Sanatın neliği ya da neye sanat yapıtı denilebileceği tartışması Platon ve Aristoteles'ten günümüz düşünürlerine kadar uzanan bir tartışmadır. Platon sanata gerçeklikten, hakikatten uzaklaştırıcı bir işlev yüklerken; Aristoteles, iyi ya da kötü eylemlerin taklidi olan tragedya ile ilişkilendirdiği sanatı, gerçekle yüz yüze gelmenin gerçekleştiği yer olarak ifade eder. Tragedyada taklit edilen "korku" ve "acıma" eylemleri "hakikat" ile yüz yüze gelmenin aracıdır. Sanat yapıtları "katharsis"in gerçekleştiği, özünden uzaklaşmış, boyun eğmişlik süreci içerisindeki insanın, kendi kurtuluşuna, kendi doğasına geri dönüşünün birer aracı gibidir. Aristoteles gibi Heidegger'e göre de sanat, "hakikat"e ulaşma, insanın içine düştüğü "kendi-olamama" halinden kurtulmanın olanağının sunulduğu bir yerdir. Sanat, hakikatin sesinin duyulduğu, ortaya çıktığı yerdir. Ne sanat hakikatin bir taklididir ne de sanat yapıtı hakikatin bir tasarımı olarak taklittir. Sanat yapıtında hakikatin sesini duyabilme ya da hakikat ile yüz yüze gelebilme olanağını taşıyan ise insandır. İnsanın sanat denilen etkinliği gerçekleştirebilmesi ve bu etkinliğin açımladığı dünyanın bilgisine ulaşabilmesi sahip olduğu phronesis erdemiyle olanaklıdır. Sanat yapıtını ortaya koyabilmek ya da bir sanat yapıtı üzerinde düşünebilmek ancak phronenis ile mümkündür. Aristoteles'e göre praxisle değil, poiesisle ilgili bir etkinlik olan sanat, bir "yapma (making)" süreci değil, "yaratma (creating)" sürecidir. Phronesis erdemi, bu sürecin sonunda düşünüp taşınarak ortaya konulan sanat yapıtının bilgisine ulaştıracak olandır. Bu yazıda, Aristoteles ve Heidegger'de sanatın ve sanat yapıtının neliğini nasıl dile getirdikleri ve bunun Platon'un sanat görüşünden farkı ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır. Bu bağlamda, sanat -techne- ve zanaat arasındaki ilişki; sanatın "poiein" fiilinden türetilen "poisesis" kavramıyla ilgisi; sanat yapıtının ortaya çıkmasında "phronesis" erdeminin rolü; "katharsis"in gerçekleştiği sanat yapıtının nasıl olup da insanın kendi doğasına geri dönüşünün bir aracı olabildiği ele alınacaktır.

The debate on what art is or what characterize an artwork began with Plato and Aristotle and has continued with the contemporary thinkers up to date. At the present day, especially as a result of the popularity of postmodern art which criticizes the concept of modern art intensively, many questions on art and artworks have been put forth: 'What is art?' 'How can we define art and artworks?' 'What is the aim of art; can it change the reality, or can it be a place in which the reality can find itself, or can or should art educate the public, or can it be regarded as a historical document for the future?' 'Do we need any criterion when we criticize art or a work of art?' 'Or do we have already any criterion of art?' "Are art and craft the same or different?' What is the difference between an artwork and a craft? 'What is the specifities of the activities that create an artwork? Within the context of these essential questions, which one of them is an artwork, Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto or Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Pablo Picasso's "Guernica" or "A Pair of Shoes"? Have they any special feature which makes them an artwork? Which criterions of art have been taken for granted when Manet's "The Lunch on the Grass" which was exhibited in the Rejected Works Art Gallery and Picasso's "Avignon" were criticized. Could we term Gaudi's "La Sagrada Familia" or the "Eiffel Tower" or "Tatlin's Tower" when it could have been built as an artwork"? What kind of differences are there between these two towers and Gaudi's "La Sagrada Familia" to be or not to be called as an artwork? Can we define Piero Manzoni's "%100 Artist's Shit" or Damien Hirst's "A Sheep in Formaldehyde" or Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" and "Bottle Rack" or Andy Warhol's reproductions as artworks? So, what is art and what is an artwork? To answer these questions, we will deal with Plato and Aristotle's accounts of art from ancient philosophy and Heidegger's thoughts of art from the twentieth century's. Plato defines art as a mimesis in his Xth book of Politeia. Plato considers art is a mimesis, a kind of imitation of the nature; it is like holding a mirror to the world reflecting the nature, man and life in the world. In his book Symposion, Plato putting the question "What is beauty (ti esti to kalon)?" he holds the idea of beauty one of the most important aims for a philosopher. Especially in Symposion art is seen a valuable creative activity. Art as a poiesis aims at getting beauty itself. But this concept of art i.e. art as poiesis is not the main concept of art in Plato's aesthetic theory. Aristotle, as one of the eminent ancient philosopher, considers art not as activity dealing with praxis, but with poiesis. According to Aristotle, art as a creative activity which is not related to "praxis", but to "poiesis" is not a process of "making", but a process of "creating". He tackles art mainly differentiating praxis from poiesis and concentrating his analysis on the concept of poiesis. Art as a poetic activity can be worded as techne. Aristotle's concept of techne mimetice implies the art of imitation. Techne corresponds to the rationally calculating part of the soul. Art a heksis (habit) of human being concerned with creating and as a possibility of human being can go with virtue of phronesis (practical wisdom), in other words as a human activity creating artworks needs to the virtue of phronesis. Aristotle considers art as techne mimetice, an activity of imitation as Plato. But it is an imitation of the actions or doings of man. And what imitated in artworks are the actions of fear and sympathy. These kinds of imitations are possible only in tragedies and imitated acts of fear and sympathy in tragedies are means of facing with reality. Then art generally can be seen as a medium in which character and thoughts are introduced by means of tragic actions. While Plato criticizes art as a human activity that moves away us from the reality, from the truth, Aristotle who associates art with tragedy as an imitation of bad and good actions, conceives art as a place in which we come face to face with reality, encounter with the truth. The actions of "fear" and "sympathy" that are imitated in tragedy are the means of encountering with the truth. Artworks by means which "katharsis" would be actualized, are the means of returning to own nature or of liberation of human being who become distant from his own nature. As Aristotle, Heidegger considers art a way to reach the truth and also to be aware of the aims how human being can break away from "not to being herself". Art is the place we hear voice of the truth and a way of hearing the voice of the truth. Neither art is an imitation of truth nor is an artwork imitation as an idea of truth. Merely human being has the capabilities by which either he/she hears the voice of the truth or encounters with the truth in artworks. To perform the activity called art or to get the knowledge of the world expounded in the artworks is possible only by means of virtue of "phronesis". We can get the knowledge of the artworks which are the product of a thinking process only by virtue of "phronesis". To create an artwork or to think on an artwork is possible only by way of "phronesis". According to Heidegger, art as a process of "creating" associates with the virtue of phronesis as Aristotle. Thinking on an artwork or creating an artwork is only possible with the virtue of phronesis which is the correct and suitable way to access the unconcealing (alethiea). Nonetheless, as to Heidegger, an art work by means of which we can conceive the nature of art is not only "a thing" consists of hyle and eidos. In appearance art works are given us as things. These th