Beauty, Symmetry and the Mind: Plotinus and Modern Art

According to Plotinus “Beauty addresses itself chiefly to sight” and although he quickly goes on to explain the presence of beauty in sound, since Plotinus initially assigns prime importance to the visual aspect where matters of beauty are concerned; and because Alexandrakis poses the question “Does modern art reflect Plotinus’ notion of beauty?”  For our purposes we shall turn our attention toward visual beauty.

Ben Youssef Madrasa; Marrakesh, Morocco

Plotinus asks us to question the notion that things are beautiful because they display symmetry. This would arguably be the case should we look at examples of Islamic art where religious doctrine  prohibits the representation of divinely created forms such as people, animals, etc. Here Islamic artists have found another way to express visual beauty through art, a more abstract way – with the repetition of intricate geometric shapes and patterns. 

We may agree that these artworks are indeed beautiful as Plotinus suggests that, “everyone declares that the symmetry of parts toward each other and towards a whole… constitutes the beauty recognized by the eye …the beautiful thing is essentially symmetrical, patterned” (Enneads 1.6) Plotinus then argues against this notion saying that such an assessment of symmetry means that “only a compound can be beautiful never anything devoid of its parts; …the several parts will have beauty, not in themselves, but only as working together to give a comely total”. For Plotinus symmetry is the effect of beauty and that there are simple, single things that are beautiful by themselves. While this may certainly be the case in some instances, if we were to assess Plotinus’ view with the example of Islamic geometric art we may argue that it is the complexity of pattern and repetition of its parts which make it so awe-inspiring to behold. Although the individual parts may themselves be considered beautiful in their own right it is their coming together that we perceive as stunning visually. 

Interestingly, the prohibition of representation in the surrounding world born out of religious principle allowed these examples of Islamic art to represent more abstract ideals which Twentieth Century Western art would later use. It is this notion of beauty in the abstract that we shall readdress later. However for the time being we must consider Twentieth Century art’s relationship with Plotinus’ notions of symmetry. According to Alexandrakis, “the notion of beauty in some Twentieth Century art works is similar to Plotinus’ notion of beauty”. With this assertion in mind we will assess Plotinus’ notions on symmetry with examples of surrealist automatism and abstract art.

André Masson - Automatic Painting (1924)

The purpose of surrealist automatism was for the artist in question to uncover the psyche through automatic painting and automatic drawing, for example André Masson’s Automatic Drawing (1924). In this instance Masson has no conscious conception of the art he is creating, as such there is no sense of symmetry or percievable order. Despite the fact that there is no discernible order in this picture it arguably displays beauty and in this respect we may suggest that Masson’s work appears to agree with Plotinus in his assertion that symmetry is not a quality that makes something beautiful; rather symmetry is an effect of beauty. 

We may go further to suggest that modern art reflects Plotinus’ view that the simple, single components of the image are beautiful in themselves. When we view Kazimir Malevich’s Black Suprematist Square (1914-15) and are confronted with a black square on a white background (or conversely a black square within a larger white square) it seems we may be confident in our assertion that Kazimir Malevich certainly agreed with Plotinus’ view that simple, single objects can be beautiful in their own right. 

But is this view of the beauty in single, simple components a matter of context? In Movements in Modern Art: Abstract Art Mel Gooding states that, “Painterly automatism, including expressive mark- making and free creation of imaginary forms, was pervasive among those middle-generation New York-based artists including Jackson Pollock.” If we were to examine Pollock’s Number 1 (1949) we are confronted with a painting (much like Masson’s Automatic Drawing) that displays neither symmetry nor order. Yet, we may find it beautiful. However we may argue that each part (i.e. each individual paint stroke) when viewed in isolation may be viewed as beautiful or ugly depending on the context in which we view them. For example, if we encounter one of these paint stroke on a canvas we may be inclined to argue that it as a beautiful thing; however if that same shape and colour were to occur on (for example) a favourite shirt would we regard it as less than beautiful, and in fact claim that it is ugly because of the context of its occurrence?

