Realism

Questions for Further Reflection

1. Are Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions about the arts relevant today? If not, why not? If so, which, how, and why?
Well yes and no. I'm sure they are relevant to some people and not relevant to others. I suppose the main question is whether it is accepted as relevant to me, or in comparison to the art world as a whole. I think the answer to both of those questions is yes, at least in part. Aristotelian concepts concern themselves with the overall beauty and purpose of an object. Does this piece fulfill its' intended purpose? Is still a very relevant question to ask yourself when examining a work of art. And from a Platonic standpoint all art works can be viewed while considering the finite shapes, colors, thoughts, sounds, customs, and characters that their beauty pertains to. I find that when I few a piece of art that is obscene, since I am uncomfortable with it, I take a very Platonic stand point by trying to view the work without allowing it to evoke any emotions from me.

2. Do you think Plato and Aristotle would differ on their judgments of Koons's work? If not, why not? If so, how and why?

I think they probably would differ greatly. I have a hard time believing Plato would have been able to appreciate any of his work and would have likely thought most of it should not be displayed publicly. On the other hand, I think Aristotle may have liked some of his works while greatly disliking other works. 

3. Can the thinking of Plato and Aristotle be applied to works of nonrepresentational, non-mimetic works of art? How or why not?

Yeah, I think they probably can to an extent. Not so much with Plato's thinking but maybe with the  thinking of Aristotole which sees value in the evoking of emotions. Nonrepresentational works can often evoke more emotions than representational, in the same sense that a rorschach test can evoke intense emotions and images. It allows the viewer's subconscious mind to speak to them, in a way. I do think Aristotole may have been able to appreciate that aspect of art, the nature of it, and therefore the thinking can be applied to nonrepresentational works as well. The thinking of Plato, on the other hand, relates almost directly to representational works and would therefore be difficult to apply to non-mimetic works which are not copies of anything. In a greater sense Plato would probably have had great issues with the aspect of expressing and even encouraging emotions. However, it is quite possible that they both would have seen little to be offended by or to enjoy in nonrepresentational art. I suppose one could argue both sides to the coin.

4. What do you imagine Plato and Aristotle might think about "reality TV"?

Wow, interesting question. Also a hard question. Heck, I don't even know what I think about reality TV some of the time. In short, it is likely that Plato would have thought it horrible and think it unfit to be seen. Aristotle would probably seen them as being a good thing because they provide an outlet which in turn can help us act more civil in our own lives. 

5. Plato advocates censorship of the arts. What counts as censorship? Is censorship ever justified? If not, why not? If so, when, why, by whom, and from whom?

To me, censorship is when anything is purposefully suppressed or changed to hide an aspect of it from the viewer. I think there may be times when it is justified but I can not think of any, per se. Obviously, obscene art should just be displayed in places where children are (ex. child's museum, public places, etc.) but that has less to do with censorship and more to do with common sense. I do think censorship can be used to further a point or a perspective that the artist is trying to present, so it can be a very useful tool. However, I think censorship for the sake of censorship kind of goes against what art has become in today's culture. Many artists have worked hard to get the art world where it is today, accepting of all forms of art, and so I do not see a time where it is actually justified to censor art within the context of an art. If it is offensive to you then look away and do not bring your children to an art exhibit that has obscene art. It is not the artists job to shield someone's eyes.

6. In your personal philosophy, is "obscene art" a contradiction of terms? Why or why not?

No, I do not feel it is a contradiction of terms. Art used to be about the beauty. Even when scenes of battle and death were portrayed the ones dying would die in graceful ways and it would almost seem beautiful. Now, however, art is more about the expression, whether it is the expression of the artist or of the subject matter, it is about expressing something real. In that way, most art is realism because almost all art presents a very real truth to the viewer. Of course, with that said, I have a harder time viewing obscene art simply because it makes me a bit uncomfortable thanks to my home schooled, good old christian upbringing.

7. Are vivid sexual images more obscene than vivid images of violence, poverty, displays of extreme wealth, or sickness?

I think they definitely can be. I know the argument is that sex is natural and beautiful and violence is not, however sex does at times walk an extremely thin line of becoming an act of violence. It is not especially beautiful to the spectator, unless the spectator is a voyeur and has at times become something very unnatural and violent. Frequently, in art, the images of sex are meant to be more alarming so they do not typically portray something natural or beautiful. To me it is frequently vulgar. With that said, I have issue with images of extreme violence as well. 

8. Should it matter to artists working within Realist traditions whether Realism is natural or conventional? Why or why not?

I'm not sure I understand this question exactly. Does it pertain to the way in which realistic art is perceived? I do not think any one style of art is more natural than another, because it depends greatly on what is natural for the artist in question. I do not think an artist should create realistic art because it is the conventional thing to do, nor should they not create realistic art for the the same reason. It should be something natural to them. As far as the conventional aspect of real art, I can not say. I suppose what should matter is what does matter to each artist individually.