Since I presented on Plato's view of art earlier in the semester, I've had some thoughts running around in my head. One such thought concern his critique of the rhapsode Ion, concerning how Ion (and also Homer) have no real knowledge but only present appearances. Now, I think that there is a very real problem here, but there is also an extent to which the criticism is misplaced.
To summarize the Ion: The rhapsode Ion, a professional performer of Homer, tries to engage Socrates in a discussion about Homer. Socrates declines, but tries to understand which sort of skill Ion actually practices. Ion doesn't really understand poetry, since then he should be able to talk about Hesiod as well, but Ion just falls asleep when listening to all poets other than Homer. But Ion doesn't really seem to have any knowledge of what is in Homer's poetry either, since it is unclear that Homer himself understands anything about which he speaks. For example, when Homer talks about divination or charioteering, then we still would need to check out the passages with a diviner or a chariot driver to know whether these passages accurately describe those skills. Homer himself cannot be relied upon directly for knowledge of these activities. Ion makes an amusing attempt to say that he has the skill of being a great general because he knows Homer, but Socrates also shoots this down: you don't hire a performer of poetry to lead your army simply because they recite poetry well. In the end, Socrates says that Ion must either be a lying scoundrel, or inspired by the gods, since Ion himself certainly doesn't know anything. Ion prefers the latter option, since it is more beautiful.
My concern is with the Platonic idea that, beyond the appearances which the poet and the rhapsode present, there is some reality that people who actually engage in skills understand. I have no problem with saying that some people understand things better than others, or even that the poets and playwrights (or in our age, perhaps political speakers, news journalists, and pastors) are often not reliable for helping us understand the world better. What I wish to argue against is the suggestion that the poet has the appearances while the skilled worker has the reality. The skilled worker merely has more appearances with which to work, and I think this has an implication for the knowledge provided by art.
Homer presents the appearance of a chariot race in the Iliad. Socrates holds that Homer may have no actual knowledge of what is involved in chariot racing, and that one must go to a real chariot driver to find out the truth. But insofar as Homer gives a coherent account, he has something to say about chariot driving. He may simply have a very good imagination; think of The Red Badge of Courage, which is supposed to accurately depict a wartime situation even though the author Stephen Crane never participated in war.
It is the coherence of the account which gives it validity, and which perhaps simply is its validity. The actual chariot driver merely has more appearances which must be drawn up into the account. This may require some adjustments; perhaps Homer's imagination doesn't cohere well with the chariot driver's actual experiences. Then again, perhaps Homer's imagination presents something upon which the chariot driver's own experiences founder; perhaps the chariot driver has never made the same sort of risky maneuver recounted in the Iliad. But in either case this is not due to anything beyond the appearances, but merely due to the unity and coherence amongst the appearances themselves.
Therefore, insofar as there is any coherence and unity in art, it gets at something in the world. It may not get at it in the best possible way (although again, in might), but there is not a strict dichotomy between the artist and the person who actually understands; there is merely the differing degrees of coherence and the number of appearances which need to be made coherent.
No comments:
Post a Comment