zaro

Why Was Plato Against Art?

Published in Platonic Philosophy of Art 3 mins read

Plato's opposition to art stemmed primarily from his philosophical conviction that artists lacked true understanding of what they were representing, which could then lead to the promotion of corrupt and destructive morals within society. He viewed art as a mere imitation, or mimesis, of the physical world, which itself was only a copy of the perfect, eternal Forms.

The Problem of Imitation (Mimesis)

Plato believed that ultimate reality resided not in the perceptible world around us, but in a realm of perfect, unchanging Forms (e.g., the Form of Beauty, the Form of Justice). The physical objects we perceive are imperfect copies of these Forms. Art, in turn, copies these physical objects, making it a "copy of a copy," thus twice removed from truth.

  • Distance from Truth: According to Plato, a carpenter creating a bed is imitating the Form of a Bed. An artist painting a bed is then imitating the carpenter's bed. This layered imitation makes art epistemologically suspect; it moves us further from genuine knowledge.
  • Lack of Understanding: Crucially, Plato argued that artists, whether painters, sculptors, or poets, often did not possess true knowledge or understanding of the subjects they depicted. For example, a painter might depict a general, but they don't necessarily understand the true essence of generalship, courage, or justice in the way a philosopher or a virtuous leader might.

The Moral and Societal Dangers

Because artists lacked this profound understanding, Plato feared their work could inadvertently inspire harmful values or distract individuals from pursuing truth and virtue.

  • Corrupting Morals: If artists are portraying subjects without deep insight into their true nature or moral implications, their art can present distorted versions of reality. This, Plato believed, could lead people to admire superficiality or even vice, rather than genuine virtue. The artists, despite their potential grip on cultural norms, were seen as having no real grasp of the moral implications of their representations.
  • Appealing to Emotion Over Reason: Plato argued that art, particularly poetry and drama, appealed to the lower, irrational parts of the soul—emotions and passions—rather than to reason. In his ideal state, outlined in The Republic, reason was meant to govern, ensuring order and harmony within both the individual and the state. Art's capacity to stir strong emotions was seen as a threat to this rational control.
  • Threat to the Ideal State: Plato envisioned a highly ordered society where citizens were guided by reason and dedicated to the pursuit of truth and justice. Art, with its capacity to deceive, mislead, and inflame passions, was perceived as disruptive to this ideal. He even suggested that certain forms of art or artists might need to be censored or exiled from the city to protect its moral integrity.

Summary of Plato's Objections to Art

Plato's concerns about art can be summarized across several key dimensions:

Aspect of Art Plato's Objection Consequence
Epistemology Art is a "copy of a copy," far removed from the truth of the Forms. Artists lack true knowledge of what they represent. Leads people away from genuine knowledge and reality.
Morality/Ethics Appeals to emotions, not reason; can depict vice or superficiality as admirable. Artists inspire corrupt morals. Corrupts the character of citizens, especially the youth.
Societal Impact Disturbs the order and harmony of the ideal state; fosters irrationality and emotional excess. Threatens the stability and well-being of the polis.

Plato's critique was not a rejection of beauty or creativity per se, but a deep concern for the potential of uncritical or uninformed artistic expression to undermine the pursuit of truth, virtue, and a well-ordered society.