Jackson Pollock - Number 1 (1949)

We may even wish to examine Plotius’ view on symmetry and beauty not simply with respect to the artist and the creation of their work, but also the environment in which art is viewed. If we think about how art work is typically displayed in a contemporary gallery we are confronted with paintings hung on a blank wall in straight lines and evenly spaced, not hung at crooked,  awkward angles; Small sculptures/artefacts are displayed in glass boxes; video installations are viewed behind a curtain in a dark box room, etc. The art on display is presented to us, perhaps not symmetrically, but certainly in an orderly fashion. This deliberate sense of order within a gallery is not simply in relation to how the art work is spaced throughout the exhibition but also relates to how each piece of art flows into the next and how artworks with certain themes tend to be grouped together. For example, in Tate’s Threshold exhibition (2012) artworks that fall under the theme Shifting Boundaries are set apart from those which follow the Territories in the Making section of the exhibition. If we were to enter an exhibition and all of the work were cluttered in one corner of the room leaving the majority of the art space completely bare and with no discernible order to the conceptual jump between one piece of art and the next, would our enjoyment of the display be hindered, would we find the work less enjoyable? Alexandrakis states Plotinus’ conviction that, “there exist objects that are simple, single, non-composite and beautiful by themselves”. We have argued that much of modern art can echo this principle in the examples of Masson, Malevich and Pollock. But where does the gallery experience fit in with this assertion? We may certainly agree with Potinus that the individual parts of an exhibition, i.e. the art work, are beautiful but perhaps it is the sum of these parts which make the experience within the gallery more moving. Moreover, if we were to encounter the hypothetical disordered gallery would we agree that the lack of structure within the exhibition space would disturb our enjoyment even though the individual pieces of art when viewed in isolation are perceived as beautiful?

City States exhibit at Liverpool John Moores University Copperas Hill Building - Liverpool Biennial 2012

Alexandrakis suggests that Plotinus sees art as an “expression from within” and we may agree with this assertion as Plotinus tells us to, “Go back into yourself and look.” It is this idea of art being an expression of an idea inside the artist, rather than the art merely being a representation of the sensible world that is perhaps what we most readily recognise as Plotinus’ influence on modern art. Indeed the artist Arhile Gorky once wrote that, “it has been the artist’s role to make manifest the beautiful inherent in all the objects of nature and man” and that painting was able to “uncover and interpret life’s secrets”.

If we were to examine the earlier example of André Masson’s Automatic Drawing (1924) we observe a clear demonstration of the artist following Plotinus’ instruction to look inside himself. We may even suggest that since in this example (i.e. one of surrealist automatism) the artist is not at all aware of the shapes he marks on the page he may in fact be channelling the notion of ‘the One’. However, we may argue that although Masson is not conscious of the shapes he draws it is his unconscious mind that controls the medium and therefore this is still a very deliberate, self-controlled action (albeit an unconscious one).

In her essay Alexandrakis highlights Plotinus’ view that form is an idea whose notion is abstract; it has no structure, no order. We also learn that “Twentieth century art… has been criticized by the public and by professionals for its abstract nature”. Perhaps we may argue that in order to convey abstract ideas within art, an abstract style is deemed necessary. Again we can see this as another example of the presence of Plotinus’ notion of beauty in modern art.

Alexandrakis suggests that, “Even an abstract idea is perceived as having a certain structure, because without a structure it would not have a particular form in one’s mind as an idea.” If we return to the example of Masson’s Automatic Drawing (1924) there is arguably a structure to the art in as much as Masson decided to draw in the first place, he decided on which materials to use and decided upon a particular drawing method (i.e. automatic) to create the piece. 

If we were to assume that abstract art is a key indication that modern art is greatly influenced by Plotinus’ notions on beauty perhaps we should bear in mind Mel Gooding’s assertion that, “All figurative art, including realistic academic painting and sculpture is ‘abstract’ in terms of that first observation: it works by selection, emphasis, exaggeration.” Alexandrakis also touches upon this idea with the suggestion that if we present Plotinus with a painted rainbow and a real one, he will proclaim the painted rainbow more beautiful as “the arts do not simply imitate what they see, but they run back up to the family principles from which nature derives.” (Ennead V.8.1)

Toward the end of her essay Alexandrakis asserts that “Plotinus’ theory does eliminate any implication that there are, right versus wrong or proper versus improper relations, proportions, etc.” Again this clearly demonstrates a close relationship between Plotinus’ notions of beauty and modern art. However, we should remember what Picasso (arguably one of the greatest modern artists) said, “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” We, as the artist, should have some understanding on what is accepted as right and wrong, proper and improper and then being aware of these agreed rules we should look inward and decide for ourselves which rules we wish to break.