جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « افلاطون » در نشریات گروه « هنر و معماری »

 With an analytical approach, this article analyzes one of the contemporary philosophical problems, namely the crisis of representation in the field of modern visual arts, based on more traditional perspectives. The current research method is descriptive-analytical, and this approach allows us to pay attention to various areas related to the main topic in terms of their commonalities and differences. The basis of this research is the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle in dialogues and later works of Plato and Aristotle about art. In the field of modern visual representation, more attention has been paid to some important visual works of the modern period and it has been adjusted with the opinions of the mentioned thinkers. The oldest famous theories about art in Western philosophy were proposed by Plato and Aristotle. One of the most important issues raised by these two thinkers about art is the issue of representation and the relationship between art and it, which can be examined from different angles. Plato and Aristotle spoke more about drama than any other art, but they also mentioned other arts. "Both [Plato and Aristotle] believe that painting is also a kind of imitation (realism) by nature. Plato describes painting as holding a mirror in front of objects. From the Platonic-Aristotelian point of view, what painters try to achieve is the reconstruction (or reproduction) of objects, persons, and events. Their view of painting comes from their culture" (Carroll, 2012, 35). "In the opinion of Plato and Aristotle, being a work of art requires that the piece in question is an imitation or imitation of something. Today, after about a century since the emergence of abstract painting, this theory is false it seems" (Ibid, 36). The relation of representation and its relationship with reality has always been a matter of concern for thinkers who have paid attention to how humans know the world, and in general, after the emergence of metaphysical thinking in Greece and Plato's theory of ideas, the absence of the reality of phenomena in front of humans as a pre- The assumption was considered and representation was considered a necessity.

Research Questions:

 In the current research, three basic questions can be asked: 1- What is the concept of representation from the point of view of Plato and Aristotle, and what are the differences and similarities between the views of these two? 2- What is the concept of representation in the new era and what changes has it made compared to the classical view? 3- What is the ratio of Plato's and Aristotle's opinions with the new representation?
In this context, the hypotheses are as follows: 1- Plato and Aristotle did not consider the arts apart from representation, but Plato had a negative attitude towards it and Aristotle a positive one. It is the classical period and the relationship between the work of art and the real thing has taken other relationships. 3- Although the concept of representation and reality has changed in the new period, in a sense, new representation can be searched for in works of art.

Research Literature:

 In the field of imitation or imitation and representation and ideas of Plato and Aristotle regarding this concept, Mohammad Maddpour in his book Acquaintance with the opinions of thinkers on art (Madaddipour, 2011), about the works of Plato and Aristotle, well explained the opinion of these two thinkers. It explains about representation. Also, in the book Truth and Beauty(Ahmadi, 2010), Babak Ahmadi studied the ideas of these two thinkers in the field of defining art and the place of imitation and representation in it in the topics of beauty and ideas in Plato's dialogues as well as beauty and imitation in Aristotle's book. Babak Ahmadi, in the book Creation and Freedom, (Ahmadi, 2014), has discussed the common definitions regarding the issue of representation. In this context, in the book Philosophy of Art, (Lacoste, 2013), has explored representation in the history of philosophy. Ali Ramin, in his book Philosophical and Sociological Theories in Art, (Ramin, 2013), also stated some things about representation from the point of view of Plato and Aristotle. In his book Introduction to the Philosophy of Art, (Caroll, 2013), Noel Carroll extensively explored the representation in art and reviewed the views of Plato and Aristotle. Carroll then presents an analytical discussion about neo-representation. Mark Rawlins, in an article titled "Image Representation" in the collection of articles Aesthetics Encyclopedia, (Rawlins, 2006), has discussed the category of representation from the perspective of new art and has discussed several pioneering categories in the division of types of representation. Rosalyn Hursthouse in the book Representation and Truth, (Hursthouse, 2009), before presenting representation in the image, first examines this concept in the opinions of Plato and Aristotle and then this concept in the modern era.

 Even though Plato and Aristotle shared the concept of representation in the imitative view of objective reality, and for this reason, neither of their ideas are convincing and include the art of the contemporary period, Aristotle speaks a little more open-minded than Plato. In other words, Aristotle has a more flexible view compared to the authoritarian view of his teacher. Aristotle considers art to be the simulation of mental images resulting from the observation of nature. And unlike Plato, he holds it in high esteem. The same sentence that Aristotle says, "The artist creates reality not as it is, but as it should be", can include a wide range of late artistic styles in the definition of representation in art. For example, a surrealist painter can claim based on Aristotle's definition that he has represented reality in his artwork as it existed in his imagination. Or an abstract expressionist painter can say that his work is a representation of some kind of reality; by mentioning that our definition of reality is of course different from its Aristotelian definition.

