"To keep a fledgling state safe, Plato reasoned, this ower of the arts should be marshaled and used for the good of the state—to empower the state and lead it on a prosperous path, toward unity and glorification rather than toward disharmony and conflict."
The above quote from the prompt is included in this post because I find it useful in highlighting a key difference between Plato's Republic and ours. As Dr. Levis mentioned in class this morning, they are two quite disparate conceptions of government, and with this in mind, I'd like to go in a different direction.
Plato outlines in The Republic a society ruled absolutely by philsopher-kings, men who possess the ideal attributes required to rule independently of the factions and mobs of democratic politics. In such a society, "disharmony and conflict" would serve only to interfere with the plans of these wise sovereigns, plans that would otherwise "lead [the state] on a prosperous path, toward unity and glorification." Thus, the value of controversial art in Plato's Republic is decidedly negative, with only the potential to stir up trouble.
However, the republic of the United States of America places a very different value on this type of art. Whereas Plato created his Republic as an alternative to democracy, ours grew to welcome democratic ideals such as the free exchange of ideas. We do not have absolute faith in our leaders as Plato did in his philosopher kings, so we place checks and balances on them, not the least of which is the capacity for political opposition. The United States, then, values art much more highly than did Plato, primarily for its role in our political discourse and cultural advancement. For instance, I'd like to share an image from Jacob Riis' How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York (no worries, Professors, I know this hasn't exactly been current for over 100 years, so I still have two images to go after this one. Just allow a history major this one indulgence.)
How the Other Half Lives was published in 1890 as an expose on the terrible living conditions of New York slums at that time. Until its release, many upper and middle class Americans were unaware of the plight of the urban poor. However, afterwards, the issue of tenant reform was given special focus in New York politics.
However, the issue clearly does nothing to promote the "glorification of the state." The title almost chastises the more affluent members of society for their obliviousness of those less fortunate. This is clearly controversial work, but we can see that it had a positive impact on society.
My point in all of this is that what serves to "empower the state and lead it on a prosperous path" in Plato's Republic is very different from what manages to do so in our modern republic. Plato pre-supposed the wisdom of his philosopher-kings, and thus believed that opposition would only confound their efficient process. The United States, however, has traditionally mistrusted central power, and thus valued controversy in politics. The prompt asked for us to "[i]dentify some current artwork that you (or others) suggest leads the state or nation forward," and I went on this tirade to point out that what I suggest (and what history suggests) moves this nation forward is very different from the "unity and glorification" that Plato valued. With such a vastly different context, Plato's feelings toward the political implications of modern art are irrelevant. Even though he might consider a piece of art to be too contentious to be valuable at all, we would value it in part because of its controversial implications.
Now I shall do what was actually asked of me.
Plato most certainly would not approve of the above image, taken by Colin Gregory Palmer. It depicts a homeless man sitting on a bench outside of what appears to be a government building, with all of his belongings in a little cart. The stars and stripes hang over his head, as if the artist is blaming the government for allowing such squalid poverty to exist among its citizens. Implicating that the government is responsible for such a blight on society would surely draw Plato's ire toward this image as it fosters dissent from the status quo, not unity. I, however, would argue that this image serves to reduce the populace's ignorance of poverty. To me, a step to reduce poverty would be a prime example of taking a "prosperous path."
Yes, this is the image I claim takes America in a negative direction, or, at the very least, keeps it in a negative place. While it certainly is an attempt to unite America in the wake of a tragedy, it ignores the fact that not all Americans are trusting in the Christian god, or even any god at all. While it is true that this image certainly unites all Christian Americans, it ignores the fact that Americans of other persuasions experienced the same tragedy and were affected in the same manner. As for Plato's opinion, I can't say for sure what he would say; it's possible that he would consider this art valuable because of the unity it implies. It's also possible that he would see that it does in fact possess divisive properties, though I'm not sure how sympathetic Plato would be to minority faiths.
2 comments:
I have to say that I disagree that the final picture moves the country into a negative state. While I acknowledge that there are many people who are not Christians or do not believe in a god at all, I do not believe that this image would produce disagreement. For Christians, the title enforces their faith and reminds them that God is still there. For people who believe in other gods, they can use the art as a reminder that their own individual gods are there for them. Finally, in regards to those people who don't believe in any god, I don't believe this image would bother them. Everyday they use dollars with the the words "In God we trust" stamped on them. In that case, they have no choice. If they want to use American currency, they must spend the bills with this religious denotation. In general, people do not seem to mind. However, in the case of the September 11th art, they do have more of a choice. They are not obligated to buy a poster. They do not even need to look at the poster. So, I find it hard to believe they would have anymore problem with the art than a Christian passing a Jewish temple or a non-superstitious person seeing a book of "true ghost stories" in a bookstore. I think the purpose of the art was to provide Americans with the feeling that there was a power greater than themselves watching over the country. In a tragedy such as September 11th, I can't imagine many people objecting to such a reassuring message.
Perhaps claiming that the picture moves the country into a negative state is an overstatement. I will certainly admit that the problem I feel is represented in this picture is not nearly as profound as the problem represented in the other. In fact, it does indeed have value, but I wanted to find an image many would see as positive and present it differently. Probably the best thing I can say to respond to your point is this: A Jewish temple is not exclusionary. Those who wish to walk in can, and, in a nation with freedom of religion, if they don't want to, they may certainly walk right past it. However, the "In God We Trust" in this picture is, as you say, found all over American currency. People have no choice but to use it, to confront this idea even when they do not give a long look to the poster. At a time when national unity was desirable, this picture promoted sectional unity.
Post a Comment