post 2

Justin Wright

makes his second post.

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/NY/NYC/FreedomTower-014.jpg

This image has been altered by computer to show the Freedom Tower artificially rendered into the New York City skyline. The Freedom Tower is currently under construction, and will replace the World Trade Center towers that were destroyed on September 11, 2001. I believe that this image leads the nation forward, since it shows that we, as a nation, will work to undo the damage of terrorist attacks and stand strong to prevent them. This image also appeals across party lines; even those who disapprove of the war in Iraq or the continuation of the war on terror can agree on the heinousness of the September 11 attacks, and that we should not let them tear the nation apart.

Plato would agree that this image is good for the nation, because it inspires unity and strength. But he most likely would denounce this image on the grounds of being totally untrue – it was digitally generated. Plato ranks the arts below both the ideal realm and the actual realm, for imitating an imitation of the essential form. He would rank fictitious images as the bottom of this category, for not being a form of mimesis at all, and showing a reality that does not currently exist. Plato suggested that only true poems and plays should be performed in The Republic, for the good of the state, and creating a false image to inspire virtue would be no better than to encourage discord – it would almost imply that good does not actually exist, and must be falsified.

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/images/accountable.jpg

This image shows an anti-Bush rally in Brussels, Belgium. It shows a banner displayed above people standing solemnly in front of it, supporting the message. I interpret this image as destructive to the United States, not because of the message of the protesters, but because of the discord it can propagate. Since these are Belgians, people could generalize that the entire nation of Belgium hates President Bush, and they may generalize further and think they hate the United States. Some may even take this to the extreme and think that because Belgians dislike Bush, all foreigners dislike Bush, and much of the world hates the United States. Although erroneous, not much information to the contrary makes it to the media. News of anti-America and anti-Bush protests are often shown, but never the actual statistics of how many people in these countries are opposed to the nation of America in general. Also, at home, this effect increases divisiveness between support and opposition to Bush, because the opposition perceives him to be one of the most hated men in the world today.

Plato would not support the use of this image, because it propagates discord in the state and sullies the leader. Even if it was true that all foreigners everywhere hated the nation’s leader, Plato would not condone allowing such messages to exist in the state. Such images would decrease the faith of the citizen in his ruler, and therefore his allegiance to the nation. Such an effect would be more detrimental to the state than the infamous leader himself, because Plato regarded the state as easily corrupted by influences contrary to those that encouraged virtue, harmony, and allegiance.

Rob H post 2

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 U.S. armed forces. To appeal to the historians among us, the historical context of Uncle Sam actually dates back to its first war-time usage in 1812, although the poster from which the above image is derived was not created until 1917 and World War I. There are several explanations for Sam’s origins, ranging from a Samuel Wilson who supplied American soldiers with meat to an Irish/Gaelic acronym for the U.S.A.

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.

Morgan F., Post 2

Morgan Frost

The Bermuda Triangle by Philip Core (1982).

This artwork was painted by gay artist Philip Core. It presents three men climbing together into a boat after swimming. It appears that their activities are recreational, and if take the history into account, we might assume that these men are gay. But the important part is that even if they are gay, they are participating in activities that any person might enjoy. People of all ages and background can relate to swimming and being in a boat.

America is a country with people of all sexualities. However, we are still in a divided state. Homosexuals are persecuted against every day. Many people believe homosexuals are different people, even considering them lower in human value, and these kinds of thoughts are disharmonious and cause conflicts. In order to relieve these problems we must attempt to unify the state as one. Only together can the state be most glorious, and artwork provides a vessel for one means of unification. This painting in particular can move the nation forward by showing common ground between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Using historical evidence, we can see that Plato would agree with the view that the portrayal of homosexuals is a unifying display rather than one that would incite quarrels. In his society, many people had homosexual relations, and to recognize this and portray it as acceptable would be a step forward for the nation. Something to look at about this, though, is that Plato mentions the problem in The Republic of people interpreting the same object with different views. Thus even a painting that may be intended to have a positive effect on its viewers can have a negative one. “And the same object appears straight when looked at out of the water, and crooked when in the water; and the concave becomes convex” (Book X).

This picture is a display of the fantasy creatures from the Magic group that markets products such as books and games for today’s wizard-interested citizens. This piece almost idolizes violence. The creatures are depicted as larger and more powerful purely by brute force and fire, and seem to be defeating the men.