Beauty is one of the basic concepts studied through history and philosophy. From a philosophical point of view, beauty is one of the world’s basic concepts. Philosophers have looked at this issue from their point of view and influenced the history of philosophy with their theories. Among these philosophers, we can mention Plato and Augustine. The reason for choosing the opinions of these two philosophers in the upcoming research is the closeness of the theories and ideas of these two philosophers. This article aims to examine and compare the views of Plato and Augustine and to find commonalities and differences in the opinions of these two philosophers from the aspect of aesthetics. The question raised in this research is, what do Plato and Augustine consider the origin of beauty? Therefore, the method of this research is descriptive-analytical, and data collection has been done using the library method. The results showed that Plato defines beauty as representing the world of ideas and pure and perfect essence and believes that beauty in the material world is only an incomplete and relative manifestation of ideal beauty. From Plato’s point of view, beauty is a transcendent concept that is beyond the material world. Augustine introduces beauty as a manifestation of God and his creation. He believes beauty in the material world represents God’s wisdom and power. For a better understanding of God and His creation, one should pay attention to the beauty of the material world. He believes that beauty can be experienced and admired in the material world, and this experience leads us to God and His creation. Therefore, from the point of view of Plato and Augustine, the source of beauty is something beyond the material world. Plato defines beauty as representing the world of ideas and pure and perfect essence, While Augustine introduces beauty as a manifestation of God and His creation. Augustine believes that the source of beauty is God.

The language, wording and tone selected by the thinker in dialogues between individuals creates a situation by which personal experiment could enter the public arena. The characters of such a drama carry the pseudonym of the philosopher in a passionate conversation that roots in philosophical thought. Kierkegaard is well-known in this path. He wrote many of his crucial philosophical texts under a pseudonym. Before Kierkegaard, Plato _the father of philosophy_ chose a pseudonym called Socrates for changing and transforming the oral tradition of philosophical thought into a text. The available platonic writing set which describes Socrates is a representation of the status of a philosopher-citizen who turns into the hero of a philosophical drama amid various complicated historical, political, and social crisis of his society. And it sounds like a riotous outburst from the one who knows enough to be able to boast everywhere and exhibit the ignorance and wisdom limits for everyone. According to Plato, Socrates is one of the others inside an author who are talking to each other in eternal symposium dimensions. A conversation toward a transcendental matter. Socrates had announced that first and foremost he wanted to be in reality that if there is any reality, it would reveal through trimming at where we are, in public arena at Agora where people socialize with other people in the heart of Athens in 399 BC. Whether the rebel of dense clouds of ridicule city was a fraud rhetorician or the martyr of awareness incident who took a romantic gamble on his disciple’s martyrdom for faith, covenant, and the worn-out hidden clarity of the egotist democracy and finally made a choice out of compulsion. The accused had been delivering ‘apology’ which is the same as ‘defense’ in Greek, in front of the judges and the society conscience in the public arena. Thus it is dramatic even if its narrator and author would like to act the role of an honest reporter of a reliable event.

Art has repeatedly portrayed “ugliness” in different eras, and a clear example of this can be found in the tragedies attributed to Achilles, Sophocles and Euripides, which belong to the Attica period and belong to the fifth century BC in Greece Observed. The “ugly” themes in the story of tragedies have been the subject of controversy among philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Although Plato considered the play “ugliness” in tragedy to have no value or credibility, Aristotle seems to have considered it as one of the factors shaping tragedy and having moral value. The contrast between the views of these two thinkers on tragedy is the subject of discussion in this study. The purpose of this study is to explain the role of “ugliness” in selected Attica tragedies in Greece from the perspective of Plato and Aristotle. In this study, the important tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides have been studied. Importance of this research (which can be the result of the conclusion of this research) is to create a different understanding of the concept of “ugliness” and its constructive function in art and tragedy as opposed to the view that the display of “ugliness” in art is necessarily destructive and immoral Knows. Therefore, the constructive and moral function of “ugliness” in tragedy can be used as a model for creating dramatic works. The main question of this research is: What role does “ugliness” play in Greek tragedies from the perspective of Plato and Aristotle? The method used in this research is descriptive-analytical and library resources and valid Internet sites have been used to collect information. One of the most important achievements of this research is the constructive role of “ugliness” as a necessary and vital thing in the formation of Greek tragedy and the creation of moral concepts in human life.

