(art)iculate

In hindsight, much of Plato’s traumatic inspiration was formed through Socrates’ trial and execution, an arduous struggle for free interpretation, truth, and wisdom. This impact was great enough to turn Plato from political discourse and career relations (which he later defined in terms as politicians, those that tell you what you want to hear to achieve results, and statesmen, those who tell you what you need and may not wish to hear to support reformation) into philosophy leading up to his realizations of Idealism. Plato’s perspectives on what art should concede to be or should represent to an individual, was deeply influenced by his perspectives and passion in philosophy, that of promoting the truth, the levels of revelations bound to it and balance, a basis of idealism. Plato’s theorem relied on a mimesis, specifically art’s imitation of life, the perfection/beauty of form in all things which supported a rational take on life’s curves and humanity’s need to strive for the ‘real’. Translated to art, Idealism was positive self-interpretation of form and physical attributes which became key to the experience or awakening, the allowance for individuals to create or experience art in their own perspective and not a pre-destined view. Expanding on the concept of the multi-faceted levels of reality, a good analogy or parable depicting such an idealistic world, would be that of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” in the writings of “The Republic”, which described the nature of justice. This story seems to concentrate on the underlying ideas that reformation or self-improvement isn’t motivated by directly teaching and instructing others in ‘what’, but to lead the horse to the water and letting them make the decision whether-or-not to drink or at least, how to relatively consume it. In self-interpretation, we could define the first level of reality, depicting that an entity could only be able to stare straight, not so much as conformity - since there was never a choice offered, but as a blind subject, damned to a perspective out of cultural definition and/or lack in availability of knowledge. In contrast, the second level of reality, defines the entity a victim of perhaps a culture-shock and presented with a limited, restrictive set of options or decisions that have been preconceived and still not available to self-interpretation. This could be defined as a basis for conformity to standards acknowledged, but never questioned. The third level of reality is an adverse and contrary depiction of the previous two realities, where free-thought, self-interpretation and a plethora of information is readily available to the entity, a moment of thought without restriction, to not face obstruction is developing one’s own perspective or vision and independently setting a precedence over what is ‘real’ to that individual. The definition of reality then becomes clear that ‘reality’ itself is actually the sum total of an individual’s experience(s). Renaissance Humanism and how neo-Platonic philosophy fit hand-in-hand. Renaissance Humanism is inherently a recollection of classic ideals and fundamentals of Platonic origins or neo-Platonic philosophy with additional observations over the models of Aristotle’s actions, writings and word. Accordingly, Renaissance Humanism is founded in distinct rationalism, purporting that thought or actions of an entity should be governed solely by reason, reason being elevated as the source of truth in all things, potentially to be considered a constant. Renaissance Humanism was inspired in concentrating on earthly fulfillment and individuality, bringing to the forefront man’s constitutive intellectual and artistic worth and laterally moving mandated social dogma of placated cultural standards, in that time. It veritably spelled out that man had an inherent responsibility, capability and privilege to subject all life’s situations to rational thought and decision. Neo-Platonic philosophy expressed the acceptance of the idea that humanity resides in both a physical and exclusively rational state of mind concurrently, and those human forms should be raised to a pedestal by society, a cult of personality. By any accounts Renaissance Humanism carried an affluent aesthetic value as a form in art and underneath, practicality weighed more over any implied form of rational behavior through painting, sculpture or music. Neo-Platonic society was not entirely realistic, but had provided a basis of similarity or contradiction to the provocative styles that followed it. The Baroque visual style, Caravaggio and a representation of conflicts in the age. The spirit of the Baroque era’s visual styling cues, truly defines the emotional and tumultuous times that society had been cast into for conflicts in philosophy that struck deep into conformity. It seemed formed out of as absolute realism, accessibility and a vulnerability that humanity could identify with due to its extravagant, exaggerated and gritty style – that which mimicked the age. Believably, Baroque era artist, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio truly captures the earthy, brooding undertones through understatements of monochromatic color that reflected the grimness or overwhelming presence of a emotional moment. His canvas was proficiently organized, the shadows telling more of the story than the ornamentation or lifelike figures such as was depicted in a premium work, The Death of the Virgin (1605-1606). This painting, professes the death of the Virgin Mary in a very non-chastened moment, with little emphasis on position or visual edict to preserve the situation astutely honoring the memory of and consecrating the image according to doctrine. Such a work focused on an exposure and a proposed leveled-reality of the moment, where the Virgin’s body was draped dramatically across a bed, portraying more of a helplessness and romanticism in the humanity of the instance, and playing away from the Church’s religious sentiment towards the perspective that humanity MUST indulge in regarding the passing, without room for self-interpretation. This and other works thrust to society, were prime examples of the struggle of regulated artistic review versus the neo-Platonic self-interpretations that it seemed the Baroque artists had seized and manipulated to relate art to life on a very susceptible and personal level. Resistance continued throughout this period by authorities and the Church, regarding what some would say was a defining line towards the auspices of borderline heresy. Neoclassicism characteristics in painting and representation of ideals in the age. Neoclassicism in paintings has roots buried deep in Greek classicism, Plato, formal design and idealism. The term neo merely defines a “new” or “rebirth” in using the style. A painting such as, The Death of Socrates (1787), was a very dramatic and pre-romantic reflection of the act and sorrow or despair of the socialites inspired by Socrates’ philosophical arguments. This was partially a stark position of protest, now refusing the liberalism of the Renaissance and drawing close quarters for society to reinvent order and reason, as the consensus provided that mankind’s imperfections and interpretations provided a stepping stone to anarchy. The style of painting provided a limited realism. It set in stone the idea that emotions must be controlled, logic and optimism must be endowed to the recipient. It took on the form of perfection or idealism, the belief in and pursuant of perfection as an attainable goal. The art is focused in humanity, cohesion of design elements and a precious ambience. Much of this ‘new’ style ties in with neo-Platonic concepts, antiquities and an undeniable harmony. It promoted the classic narrative of refined form and color to translate an urgency and unity of society in that time. Neoclassicism can speak to humanity today on many levels, the paintings could even be comparable as an illustration for the basis of democracy, where man is technically free to interpret beauty, politics, art and government, as long as he realizes the limitations of humanity, community, society – man.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 8th, 2008 at 7:35 am and is filed under philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.