359-387

The Platonic aesthetism of Manolis Andronicos

Μελέτες

• Ιωαννίδης, Κωνσταντίνος

In this paper I am investigating aspects of the critical-aesthetic discourse of Manolis Andronikos (1919-1992). I take as my starting point his doctoral dissertation (Plato and Art, Thessaloniki 1952) and then move on to his critical essays. I also draw on material in his library, which is particularly rich in volumes on the history and theory of art and aesthetics. The paper consists of an introduction and three sections; the first of these examines briefly Andronikos’ interpretations of Plato’s views on art. Andronikos’ main objectives here are; a) to demonstrate that despite his censure of art and artists (Republic), Plato did believe the arts were important, and b) to show the breadth of the concept of mimesis in the works of Plato. For Plato —as interpreted by Andronikos— mimesis is never merely a slavish imitation, but an act of creation in its own right. In the second part of the paper I trace the reflections of the above interpretation in modernistic visual arts (primarily in Cubism and Abstraction). At the heart of Andronikos’ argument lies an extract from the Philebus, in which Plato speaks of the pure pleasure to be derived from geometrical shapes and ‘pure’ colours. This passage played a significant role in legitimizing abstract forms in the mind of the Greek public in the mid-1950’s onwards —during that critical period when abstract art was taking its first tentative steps here in Greece. In the third section I examine political questions raised by Plato’s views on the arts. Embarrassed by the strict central control of artists proposed by Plato, Andronikos attempts to reconcile this approach with his own liberal ideology. The solution at which he finally arrives —in his endeavour to find an active role for the arts within the community— is to link arts and science within the unified field of culture, while explicitly divorcing this field from that of politics for which he cannot conceal his disenchantment and disdain.Andronikos’ aestheticism, evident in his writings from as early as the time of his doctoral dissertation, does not finally assume the guise of a total rejection —for the reason that it springs from that Platonic thought in which art cannot be conceived independently of the society. It is only political praxis which is condemned out of hand— an attitude which may itself be rooted in Plato: the philosopher’s disillusion following his Sicilian journeys, and his failed attempts to combine theory and practice. It is a disappointment to which Andronikos frequently refers, one reminiscent of the similar experience of Seferis, to be traced through his Journals, and also frequently mentioned by Andronikos.

• Arts
• Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

• Αισθητική
• Τέχνη
• Art and philosophy

Είναι χρέος του να ευχαριστήσει εδώ τους ανθρώπους που συνέβαλαν στην υλοποίηση της μελέτης αυτής. Τους καθηγητές Ιστορίας της Τέχνης του Α.Π.Θ. κ.κ. Άλκη Χαρα- λαμπίδη και Ηλία Μυκονιάτη για τις παρατηρήσεις τους. Την αναπλ. καθ. κ. Θεόπη Παρισάκη για τις πολύτιμες επισημάνσεις της πάνω στο ζήτημα της αντιμετώπισης των τεχνών στο πλατωνικό έργο. Την αναπλ. καθ. κ. Χρυσούλα Παλιαδέλη για την κατατοπιστική επαφή που είχαν σχετικά με την προσωπικότητα και το έργο του δασκάλου της. Για το δάσκαλό του του μίλησε και ο κ. Γιώργος Μιλτσακάκης τον οποίο επίσης θερμά ευχαριστεί για τον πρόσθετο λόγο ότι έθεσε στη διάθεσή του το υλικό της δωρεάς Ανδρόνικου που φυλάγεται στο Σπουδαστήριο Ιστορίας της Τέχνης του Α.Π.Θ., Περιέχει εικόνες