The muse was usually portrayed as a woman who brought inspiration to the artist. When the muse was doing her thing, the poets said that they were transported out of rationality, which led Plato to observe:
"... the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and then the mind is no longer in him.”
Being under the influence of the muse usually meant that the author wasn’t in the rational world, which really bugged Plato because above all, he revered rationality. In fact, most of his life was spent trying to convert his culture from founding its morality on stories about the gods to founding morality on abstract reason. One of the main reasons he did this was because Plato worried about what would happen if law-abiding people continually heard stories about people who were acting badly. He was afraid people would use those stories as an excuse to act badly themselves.
For example, Plato would probably condemn "The Odyssey" because, though Odysseus was a brave warrior, he was also sleeping around during his travels, despite the fact that his wife was going through a lot to keep the men away from her.
Thus, if poets can do anything good for society, it will be to tell stories that show people how to behave according to their social station and not rock the civic boat.
However Aristotle, one of Plato’s students, had a different idea. In his view, the poet wasn’t merely imitating the Forms. Nor was the poet telling people what had happened (like wars, political stuff, etc.). Rather the poets tell us what could be.
As Aristotle said, “Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history; for poetry tends to express the universal; history, the particular.”
Thus, in Aristotle's view, poets were actually creating something closer to the Forms than mortal reality.
So what made for good poetry? Actually, it was tragedy that Aristotle focused on most. The purpose of a good tragedy, he said, was to bring the audience to a moment of catharsis.
Catharsis is a term in drama that refers to a sudden emotional breakdown or climax that constitutes overwhelming feelings of great sorrow, pity, laughter or any extreme change in emotion that results in the restoration, renewal and revitalization for living. In other words, a purgation.
Aristotle judged the worth of art on how well it could initiate catharsis in its audience.
We watched two short films (The Competition and More - both of which you can watch by clicking on the titles) to see which stimulated greater catharsis in us.
The Competition was essentially made up of face shots of people sitting on a windy hillside. This went on for about three minutes until we found out that they were in a crying contest and had to drop three tears on their paper to win.
More was a stop motion animation about an alien-looking person who creates a pair of glasses that makes the world look colorful and happy. However, at the end of the film, despite his success, he is not happy.
The votes fell overwhelmingly to More. The main reason it produced more catharsis in us, we said, was because there were significant changes in the character and his circumstances throughout the film. He started sad, became happy, but then went back to sadness.
Aristotle would agree with this assessment. Seeing a character go through change is a great way to induce catharsis in an audience.
The Competition stayed at essentially the same level the entire film. Though the people were ostensibly sad (a good prerequisite for tragedy), we saw no change and therefore felt no catharsis. We did, however, enjoy the twist at the end.
