Plato on Art
In his famous work “The Republic”, Plato talks about how a perfect city should be governed to secure order, peace and prosperity for its citizens. This work is divided into 10 books or chapters. In this Essay I will talk about Book 10 where he is criticizing art.
In this last book, Socrates is talking with Glaucon about art. They discuss what it is and how it affects the soul. First they address painting and gives an example of a painter who is painting a coach. Socrates ask Galucon if the painter really know something true about the couch or if he is just imitating a coach from a certain angle. They both agree that the carpenter who made the couch have a much better understanding and knowledge of the couch than the painter who merely replicates the superficial looks. Whereas the carpenter knows how all the parts fit together and can make a particular couch according to the ideal couch.
The Ideal coach, according to Plato is the most real coach because all other particular couches are made following this "idea" or "form". He say that we can think of it as three different coaches made by three different craftsmen, the painter, the carpenter and God. According to Socrates, God's version will be the most real one. The painting of a coach will be like a mirror held up to reflect some part of the sensible world, which is furthest away from the truth.
Plato differentiates between “being” and “becoming”. Being is the most real, it is the forms or ideas that guide our sensible world. We cannot really be in contact with Being because our senses are not sharp enough to grasp it. However we can use our intellect to get in contact with the ideal forms. This is how the carpenter is able to make a coach based on the ideal form of coach. The sensible world is the world of “Becoming”. This is most of our experience and as we all know it is not eternal or lasting. Everything is always Becoming and withering. While the world of Being is the eternal and perfect forms that are the most Real.
Socrates continues by asking Glaucon if acting in tragic plays and the reciting of poetry can be compared to painting. They agree that also the poet and the actor is just as far removed from the Truth as the painter because they merely mimic the great events of war, leadership, politics and so on. They don't really know anything about these topics.
Socrates thinks that watching plays and reading poetry will damage the soul because it awakens the weakest part of our souls, the emotional and irrational parts. When we see the actor in pain, joy, suffering and all the dramatic experiences we feel with him and this makes the inferior parts of the soul more powerful so we can lose our ability to be controlled, stoic and sensible in difficult situations.
We see that Plato takes this very seriously and he really thinks that all artforms can damage the soul and therefore they should not be permitted in the ideal city. For modern readers this might seem silly and prudish, we must keep in mind that Plato's goal was to teach his students to live competent, meaningful and fulfilling lives as leaders in politics, philosophers and scientists who would secure the future of humankind. In this light it makes more sense that he should take this so seriously. However it seems that he have misunderstood some of the aspects of what art is. It is not merely for imitating and miming reality, but to express and share experiences that are meaningful to us.
For Plato art is not suited to guide us in life because it takes us away from truth. He goes against the popular poet Homer who was thought of as a great source of wisdome and guidance at the time. Instead he encourage people to look to philosophy for guidance in life. This great thinker have shaped our idea of philosophy and knowledge as opposite to art. However many disagrees with Plato and thinks that art is also able to bring us in contact with something real.
What do you think? Is art harmful or helpful? What about modern artforms like computer games and TV shows? These are interesting questions in aesthetics and philosophy but also for our everyday life.
From The Republic of Plato, second edition, translated by Allan Bloom, Basic Books, 1991
Hi camilla.. First thank you so much for sharing good educational and thoughtful content.. Its much better than many other post.. In my master of education syllabus i studied socrates platao.. No doubt they were great phlosophers having great contribution towards phlosophy and knowledge.. Somehow he was right coz he want to see her student practical rather imaginative.. He gave importance logic and demanded logical perspective in others views.. Many things we consider art like games are not art actually.. If i talk about games do you not think that they made pplz adicted and bound them to some place like video games rather to make them bebefical persons for society and they never teach someone any constructive work benefical for society.. I am really thankful to. You for sharing this book as i was eager to read his work a year before but did not find it.. Looking forward for your next post.. Following you and also resteemed so many others will b benefited from your work
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, yes it seems like Plato was mostly interested in educating logical and practical thinkers, so spending time doing art and other activities that for him did not contribute to society would be seen as harmful or wasted time.
Yes thanx for considering my thoughts.. He was a serus philosopher even i cant think to talk like him continuously for long time.. He was a real teacher.. But i also think that refreshing art for sometime is good for your physical health like you can enjoy some good meaningful poetry or can enjoy some other healthy activities like travelling tours to some healthy place reading and discusing soe interesting books rather than wasting your time in other activities that are not benefical in any aspect..
I agree :)
Thanks.. Best of luck dear.. Nice to meet you here.. You made my day amazing
Art imitates physical things, which in turn imitate the Forms, art is always a copy of a copy, and leads us even further from truth and toward illusion.
That is Plato's whole text in one sentence, well put :D
Well, I'm not the expert on the topic, but I would say that the point of art and artists (whether it's painting, poetry or something else) is to provide us with touching or enlightening personal interpretation of the truth from the artist's unique point of view. Thus, Plato can say that viewing art is not a good method to learn the real truth, but it does make us emotionally richer, I believe.
I would say that video games in general shouldn't be considered art, except for some specific cases. For example, Telltale is a company that publishes TV Series -like video games in which the player basically watches what is happening and gives a flavor to each episode by selecting dialog options, making decisions about some events, etc. Thus, the point of their games is to present a story to the audience, while letting the audience impact the story to a certain point, so it can be considered a storytelling+ art. The same can not be said for shooting or racing games, for example.
I agree, I think it is strange that Plato was so worried about art, maybe this text should not be taken literally. I think maybe Plato would classify computer games and TV shows as art because it is imitating reality, it is an interpretation of reality and therefore more removed from truth in his opinion. That makes most human activities art because even from a very young age we learn everything by imitating others.
Your great notes lead us to an interesting conclusion: Plato thought artists (kids could be considered artists because they learn by imitating adults, and imitation is an interpretation of reality) not to be artists! : )
Is art harmful or helpful, that's a question! I'll go ask my cat, he understands it better.
As a philosophy professor, I have to say I really enjoyed reading this post.
I think Plato has a good point here: the arts can be used poorly, and indeed our modern world gives us an endless stream of examples. However, I also believe they can be used for the betterment of society, as well. What I really disagree with Plato on is his belief that only the "philosopher-kings" should be the rightful rulers of humanity. From his "cave" or "den" analogy in Republic, book 7, he thought the common people were too ignorant of reality to make good leaders. Thus he concluded that only those who had escaped the common life and had become enlightened should be the rightful philosopher-kings. Unfortunately, the world is also full of endless examples of philosopher-kings who are also guilty of misleading the masses with their own artistic forms of propaganda.
In my part, it depends on the instances. I myself doesn't watch much tv but there are times that I feel like I need to watch something. It brought me a sense of contentment but not all the time. For games, its still the same thing with tv shows, case to case basis.
Interesting thoughts,.. but here should always be space for own interpretation. And as long as the intention is good, every one could finally decide by themself
Excellent reflections and what art is for us at all times, this touch to the beautiful and I think that all kinds of art, whether classical or modern, should accustom to a sublime feeling, although there are also perverted moments, but in general the art in any Times, it must be beautiful! Thank you @camilla
With the order of the city will be a safe and peaceful society is peaceful @camilla
I'm glad I'm not the only one who loves philosophy. It's kind of sad that people call it useless (like going to school to study it) when it has so many great values and things we could learn. And it doesn't make it easier to like it when you're a teenager and God forbid you like anything different or intellectual. @camilla