In the Republic, Plato's most iconic work, he states that his ideal city would be purged of all artists who represent the material world with their work. By this, he referred to art which imitated or included imagery of material objects or people. The only form of art that he explicitly deemed suitable for his city was simply “hymns to the gods and eulogies to good people.” (607A) This is essentially poetry which gave honor and respect to those the city held in high regard. On the contrary, all the poetry of Homer and Hesiod, which depicted all manner of things, was ultimately found unfit for his hypothetical utopian society.
To this day Plato's true reasoning for his apparent rejection of art has been heavily debated in contemporary philosophy. However, In book X of the Republic, he provides his own reasoning. He states, “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only.” By this, he means maker of representative art purports to have knowledge of what he represents but truly does not. But what is the harm in creating something that does not reflect the world of experience? According to his account, the artists and poets may portray a crude facsimile of reality that might unknowingly shape the viewer's mind or reinforce one's previously held yet false values. To this extent, he sees art as a corrupter of truth. Consider the status of film in modern society. These works, some of which highly regarded as art, portray reality in a most unnatural way. In this respect, Plato feared the threat of this art in the same way we moderns might imagine an overbearing mother might fear the influence of violent television on her child.
As an artist, I don't endorse Plato's views. However, I think his critique is an interesting one which definitely calls into question the reason we artists create to begin with. One thing is certain, though, artists are not simply emulators.
No comments:
Post a Comment