The Platonic concept of “Three degrees of separation” has often been used to describe the creation of art. The piece of art, which is made by an artist, thus is then an adaptation of a tangible object. Simply put, it is an imitation of something tangible or the artist’s idea of something that may not be fully understood. In turn the form of art seems to be the lowest level. The second level would then appear to be the artist themselves, who is solely responsible for creating and possibly changing the actual form and representation of the art. This level can clearly be seen as highly subjective, as the artist obtains the concept of manipulation. Then, this would necessitate the highest level, characterized by the ideal. But this begs the question, who is to say what defines an object as the ideal form.
Personally, this is the most curious point of the idea of “three degrees of separation. “ Last week, as our philosophy class searched to find beauty in a museum which was formerly the residence of aristocratic Roman family, I realized that there was probably one artist responsible for decorating the edifice. This artist manipulated idealistic views of beauty, which in turn led to art. I indeed thought that many of the mosaics were spectacular, but this feeling would obviously not be shared by all people. I came to feel that beauty is innate in many things in life. Art, on the other hand, seems to be a search for an idealistic beauty, which, in my opinion cannot be defined or reached. Additionally, to say that something is beautiful is irrational, because as I stated before, art is subjective and the feeling or emotion associated with the ideal, will and cannot be shared by all people.
1 comment:
i don’t understand what you mean by “concept of manipulation”.
be careful with your definitions. the “three” degrees are 1) the ideal (beauty, truth, goodness…the ideal form of physical objects), 2) the artisan’s recreation of that ideal, and 3) the artist’s imitation of the artisan’s re-presentation. instead of “who is to say what defines an object as the ideal form?”, the question you are pointing to is “who is to say that an object is a good recreation/imitation of the ideal form?”. in other words, “who is to say that X is beautiful or true or good?” the answer is exactly what we are trying to figure out in class.
it is fascinating that you feel beauty to be innate to life but find calling something beautiful to be irrational. is “irrational” a negative criticism? is there any way that you might see the search for beauty as able to be communicated to/with others?
Post a Comment