ArtBistro

It is clear to see that Plato was opposed to the expressive arts of his contemporary society. He seemed suspicious of their necessity, their merit and their underlying intentions toward its unsuspecting members. Though his notions and arguments go to great lengths to depict the reason behind his rationale, I find it difficult to absorb what I consider a dated and self-serving perspective on the arts.



Mimesis: imitation or representation. Plato objects to the arts, encapsulating most visual, performance and literary arts, by dissecting their plausibility on several different facets; the first being that of the metaphysical, in which he condemns works of art for merely being representations, or illusions of the real thing. He has labeled works of art as false entities, that which is not real. Which brings us to our second level of objection, the epistemological perspective; meaning that these works of art being false entitiess hold no real truth, no knowledge and are therefore prevarications susceptible of providing an illusory pleasure to the spectator. Thus, the moral perspective comes into effect. Plato accuses the arts of appealing to our irrational side, provoking emotion and feeding our innate desire to experience passion, pleasure and pain. All of which Plato deems threatening to the pure elightenment of humankind.

Plato poses further argument on what classifies as a work of art and remarks that the validity of such works can be measured by their ability to provide knowledge of the gods, of great men and of altruistic endeavors. His argument stands firm and despite his uncanny ability to have the reader going in circles, his points are well taken. However, another bold and passionate man was quite adept at contradicting Plato's convictions. A fellow by the name of Aristotle repudiates several of Plato's arguments by establishing the notion that by appealing to the emotions and minds of people art is able to have a cathartic affect and may provide insight to the past and future cultural relations of a society. I for one am in agreement with the latter.



Many attempts at censorship of expression have happened over time. Not that Plato was campaigning for quelling the progression of arts, but that he intently questioned their importance. But imagine a type of society and culture today that could have been influenced by the writings of Plato, which may or may not classify as art. Is one not to speak of the starry nights, the pale-moon skies and the passion fruit sunsets that somehow give beauty to the depravity of days, glory to the sadness of sorrows and hope to the faltered dreams of those who can only depend on the unsure? Plato's sense of scientific reason omits the sensibility of the true core of the human condition; that which can relate to the purports of those in their likeness, akin with the spirit that drives them to do something in whichever and whatever way they choose. The description and classification of art is a conundrum in and of itself that intends and expects no explanation, though derives a colloquial argument that is self-defeating, self-nullifying and becomes however unjust, but noble in its efforts. Whereas Aristotle praises art to be a release of our emotions, Plato condemns art in that it affects, distracts and feeds our emotions, impurifies our thoughts and somehow inexplicable poisons our beings so that our livelihood could no longer co-exist with what Plato would deem fit for his ideal society.

As time has passed and all things have progressed, Plato's indignant opinion and analysis of art has come to be, much like many other scholarly theories of time passed, quite obsolete in comparison to the spectrum of aesthetic analysis that must be considered to date. Though his words are significant they appear obtuse in the perspective from which the contemporary art world speaks. Although I concur with an accord of Plato's sentiments regarding the importance of imitation, or mimesis, his emphasis on epistemological and moral functions of art deceive themselves as the process and practice of art has undoubtedly left as many healed or hurt by its affects. The pretention that art in and of itself is self-deprecating and futile in an academic realm seems isolated in comparison to the words, thoughts, pictures, ideas, inventions, recordings, re-creations, dreams, plans, visions and all other contributions of the arts that have surpassed anyone's capacity to ever imagine.