Home  An introduction to Plato and Aristotle and their significance to the performing arts

by 

Michael Moor M.A 

Despite writing very little (or very little surviving) on the performing arts, both men have been highly influential to the development of performing arts theory, aesthetics and criticism. I would argue that two key works are indicative of not only their rather differing attitudes to the performing arts but to some extent at least, reflective of our own society's present  differing attitudes to the performing arts. For this reason all serious students of the performing arts should at some time engage with both Aristotle and Plato. In particular Plato's The Republic and Aristotle's Poetics. 

Aristotle's Poetics is more a set of lecture notes than a fully realized work, parts of it are fleshed out while other parts are statements or conclusions. This has led some scholars to conclude that Poetics is indeed a set of lecture notes (not an unreasonable proposition since Aristotle was a lecturer). On the other hand it could be argued that Poetics is an unfinished book or a draft. Whatever we consider the origins of Poetics to be , be they lecture notes or draft, its influence is not a matter of conjecture. 

Aristotle's philosophical approach in general was to categorize by observation. He did this by identifying characteristics. He applied this philosophical approach to the performing arts and to drama in particular. Aristotle thus identifies the six elements of tragedy-he also observes that the central character in tragedy should ideally be more noble than the average man for the audience to fully engage/sympathize with his downfall. The ideal tragic hero should also have a flaw and it should be this flaw that ultimately leads to his own sticky end. He suggests that the reverse is true in comedy. Ideally the central character should be less noble that average for the audience to feel free to enjoy his or her misfortunes. 

Aristotle's theory of catharsis is still highly influential in drama theory and has been developed and elaborated on ever since. The Theory of Catharsis suggests a fundamental and significant need/place for the performing arts in a healthy society. 

Plato in his book The Republic on the other hand suggests that the performing arts are in fact potentially dangerous to society. The Republic unlike Poetics is a fully realized philosophical work. Plato's approach is to find answers through the use of reason, logic and rational debate rather than observation. One of his criticisms of art in general centers around the definition/concept of art as imitation. According to Plato's rather complicated ideas about forms, art is three steps away from reality. Plato also gives a very modern argument that young people may imitate the immoral behavior they see on the stage. Whilst training in the arts does have a place in Plato's The Republic he suggests the arts should be controlled/censored lest they lead to or contribute to moral decline.  Plato also deplores the negativity of escapism which he suggested also led to moral decline. However, one of Plato's most resounding insights coincides with Aristotle's theory of catharsis. Plato suggests that essentially an art is not practiced for its own sake or for the sake of the practitioner but for those who receive its true benefits ... the public/audience!

Thus in general terms two opposing views of the arts are mapped out by two highly influential thinkers. I would suggest the serious student of the arts may wish to read both books for a deeper insight into the fundamental philosophical/critical issues relating to the performing arts. Both Plato and Aristotle engage in debate that is useful for a critical  analysis/understanding/reading of the performing arts. However they do not essentially help to actually create art nor do they further our understanding of process. The best Plato can do is describe the artistic process as 'a form of madness' in The Republic.

Michael Moor