The concept of art has long been contested throughout history. Where does art end and reality begin? What constitutes as art and what does not? Is art beneficial? These are questions that Plato addresses, and his conclusion is that all art serves little to no purpose. To him, the beds of the world are insufficient reflections of the ultimate and pure idea of a bed. The idea of an object, in its essence, is the purest and highest form, while the physical manifestation of this idea falls far short of ever reaching that goal. I can’t say I entirely agree with this concept. If all ideas are the pure essence of things, then how can they ever be conveyed? Can art not give an idea a place in reality and perhaps add more to the idea than that which was first imagined? In addition, how can something be determined as the true essence or the untouched idea? What is the line between that which is ordinary and that which is exceptional and pure in the world of essences? These are questions that I feel Plato fails to answer.

Plato believes that art is a poor form of imitation. It is a manipulation of reality as is, and serves to skew the perception of the viewer, preventing them from ever reaching the highest level of his scheme of reality, the essences. As Plato states about artists: “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only.” Essentially, the artist can never understand the true meaning of something or the essence behind anything, they only portray the surface level and therefore can never capture anything beyond that. In that, an artist also fails to capture reality and therefore manipulates people into believing that their art is reality, when it only deals with surfaces and not truth. This is where he argues that art is deceptive; it never is able to capture reality as it is beyond the surface, and makes someone think that life is as art is when it is something beyond that. For example, he takes Homer: Homer doesn’t know of government and politics, and yet he writes on them– Plato interprets this as a grave offense that warps the common person’s idea of government and politics and offers no substantive meaning.

I agree somewhat with Plato’s criticism. Art can be a manipulative reflection of real life. Sometimes we can become caught up in the media around us and fool ourselves into thinking that we must live that way, or the things we see is what we should expect in our day to day lives. Art can cause us to form expectations for ourselves and others without stopping to think about the repercussions of those expectations. However, I believe that art can be good as well. Art allows us to become in touch with our base human instincts and emotions (something Plato discourages) but something I believe is essential to the human condition. We cannot be human if we are not emotional, and it isn’t a bad thing, in my opinion. Being unemotional and unfeeling is not a pursuit of a higher path, in my opinion. If you are, you lose sight of what life really is at its core, and the ability to understand the world around you. Both emotion and logic are core components of who every person is, and without both, we cannot call ourselves human.

(639 words)