This week we start Unit II on "Major Theories of the Arts." We begin by looking at three of the most influential and best-known "essentialist" theories of art -- representation, formalism, and expressionism. All share the strength of capturing at least some important part of what we understand as "art." All suffer from trying to find an "essence" of art. Even though they might characterize much that we consider "art," it's easy to find counter-examples, that is, works that we clearly want to count as "art," yet which don't fit the theory. In our discussions, try to come up with examples that seem to be explained well by each theory, as well as examples that don't fit (i.e., that discredit the explanatory power of the theory).

Typically, these broad theories of art try to do several things. They offer definitions of an "essence" of art in a descriptive sense -- supposedly describing what we understand as "art." But most go beyond this to offer a definition in a "normative sense," i.e., urging that artists strive for a certain type of art. In turn, this normative definition" provides a set of criteria for evaluating art as "good" or otherwise. Thus, in getting a good understanding of each theory, we are also laying groundwork for our consideration of evaluation in Unit III.

This week we are reading Plato. Many of you have probably read Plato in other contexts. Perhaps you read "The Republic" in a political theory course in college or even in high school. One key to approaching him is to understand that all of his writing is in a "dialogue" form. The advantage of this approach is that Plato gets a range of reasoning and debate out in the open on any given issue. Philosophy is all about reasoning and dialogue, so we see it laid out for us in his writing.

We will want to go beyond the criticism that Plato provides of his own ideas, though. Whenever a philosopher presents an anticipated objection to his/her proposals (whether in dialogue form or some other format), look to see if they have raised all the possible objections. Often we will see objections that the writer doesn't mention and we will want to raise those in our discussion of Plato's writing.

The "downside" of Plato's writing style is that it can get confusing. It's easy to lose track of who is talking and which position Plato is really supporting. Try to just keep moving through the dialogues and you'll get the "flow" of the debate, regardless of who's talking.

HOW TO START: For the readings this week (indeed, for most of the reading in this course), let me suggest that you start by looking at the "discussion questions" at the end. They generally follow the order of the article/essay, and I've included some commentary to help you focus on what we're looking for. The questions should help you sort out the forest for the trees.

Please note that we are only reading paragraphs #1-200 in the excerpt from Plato's Republic. We'll look at the rest of it in April when we take up (explicitly) questions of value in art.

In a nutshell, here's what Plato is arguing: Our "best" knowledge in life comes from knowledge of the "forms" -- what we might call "universals," knowledge acquired through the dialogue of philosophy. This is how we acquire knowledge of such important concepts as truth, beauty, and goodness. Art is dangerous for several reasons. First, it appeals to the emotions, not reason, and thus takes us away from the pursuit of the best knowledge available. Second, art is an imitation of reality, when we should be pursuing reality itself (the forms) in developing our knowledge. In conclusion, art is dangerous and to be avoided, for the most part.

When Plato uses the word "imitation," he is talking about what we might call "representation." In our discussion, I'd like to focus on these terms. Are they synonymous? Does "imitation" carry a negative connotation? Do you agree with Plato's analysis that ends with the conclusion that art is inferior because it is mere "imitation"? Next week, we will see a much more positive approach to representation in Aristotle. So this week we are laying some groundwork for considering different senses of "representation."

I'd also like us to consider how pervasive this sense of art is, even today. If you ask Joe and Josephine Lunchbucket what "art" is, you're likely to be told that it is "pictures of things." Or they might criticize a work of contemporary art for not "looking like" the "real" thing. This kind of talk harks back directly to Plato's view of art. It is easy for us to dismiss Plato's views, but we will do a better job of rejecting his approach if we understand both its strengths and weaknesses.

RE: SCHEDULING: If you're looking ahead at the schedule, your second short paper will be due Monday, March 30. I'll post that assignment no later than March 16, so you'll have two weeks. It will be very similar in format to the paper you just completed -- no outside research, structured philosophical issue drawing on the readings and class discussion, etc.

I had originally planned to post various papers for discussion, but have decided to abandon that. First, it seemed more useful to give detailed feedback to you individually -- if you're new to philosophy (as almost all of you are), you wouldn't know WHY a paper was good just from posting it. Second, the endless technical problems with the Internet have made the e-mail attachment process much more problematic than I had hoped. (The hardware crash at the Chancellor's office last week could not have come at a worse time for us and I think I should be prepared for the worst in the future.) So that means you'll have a two-week break, once your paper is in March 30, until we take up Unit III after spring break on April 13.

Continue to Lecture Notes for Week Six (posted 3/2/98)

Return to Lecture Notes Table of Contents

Return to Class Home Page: PHIL 361/599 (Spring 1998)

Questions and comments are welcome: jvancamp@csulb.edu

This page written and maintained by Julie Van Camp

Copyright Julie C. Van Camp 1998

Last updated: February 23, 1998