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
