[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Plato: Art
Plato was wholly fed up with the education system in his native Greece. If he heard one more obnoxious rhapsody, waxing ludicrous on some Homeric verse, he was going to tear what hair he had left out of his head. He wanted to reform the Greek schools, take the poetry-based curriculum, throw it out into the Aegean, and replace it with Philosophy. Homeric verses were a thorn in his side- he saw them as contemptible and detrimental. So, he set out to prove why art and the artist had no place in a decent, progressive society.
He defined art as a mimesis of reality. He pictured the artist as a nincompoop with a few skills, but no knowledge of his subject. For Plato, the artist was a dull fellow, simply holding a mirror to nature, imitating it without purpose or thought. He saw that most artists were disconnected from the things they depicted; they had no knowledge of it and didn't bother seeking knowledge before replicating the thing's external appearance.
His major bone to pick with the arts was that it appeals solely to our emotional nature. Since for Plato, our rational nature is the only one which allows us to solve our problems, he saw that art was harmful and led people in the wrong direction. He wanted the focus shifted to Philosophy, and dreamed of a rational society where everything ran smoothly. Art was a speed bump to progress.
I accept Plato's definition of art as mimesis of nature. However, I disagree on the nature of that mimesis. For me, mimesis was not some mindless mirror holding, but a thoughtful way of reflecting specific truths about nature. I think that human beings, from birth, learn by mimesis - the imitation of our parents and peers. Mimesis brings us delight and instructs us.................
