Book X

I know we're onto Nic Ethics now, but I wrote this last week and am only now uploading, so here it is...

Is it possible for the painter to paint the idea? Or do we presume his knowledge of the couch consists solely of that which the carpenter has crafted? If the carpenter is building a couch based on the idea, could not the painter do the same? Could not the painter build a picture of the "nature-begetter?"

598 c "Therefore, imitation is surely far from the truth; and, as it seems, it is due to this that it produces everything - because it lays hold of a certain small part of each thing, and that part is itself only a phantom. For example, the painter, we say, will paint for us a shoe-maker, a carpenter, and the other craftsmen, although he doesn't understand the arts of any one of them. But, nevertheless, if he is a good painter, by painting a carpenter and displaying him from far off, he would deceive children and foolish human beings into thinking that it is truly a carpenter."

How is the painter different from the carpenter? Could not the carpenter build a farm based on a picture painted of the original idea of a farm? Does painting, poetry, and indeed all art not have perhaps a better grasp on the intangible things that are than those things which we physically touch (couches)? Words and art and songs, I would argue, reach further for the idea of the couch than the physical one crafted by the carpenter. What the carpenter builds is a certain couch, but what a melody and rhythm and even lyrics evoke seem far closer to me to the idea of the couch than a certain one. The certain couch build by the carpenter is confined to it's weight, mass, and other physical qualities, but art, much like form or idea, is not. With painting, and even poetry to some extent, it is easy to argue that the picture on the wall is of certain angle of a certain couch, though I would suggest that was not necessarily the artist's intent, but with music especially it is difficult to assume that a melody and rhythm and orchestration (all those qualities that make a song) come together as an imitation of a certain thing. Rather, this musical art in particular, even without words, searches for truth, and in its own way is almost philosophical in that search.

That said, I understand that Socrates' accusation is focused on the specifically imitative side of art, and that he admits not all art is imitative. I think his couch analogy is a bad one, as I have just argued, but I do not think his argument is necessarily. The just city filters everything through the Noble Lie (except for the philosopher kings), so why not art too? I don't think Socrates is suggesting anything new to us here, but rather reiterating his previous point. In the city, his argument works, especially if we are focusing on the city as an analogy for the soul. In pursuit of justice, we filter everything through calculation before it has a chance to overwhelm our spirit or desire. So art too should be approached with caution.