"Is it an issue of art being this source of decay, or is it that people cannot put meaning into art?"
I feel Plato is putting too much support behind the innate ability of humans to learn and appreciate knowledge. Plato, in the book, states how corrosive art and other not-so-useful things are and how they have no place in society. However, is this the arts fault, or the people's?
For Plato's day, yes, most art was made to depict something held important at the time. However, there were many cases of art that depicted ephemeral things, like deities and events that they were not there for. There exists imagination. That is something beyond the visual world. There is always a story behind those paintings, a meaning, a moral, somethings. It is in the hands of people to find that meaning. To apply it themselves and try to learn from it. There is a lot to be learned from artists and poets and the like. From them, you learn about the human condition and how could one remove something so vital from the world? Plato does leave room for art if they prove themselves worthy. I believe they have.
No comments:
Post a Comment