Are there good arguments why Plato should or should not have kicked the artists out of the ideal city?
I believe there are good arguments why Plato should not have kicked the artists out of the ideal city, though there are forms of art that we can do without, as a whole I feel art allows us to view things in a new way and teaches us more than what we simply see.
Plato does not argue that the Republic should kick out all poets; those that inspire virtue in soldiers, for example, should remain. I feel that in Plato’s era art was interpreted differently than it is today, one reason being Plato’s distinct description of beauty and others misperception of it. Plato was more concerned about the product of the art itself and its imitation. Plato failed to respect the artists’ ability to create art and merely criticized its purpose, though art that inspires virtue in soldiers he viewed differently. Plato used his own interpretation of art to determine what was acceptable; this in fact prevents the general population from creating their own form of inspiration from art. I believe this is exactly what Plato wanted; He did not feel that people were capable of judging true beauty. I believe Plato was disturbed by the way people viewed art; something that can be widely liked and may not be “beautiful” in his eyes. I believe this view Plato has is wrong, the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and an individual’s interpretation of art is what makes it so remarkable. Everyone is not going to have the same reaction to a particular piece of art and that is ok, everyone has different life experiences that provide different interpretations, which allow us to see more than a single meaning. I feel this is a positive influence from art, being able to see the unseen and creating imaginative thinking is better than being forced to see a work of art as something you do not agree with. Collaborative thinking and individual thought have been a key point in the development...