what I mean by coming into the museum with me?
Plato: Well, I’m not convinced, but I suppose the function of art can change according to how the age sees fit. This age is not for me…too much freedom is allowed. I think I’ve seen enough, and I really should get back home.
Walid: Suit yourself. Before you go, could you sign my copy of your Symposium?
Plato: I don’t see why not. Here you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment