Rob Hoffman
http://www.posterwire.com/wp-content/images/uncle_sam.jpg
Of the three images in my post, this is probably the most familiar to all of us. We have all seen at least one such poster, the goal of which is to promote patriotism and encourage voluntary enlistment in the
There are those who would claim that such an image is good for the country, as it promotes patriotism and support for the nation; Plato would likely be in this category. They would consider the decision of a young man or woman to enlist in the military as a great and honorable act, a kind of self-sacrifice for the greater good of the nation that is deserving of praise. There are others, however, who might disagree and contend that this image is actually fairly destructive. They would claim that this kind of recruitment campaign represents blatant brainwashing, and that any individual who gets enlists after being “inspired” by this poster would be lured into a position to be used by the government as an expendable resource. They would consider this an example of propaganda that is lacking in any significant amount of truth.
As stated above Plato would almost definitely see the image as positive. While he makes it clear in The Republic that he believes that most art forms ought to be suppressed, he does make exception for poems about significant and great individuals, presumably because such poems would inspire other citizens to follow in their footsteps. In many ways this is analogous to Uncle Sam. He serves as a kind of governmental propaganda that would serve to strengthen the control of the state over the populace; in this way he satisfies Plato’s requirement for acceptable art.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/18/images/xlarge/WK_0_wk18Body_219413_0818.jpg
This image is more contemporary than either of the other two, and perhaps more controversial in its own right. The picture is from one of the body exhibits that have become popular in recent years in various museums throughout the country and indeed the world in general. The remains of human bodies are preserved and dissected in various and sundry ways to present the human anatomical form as a work of art. It is not too difficult to image why a fair number of people have an issue with this. The treatment of the bodies defies normal conventions about the proper way to care for the dead. There are also issues of how the corpses were obtained, with some vague possibility that the individuals incorporated in certain displays might not have given consent to being turned into works of at.
Clearly there are those who view this as a serious detriment to our nation. They abhor the exhibits, considering them to be ghastly and ghoulish aberrations of nature. There are also those, however, who view these displays with a greater degree of fascination, interest, and even admiration. They consider the exhibits to be not only a learning opportunity, but also a chance to celebrate the human form. They would view its existence as a positive, if for no other reason than its demonstration that we are overcoming the superstitions that would otherwise prevent us from enjoying such a work.
How Plato might feel about this particular type of art is not as clear cut as either of the other two examples. On the one hand we might surmise that Plato himself would actually be fascinated by the displays and what he might be able to learn from them. Then again, given his historical context, he might be repulsed by them. Ultimately, it might not matter in the least. Although Plato might not consider this as a type of art that actively divides and incites strife and quarrel, he would also still not see that as fitting in any of the categories of his accepted art. These exhibits might escape banning if they were considered as art, but if they remained classified as art (which is arguable even today), then they would be banned.
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/5/4/3/Both-Sides-e.jpg
The style of this image might evoke a sense of it being outdated, but the issues that it raises are still perfectly potent and relevant. Debates still rage to this day over the teaching of evolution in schools. This image simply makes an appeal that students be exposed not to one side or the other, but rather to the debate itself. If they are taught both sides, the image says, then they can choose for themselves. Interestingly enough, this argument has been used by both sides on a number of issues. Evolution once had to fight to be taught alongside more traditional, Biblical creationism, and now proponents of intelligent design are trying desperately to merely get their “theory” taught alongside evolution as another option.
There are those who are opposed to this mentality and who would consider an image such as this harmful. The majority of those who stand in opposition do not actually fall along a left/right split, but rather a moderate/extremist split. Only the extremists on either side, the radicals, truly would want to quash any notion of teaching students two sides of any really debated issue. Granted, some of these issues, such as the Holocaust, are generally accepted to have only one side, and teaching the opposite (perhaps that the Holocaust did not happen) might not be well accepted. Still, the majority of people would probably (hopefully) support the idea of telling students both sides and allowing them to use their reason and good sense to chose the side with the better arguments and stronger evidence.
Plato, however, would not like this issue. Although his teacher Socrates was a great supporter of seeking knowledge by questioning an issue from all sides, this sort of freedom would be dangerous to the state that Plato is constructing in The Republic. Given the mass education of this sort might ultimately have a destabilizing effect upon the state (contrasted with the propaganda-esque Uncle Sam image), Plato would encourage banning artwork that suggested any kind of open education of students about both sides of all issues.
2 comments:
I think that Plato would not have accepted the body exhibits as a form of art, and would prefer them to be banned. The Greeks believed that a body had to be buried so that the soul could go to the underworld. This was important in Sophocles’ play Antigone, where Creon orders Polynices to remain unburied after his death due to treason. In the play, Antigone risks death to go bury him herself. Plato would have been unsettled that these bodies on display have not been given a proper burial, and this would warrant their banning. In Plato’s opinion, citizens would be frightened that such an injustice was allowed and lose their loyalty to the state.
However, there is not any controversy over the burial of the bodies today. The uproar is over how they were obtained, and whether the people consented to have their bodies used for these purposes. But these problems have not caused people to lose faith in their own state, whether it be the United States or another nation with such an exhibit, like Germany. Some blame China, where many of the bodies originate, for the shady ways in which they were obtained. But since the exhibits do not cause discord at home, they can be reconciled with the spirit of Plato’s ideas.
I'd like to comment on Rob's picture of the poster stating "Teach both sides, let us decide." Rob explains the poster well when he states that, "this image simply makes an appeal that students be exposed not to one side or the other, but rather to the debate itself. If they are taught both sides, the image says, then they can choose for themselves.” During my senior year, I took AP American Government and AP Comparative Politics. With each controversial issue, whether a current event or something more historical, such as the holocaust, my teacher provided a very liberal presentation of the events. The more conservative opinion, or the position that conservatives take on a controversial issue, was never discussed or even brought to our attention. This left students with a very one-sided view of the world, and it misconstrued our thoughts as we began to form our political views. Plato would be frightened at the idea of providing the people with facts and allowing them to form their own opinion on them. He’d prefer if the people were given an opinion, and in a unified manner, accepted and supported it. This would “promote the ideal republic.” In my opinion, not only in our country but in the world, individuals must be provided with different options – different choices – before they are able to make an educated decision that will result in success. Learning both sides to an issue helps the people to serve as “checks” on the government, remain involved in political issues, and helps people to become passionate about different causes. Providing people with a chance to create their own opinion directly contributes to a prosperous country because individuals who are able to gather enough support are more likely to alter society for the better.
Post a Comment