Module 1
Thinking about how ancient Greek philosophers react to Koons’ body of work, I would notice that their views about the value of art in general were almost entirely different.
I believe that Plato would be extremely displeased by Koons’ work. Plato claims that “a work of art is thrice removed from the reality it depicts, and this neither to be trusted nor valued”. (21) This does not mean that Plato does not approve art at all. For Plato, art as well as an idealistic image of the human society should be in the service of virtues such as truth, knowledge, and good behavior. Art is just a poor imitation of idealistic image; however, if someone dares to imitate something than this should serve higher purposes. Koons’ flamboyant and careless art works (i.e. large-scale balloon dogs or flower puppies) are way removed from the truth or knowledge, let alone they can teach any moral lesson. Besides, Plato would be certainly concerned about psychological effects of his work on people’s behavior since it (or even the artist’s behavior) involves some of seven deadly sins including lust, pride, and greed. Thus, there is no doubt that Plato would be strictly against any of Koons’ work.
Nevertheless, even though Koons’ work seems kitsch to much of audience, I think not all Greek philosophers would strongly disagree with his art. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle valued any forms of art. He thought artist’s main purpose is to celebrate the nature and surrounding world by finding the best it can provide. Aristotle’s position was that “living things reveal beauty because they demonstrate an organization that suits their purpose, and therefore their design is beautiful.” (24) Even though Koons’ work might seem attractive from the outside and too plain inside, I believe that Aristotle could enjoy the variety of manners which Koons presents in his work. Besides, Aristotle valued function in art. I can see how Aristotle would approve of Puppy because it acts as a garden installation, involves nature and brings sentimental joy to the viewers.
I also think that the work of Alexis Rockman would be approved by Aristotle. Aristotle valued art for the sake of knowledge: “Rockman knows the nature of things, the knowing of which is very important to Aristotle’s epistemology” (46); and for the sake of function: “Aristotle might see Rockman’s work as technically proficient and substantive in content” (47). Aristotle would also appreciate Andres Serrano’s photos since the artist could find beauty in unique and visually unpleasant subjects matters, such as homeless and dead people, bodily fluids, and even shit.
WORK CITED:
Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art?: Aesthetics and Criticism of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press. 2012
I completely agree that Plato would be strictly against any of Koons’ work because of the effects he’s leaving on people of the behavior being full of sins, lust, pride and greed. Another in what I agree is about Aristotle liking Alexis Rockman art work because he knows the nature of things, but wouldn’t you think that Plato also would be pleased with his work since Rockman makes his painting with a background knowledge?
I would tend to think so. However, even though Rockman’s art includes background knowledge, Plato still believed that any work of art is removed from the reality. Rockman does not present true reality, he depicts carefully designed but still imaginary world of thigs; thus anything he makes would be considered “foolish” and not trusted by Plato.
I didn’t think of Puppy as personally any good, but I can see why aristotle would like it. Not every work of art has be some “purge of a negative” for Aristotle to acknowledge it as good. Good point !