My second question was, why is a painting of a couch worth so much less than a real couch in Plato's world? Isn't a picture of a couch more like the idea of a couch than an actual real couch would be?
The answer to this question lies in the period when Plato was working. From a modern perspective, it seems like a strange statement, but in his time, the arts were not considered the same creative force that they are today. Painting was seen as purely observational and involved only in the surface of matters, rather than as something that could be used to change and comment on a subject. Because a painting of a couch would have to copy an existing couch at some point, it used an imitation of a form as a basis, making it an imitation of an imitation, just as Plato says.
While it can be helpful on some level to apply a modern sensibility to ancient philosophers, it doesn't make sense to continually toss the same criticisms at them, especially when based on their time in history, they are saying something accurate to the modern views of that time. Plato may have an outdated view of art, but no criticism or questioning will change that. Instead, his views on the world should be taken seriously, with the consideration that it was written in a very different time always held in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment