Why Plato Is an Enemy to Artist?

Plato thought that art is emotional and he thought that philosophy is intellectual. He disliked emotions and he liked thinking and so Plato disliked art. He thought that artist is an enemy to philosopher.

But I do like art. I do like philosophy, and when I read Plato, I ask the question: Why does he need to think that philosophy is intellectual? And if he does not think that philosophy is intellectual, then, maybe he will not think that artist is an enemy to philosopher?

Because I like art, I do not like the idea that philosophy is pure thinking. And if a person thinks that philosophy is purely intellectual, then, he cannot appreciate art.

So this is why I feel if a person wants to appreciate art, then, he must not think that philosophy is purely intellectual, otherwise, he is going to think like Plato, thinking that artist is an enemy to philosopher.

So I do not think philosophy is an enemy to artist. But if you think that philosophy is purely intellectual, then, you are unable to appreciate art and I feel Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell thought that philosophy is purely intellectual and because they thought that way, they felt that science is superior to art.

But to me, science is the same as art because I do not think that philosophy is purely intellectual realm. So in the future, if I published papers, the heading will be ‘The Art of Science.’

So, do you still think that philosophy is an enemy to artist?

Philosophy is simply the need to ponder, art asks you to.

-- Updated August 27th, 2012, 7:54 pm to add the following --

Therefore art is superior to philosophy, but without words, art can never be shared.

Philosophy is not an enemy to art. For true art, it is a sibling.

Plato was good at logging the knowledge of others. He didn't have the goods himself, though.

Good luck.

Perhaps, philosophy can help artist.

I fail to see why you object to philosophy being a purely intellectual pursuit. Isn't it surely the case that purely intellectual thinking (as opposed to emotional or 'appetitive' as Plato would have put it) is the best way to arrive at truth and wisdom? And isn't this the objective of philosophy?

Before, I said that not all people agree with Plato. A person who does not agree with Plato, he may think that philosophy is a system of implementation rather than an intellectual pursuit of wisdom. There are people who think that philosophy is a way of life, where they think that philosophy is to live it out rather than thinking or debate.

And a person said: "Because not all people agree with Plato, and therefore many people do not feel certain when people asked philosophical questions. If people feel philosophically certain, then, maybe there will be no more philosophers."

The best art is not simply about emotion; it carries a cerebral content (philosophical if you will) that is important to its overall appreciation.

Even a work such as Monet's Water Lilies, although the initial reaction may be to the beauty of color and scene depicted, addresses the nature of flux; the impermanence of life through the rapidly changing color and movement recorded as the artist produced his work.

"Philosophy consists of the contemplative investigation of the most fundamental aspects of existence, life, knowledge, and value." Sounds like the intellectual pursuit of wisdom to me.

Monet was interested in haiku poets. He was interested in Zen. I got the painting above in my home, where my mother brought it from Paris.

I see art as something quite different from Platos opinion. Where he thinks paintings and poetry(especially) are imitations of appearances, and I agree that much "art" is that. However I believe true art has the main object of transcending appearances (if not able at least direct us towards it) where Schopenhauer speaks of music with this sort of quality to it and Nietzsche builds on this and includes some forms of tragic poetry (however combined with some musical/lyrical aspect, which is important), that expressed the Dionysian world (the world behind appearances/the veil of maya, or whatever) or what Schopenhauer calls the world as Will. Whether any of them were right in defining the transcendental world as either Dionysian forces or Will is of course open to objection, I still maintain however the importance of these notions, the notion that it should be arts objective to try to penetrate into other spheres of existence.

The way I see it Nietzsche somehow agrees to a certain distinct with Plato's notion of an imitation of the world as appearances, the Apollonian art-forms (as he calls them), which are mainly concerned with the reality perceived directly through our sensory apparatus, the naïve artist, as Nietzsche calls him; which is mainly the painter, sculptor and so on, but also many poets.

In my opinion true art has to touch on this philosophical aspect. All though the painter might not be able to touch in directly to that "world-spirit", "God", "Brahman", "Dao", "Essence", "The world beyond appearances" the way they claim music does, which both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche almost refers to as the language of this ground of existence, or at least the form that brings us closest to this Reality (or provide relief from it, as in Schopenhauer's case), it clearly has some value in peoples eyes, but is it only because it's an enforcement of emotion or relief of torment? If thats the arts only objective I certainly agree with Plato, that it has psychological ill-effects as it just as a medicament where that state is the end-goal itself. Just look at all the "music" and "films" which mere objective is to massage the reptile brains of unconscious members of society. True art directs humanity towards a deeper understanding of life. Forces them out of that unconscious state. If (true) music (however you define that philosophically) is the end-goal as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche seems to think, or whether any form of art are able to, or should be, is another debate.

-- Updated August 31st, 2012, 11:28 pm to add the following --

Btw, Nietzsche said about the socratic artist (as a logician and dialectic concerned with Apollonian structures of reality) in "The Birth of Tragedy" specifically in relation to a culture in opera during his time: "He projects himself into a time when passion sufficed to produce songs and poems, as though mere emotion had ever been able to create art". In that regard he shares some of the views as Plato. The difference (I'm not sure how deeply Plato goes into this in his works, so sorry if I jump to rash conclusions) is that Nietzsche saw this as pseudo-art, whereas Plato ascribed this view to art in general, or at least didn't have the same notion of "true" art as Nietzsche did.