As our worlds change, often our perceptions of terms and ideals that we often view as concrete must change as well.
Quintilian has difficulty, as many have before him, in truly defining rhetoric; though he can agree that it is an art. Tacitus is troubled with the "eloquence of those days (past) stood higher than (theirs)" (Matsen 238).
It seems as the world grows, more and more needs to be included in a definition to encompass all involved with the changes taking place. Examining Matsen, Quintilian examines Cicero who defines rhetoric as "artistic eloquence," Antonius who claims rhetoric is a natural gift; a "knack derived from experience," (215), and of course, has Aristotle in mind with his famous definition "the power to perceive available persuasive features of a subject." Within these definitions, Antonius is the only one who claims that rhetoric is not an art. Art does change and does model the conventions of the time period in which it is popular.
Art changes, as do the necessities of speakers. This, the art of speech, is continuously in question throughout our readings. "Rhetorica ad Herennium" was a concise guide for an orator that is continuously built on by Cicero and Quintilian. One line I found interesting concerning truth was on page 163 when the piece says, "Invention is the devising of matter, true or PLAUSIBLE..." (Matsen). Meaning the piece didn't have to be completely true, but it had to be credible to the audience and accepted. The piece goes on to treat oration as an athletic event discussing the use of voice and the importance of speaking softly in the introduction to essentially "warm-up" before the meat of the speech.
The analogy of the athletic event is interesting to me as I recently demonstrated tone to my students while reading Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." This piece was true to Rhetorica form as, when I was reading, I found myself (previous to reading the Rhetorica Piece) slowing, lowering and strengthening my voice throughout the piece. Those of you, who teach American Lit, may now see some of this theory at work in a major way through this reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A question that nagged at me while reading all of these Roman masters (especially Quintillion) was not "what is rhetoric?" but, rather, "what is art?" Socrates vehemently denies that rhetoric is art, and, like Antonius, calls it "only a routine, a knack."
ReplyDeleteSo, what is art? I think this question, like the question of "What is rhetoric?" is age-old, and the answer is probably something that wouldn't be easily arrived at, but I think it is a question worth considering, especially since it seems to be so important to many of these men that rhetoric be considered as an art.
Also, does the art of rhetoric lend more toward the pejorative term "artfulness," or does it genuinely mean that someone has mastered something beautiful (semantical possibilities of word play aside, that is what I consider to be one of a million definitions of art)?
I'd be interested to know your perspective. I guess, however, that coming up with a useful definition for one word in order to assist in defining an equally quixotic word is, "Like trying to hit a puppy in the nose by throwing a live bee at it."
We have to remember that one of the primary reasons we have theory is so we have a reason to discuss/argue about our reading. Art is another genre that is not easily defined as persepective is always 90% of what is "artistic." I find creative graffiti to be artful, while one who studies the "classics" would find that, perhaps, an atrocity. I believe rhetoric, used well for either good or bad, is very artful.
ReplyDeleteBased on what you two have said, there really is no conclusion as to what art really is. Do we base our opinons about what is artful on what the experts say or tell us, or are we able to determine art for ourselves? I think we sometimes confuse art with talent. Just because a gang banger tags his/her gang affiliation or insults a rival gang over territory very artistically, do we consider this artful or do these gang members just have talent with a spray paint can? Art is in the eye of the beholder and talent can maybe sometimes be mistaken for art, don't you think? We can look at rhetoric in this same fashion. Is it the message or is it the way the message is relayed? Where is the art and where is the talent?
ReplyDeleteCicero states that there are two classes of people:well-educated or the unlearned and ignorant. According to Cicero, it is obvious which class the artistic endeavors of a gang banger fall into. This concept of an elite class vs. an ignorant class has sifted down through the ages into the discussion of "what is art", whether the subject is music, literature, or sculpture. I am not able to find in the readings the specific classification of art as "high, middle, and low". I'd appreciate if anyone can point that out for me.
ReplyDeleteI didn't find much in the readings that related to art as anything other than a vehicle for rhetoric to ride in (and, to some, rhetoric gets to take the bus!), but I think that nowadays, as well as in those days, art is not entirely class-based, not as far as the artist goes. The determination of what art is and what art is good is generally determined by those paying for it (i.e. the ruling classes) or those patronizing the artist. If a Vanderbilt (they're still rich, right?) wants to pay a gang banger to tag street corners, then perhaps it's art.
ReplyDeleteThe big difference between now and a long time ago (in my opinion) is what people are willing to pay for. I know a guy who just put giant paperclips up in downtown Colorado Springs and it's art (priced at $75k). Though the Pisones wouldn't have even known what a paperclip was in the later BC period, they were still willing to pay a pretty penny to have the Greeks teach their sons the art of rhetoric.
I don't think that "what rich people are willing to pay for" is the best definition of what art is, however.
I find it interesting that no one has attempted to distinguish between art qua art and rhetoric as an art. (Wish I had the power of italics etc. in comments for emphasis; if I did, qua would be italicized, and so would the phrase "as an art.") I think talking about "the art of" something is more related to skill and a skillful performance than necessarily to painting. The art of painting and a painting it self are intimately related, but despite that intimate relationship I feel there is a distinction, however slight, between the art of something and a work of art. I don't think any of the writers intended to equate rhetoric to visual art in speaking of whether or not it is "an art." I think it was closer to a craft, a skill etc. In other words, is rhetoric an art, a skill worthy of respect, that can be taught through instruction in specific techniques etc.
ReplyDelete