DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9177#0037
II
ANCIENT CRITICS ON ART
17
In some of his works, such as the Symposium, Plato speaks
of art in a somewhat different tone. So fine a stylist could not
be wholly indifferent to poetry; and in some places Plato
speaks of the poet as an inspired madman. But he scarcely
extends this semi-toleration from poetry to the plastic arts.
In the Laws,1 the Athenian stranger, evidently with Plato's
approbation, speaks admiringly of the art of Egypt because it
is stationary and fixed. That Plato should prefer the stagnant
art of Egypt to the marvellous works of his own great contem-
poraries in Greece is a fact which stimulates reflection. After
this, the less said of him as an art critic the better. With
Plato began the feud between the moralist and the artist which
is likely to be eternal.
Aristotle was far broader and more universal in his sym-
pathies than his predecessor. Looking on all things with clear
and steadfast eyes, he may be said to have ranged in pigeon-
holes the results of Greek thinking up to his time. His
Poetics is an attempt to frame a theory or philosophy of poetry
and fine art. But he does not seem to have known much
about painting and sculpture; he takes poetry in general, the
epic and the drama of the Attic tragedians in particular, as the
type of art. No doubt most moderns would agree with him
that poetry is the highest and noblest of the arts. But that
fact does not make it fairly typical of the rest; in fact, it differs
in so many and so striking ways from plastic art that only the
most general propositions can be true of both. The Greek
drama, it is true, was a very clearly defined form of poetry,
a kind which was regulated by most exact laws, and was written
not to be read, but only to be exhibited on the stage to the eyes
and ears of an audience, much in the fashion of a relief. The
Greek drama was thus far nearer to plastic art than is the
modern drama. But it is a pity that modern writers have been
»p. 657.
c
ANCIENT CRITICS ON ART
17
In some of his works, such as the Symposium, Plato speaks
of art in a somewhat different tone. So fine a stylist could not
be wholly indifferent to poetry; and in some places Plato
speaks of the poet as an inspired madman. But he scarcely
extends this semi-toleration from poetry to the plastic arts.
In the Laws,1 the Athenian stranger, evidently with Plato's
approbation, speaks admiringly of the art of Egypt because it
is stationary and fixed. That Plato should prefer the stagnant
art of Egypt to the marvellous works of his own great contem-
poraries in Greece is a fact which stimulates reflection. After
this, the less said of him as an art critic the better. With
Plato began the feud between the moralist and the artist which
is likely to be eternal.
Aristotle was far broader and more universal in his sym-
pathies than his predecessor. Looking on all things with clear
and steadfast eyes, he may be said to have ranged in pigeon-
holes the results of Greek thinking up to his time. His
Poetics is an attempt to frame a theory or philosophy of poetry
and fine art. But he does not seem to have known much
about painting and sculpture; he takes poetry in general, the
epic and the drama of the Attic tragedians in particular, as the
type of art. No doubt most moderns would agree with him
that poetry is the highest and noblest of the arts. But that
fact does not make it fairly typical of the rest; in fact, it differs
in so many and so striking ways from plastic art that only the
most general propositions can be true of both. The Greek
drama, it is true, was a very clearly defined form of poetry,
a kind which was regulated by most exact laws, and was written
not to be read, but only to be exhibited on the stage to the eyes
and ears of an audience, much in the fashion of a relief. The
Greek drama was thus far nearer to plastic art than is the
modern drama. But it is a pity that modern writers have been
»p. 657.
c