Plato did not write an independent book about painting, but his ideas about this art are very important. His emphasis on painting is more ontological and epistemological than moral and educational, because painting toward the expressive arts (poetry and music) has a less impact on the audience’s morale. In a universal division, Plato divides the art of image-making into two parts:(1) likeness-Making (eikastike); and (2) Apearance-making or (phantastic). In art of likeness-Making, the artist makes his work just like the original And it does not distort the reality. But phantastic art is not a The mere imitation of reality And it changes the reality in the interest of the senses؛ in the other words, the artist creates a work that is even more beautiful than the original. Plato is the first philosopher to extend the meaning of Mimesis and use it in the sense of imagination In the imaginative art, Mimesis is not pure representation of real objects, and the artist’s work is outside the realm of imitation. Painting and sculpture are part of the arts. Plato called the painting of his time degenerate.The art of painting during his time had made a lot of progress and painters had discovered techniques to overcome the virtual error. This progress went back to Plato.The painter must not defy traditional rules, and deceive us by distorting reality and creating visual illusions. The painter will change the rules of nature to adapt to the requirements and conditions of my vision. He can never show the truth of objects and only depicts a shadow or a phantom of objects, objects that are themselves nothing but illusion. He imitates only tangible objects, and the outward appearance and image of things depicts us, not the truth of them. He is three times far from the truth, and does not have the true knowledge of what is going on. Therefore, Painting does not have a great place in Plato’s philosophical system. At the time of Plato, Sophist’s ideas were prevalent. By the way, Plato was in agreement with the Sophists, because the senses do not give us any certainty; They are making mistakes. Human senses do not know objects as they are, but they find objects as they seem. Art is deception (apate) and charm (goeteia). Poetry is charming with words and painter charming with pictures. Plato opposed their phenomenalism and illusionism, because knowledge was not limited to the senses. Plato defends the Egyptian paintings against the art of painting his own time and finds ideal art not in Athenian art, but in the East. Egyptian painters follow the fixed and inviolable laws that the gods have set. The work of the Egyptian painter is not mimesis (imitation), but Anamnesis (recollection). The real painter is the one who recalls the supernatural truths and follows them in his work. Plato does not give any explanation about the nature of Egyptian painting; this ideal painting does not need to be described and defined, and should only be accepted as a patern.

The rebellious advent of photography and its consequent theoretical and critical discussions gave rise to new approaches and insights on the concept and nature of art as well as its relationship with the surrounding world and other philosophical discussions. Theorists and their contemporaneous artists have repeatedly questioned, analyzed and described photography as a kind of art within the short time from the invention of this new medium and have either accepted or rejected it. In addition, the nature of art from the very beginning of its development dating back to many years before the birth of photography and its connection with the truth presented a new medium to the philosophers who kept providing innumerable, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations in their treatises following the discovery this connection. Much focus was put on evaluating the missions and discovering the capabilities and boundaries of photography with its cut-off world after several decades when photography had found a relatively stable position among the arts. From the very beginning of its emergence, photography has always promised to depict visible realities and truth and claimed to represent and record them forever. For a long time, this claim was confirmed by the documentary property of the images captured by the camera. However, shortly after the advent of new technologies and using various features to manipulate images, this property confronted with a new challenge. The images had lost their past credibility and their legitimacy had been questioned by its critics more than ever. Gradually, the views of artists and critics have changed, mostly negatively, until they realized that the only mission of a photographer is not recording truth and the nature of this media is much wider and deeper of the old claim relies on visual accuracy of photographs. This article aims to describe and interpret three new and dominant contemporary approaches to photography and its nature. It seeks to review the perspectives of new thinkers such as John Szarkowski, Susan Sontag, and Roland Barthes about photography and its relation to truth and reality, and to analyze their thoughts based on their intellectual backgrounds. It also aims at describing Plato’s view concerning art and its relation to the logical truth discussed in the “Republic” treatise, and finally clarifying the relationship between photography and the ideational truth using a descriptive-analytical method by comparing the attitudes of these three theorists with Plato’s. The required data were collected through library studies and over the Internet and were analyzed qualitatively. This paper has attempted to define and interpret photography as an independent phenomenon based on the perspectives of John Szarkowski, Roland Barthes and Susan Sontag, since these three critics dealt with the same subject in three different contexts and their view points are now considered comprehensive enough to include all theories. This article also aimed to find the similarities and differences in the theories developed by three thinkers in order to achieve a more accurate interpretation and recognition of photography from their perspective.

In this paper, we try to research into concept of “Art” in Iranian culture based on “Minu ye xrad” essay. For this goal, first we explain the nessecity of this inquiry and then by indicating its method we describe the relation between art and ethics in “Minu ye xrad” essay. In second part of this study, we compare the result of the first part with Plato’s point of view. We show briefly that “Art” and “Ethics” are associated in “Minu ye xrad” essay and Plato’s view and this is by reason of special ontological view. A difference between “Minu ye xrad” essay and Plato’s point of view is the consideration of Artist’s position. In “Minu ye xrad” essay artist has an intermediate position, but in Plato’s point of view artist’s position is declined considerably.

In Plato’s view the education has a particular status. For him، it is by means of education that our souls can be loaded with virtues and be purified of vices; and then the education makes our souls beautiful and worthy of divine setting. Plato، therefore، deals with everything، including arts and skills، that contributes to educate human beings. On account of the profound influence of music on addressee، he regards music as an efficient means to put into order، refine، and elevate soul. In this educative process، a man is exalted by the strongest spiritual powers، i. e. rhythm and tone، and he comes to the conclusion that it is possible that the man is attained to supreme good in the light of true education. In Plato’s eyes، of course، such education is the prelude to philosophical education and its complement. The aim of the present article is to show that the reason why Plato places a premium on music is that it plays the key role in educating humans، rather than by virtue of its artistic and aesthetic features. Considering this aim، the article proceeds to investigate Plato’s positions on education in Republic and Law.

The ancient Greeks were trained based on poems of Homer or tragedy writers، and Plato، almost in all his works، especially in “The Republic”، which is the most complete and best-known one، is the enemy of poetry and tragedy and the training methods based upon them. In three books of it، i. e. second، third، and tenth، more than any of his other writings، he suppresses poetry and tragedy، and with reasons، puts the poets and writers of tragedy outside his ideal city-state. Plato argues that the primary reason for this is the falseness of stories، or saying not the whole truth. He then deals with the imitation and by introducing the Universal Forms (Ideas) and the allegory of the cave، describes the imitators as those imitating the picture، which itself is an imitation of the truth. They، then، are three phases far from the truth. At this area of the visual arts، there are imitators، both painters and poets، who are the tragic writers. Plato، dividing the human soul into the noble part and the ignoble one، accuses poets because they excite the latter part of the human soul. Plato، who is looking for a new training method based on the philosophy for his utopia، does not mention it in The Republic، but at The Laws، which is the work of his old ages and his maturity، describes clearly his writings as a good example of philosophical training for the ideal city.

Strong philosophical structures that Plato and Aristotle had established, in addition to being important in the history of philosophy, also left a great impact on the theoretical approaches to art. This article is going to follow the impact to field of philosophy of film. On this purpose, cinema is divided into two parts, image and motion, and features of these two parts have been surveyed in the arts of ancient Greek, and also have been noticed to the formation of philosophy of art of Plato and Aristotle in the relation to these arts. In this way the views of two contemporary scholars, Ian Jarvi and Christine Metz, that relation between the thought of these two great philosophers to the field of philosophy of film, evaluated to achieve the new approach from Platonic and Aristotelian form of philosophy of film. The question of present article is what is the relation between theories of Plato and Aristotle about realistic visual art and the drama of the narrative, and the philosophy of film? Question of the nature of the film is the most fundamental issue in philosophy of film that of course is divided into many questions that we noticed to the relation between film and the concept of reality. The descriptive-analytical method is used for this article. The theoretical framework of this research is based on the concept of "intentional arc" in Phenomenological approach, which says about connection between the subjective and objective. The result of this study makes clear that both Film theorist's view, Jarvi and Metz, is faced with the shortcomings, Including lack of attention to how formation the philosophy of art of Plato and Aristotle, and also because of incomplete interpretation the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle (they have not noticed to the horizons of two great philosophers). According to the result of this study, from the perspective of Platonic form of philosophy of film, the cinematic image is the simulacra of true reality which belongs to the world of imaginations, and because of cinema continuing realistic visual arts it cannot be a true copy of the original. But this philosophical attitude has not noticed of the motion component of cinema and therefore this attitude is incomplete. Indeed, for Plato, motion and situations created by it, will not create a new concept and cannot bring out images from the world of imagination. On the other hand Aristotelian form of philosophy of film, with an emphasis on dramatic action in film, has more attention to the motion component of cinema, and has not noticed about cinematic image. And it believes that the film through the adherence to the verisimilitude, in other words, follow the rules of the genre, can represent true reality. Of course this does not mean that the film in any way represent reality, but according to this attitude to the cinema, it is possible the representation of true reality in film.