The violence of this art is very common in America today. Many young children play games that promote violence. Violence is destructive to harmony between peoples. So with art like this being publicized to the nation, we are being led toward disharmony and conflict rather than unification and any hopes of glorification.

Plato, however, would disagree with this sentiment. He supported aggressive behavior, following the admiration Socrates had for militaristic Sparta. Plato would think that violence is a means to conquering, and thus giving power to his own state. To him, this would be part of the unification process as the men come together to fight the enemy, and the dominance in the picture would signify glory. As clarified in his writing in The Republic, Plato believes that an image can be received for its interpretation of truth rather than its direct representation of something that is untrue. “Let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her --we are very conscious of her charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth” (Book X). In the picture we can be led on by the image of monsters as an untruthful representation (eg mythical monsters), but to be received as representing power and dominance over another party.

Jessica D., post 2

Jessica Duran

http://www.stellapopeduarte.com/photo.html

The universal appeal of art is apparent both in ancient and modern times. Artwork has the power to evoke an array of intense emotions from its audience. Its seductive and illusive influence is a central controversial debate in Plato’s The Republic, in which the place for art in an ideal society and how to evaluate it are discussed in great detail. For this assignment, I chose the Vietnam War memorial as an example of a current artwork that serves to direct our nation toward unity. This national war memorial was erected in honor of the members of the U.S. armed forces that died or went missing during the Vietnam War.

I believe that Plato would agree that the Vietnam War Memorial is a valid example of a current artwork that leads our nation toward unity. In book X of The Republic, Plato states, “Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her”). Plato spoke extensively on how the arts had the power to shape a person’s character and psyche. He believed that art was a cheap imitation that clouded our ultimate understanding of the truth and therefore reasoned that art must prove itself to be useful in order to be allowed in an ideal state. I believe that this memorial proves itself useful by allowing people to reflect on the high price that we pay for war and also the precious value of human life. It also reinforces the importance of accepting and embracing the differences of others if we are ever to achieve true peace and harmony. Each year as millions of people visit this memorial, I hope that they leave remembering to always actively pursue the ideal Forms of Peace, Justice, Equality, Unity, and Harmony, not only in our nation, but also on a global level as well.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/a/anti-american.asp

Though art can serve to be beneficial to mankind on many counts, it can also serve to have detrimental effects as well. For this part of the assignment, I chose this cartoon as an example of art that serves to separate our nation and prevents us from ever truly uniting as one.

In Book X of The Republic, Plato states, “Thus every sort of confusion is revealed within us; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving by light and shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an effect upon us like magic”; ultimately revealing the corruptive and deceptive influence that the arts can have on people. He believed that if the arts were not strictly censored, then we would never find truth and wisdom. I believe that Plato would consider this to be an example of art that misrepresents the truth and does not contribute to our understanding. This artwork is degrading towards the United States of America and serves to deceive its audience into believing that our nation is worthless and inferior. Despite the differences in political views that individuals may have, it is our duty to first and foremost respect our nation regardless of our own personal political opinions. This artwork is outrageously disrespectful to the nation that we live in and the values for which it stands; only serving to further divide our nation and preventing us from every truly being united.

laura cleary, post 2

Image 1:

In this image, we see a transformation of Grant Wood's The American Gothic, into a modern political and cultural piece. In place of the farmer and his wife, we see two of American culture's most candid faces. President Bush and Paris Hilton make quite the pair. I believe the artist has entitled his version of the famous artwork very well, by changing it to "The American Nightmare". We have allowed the less intelligible to become the icons four our day and age. Although many see through the lack of depth and careless natures both of these individuals possess, they are still, unfortunately, two of the most influential members of our society. This image demonstrates how thoughtless and lazy-minded Americans have allowed themselves to become, yet can lead the nation forward by forcing them to realize who it is they are truly idolizing. This type of art can reach all types of people because it uses an older, more popular work and transforms it into something radically different.
Plato, however, would see differently. Firstly, this work of art is only a representation of another piece of art, and could also be said to be suggestive propaganda. Instead of actually seeing President Bush and Paris Hilton, we see humorous replicas of them doctored into what becomes an imitation of reality.

Image 2:
http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/imagefolder/abughraib.jpg

This second image is a blatant representative of what is hindering our nation's prosperity, both internally and internationally. Of course many opposed the recent war (and the "non-war actions we are currently involved with) for various reasons, yet no positive sentiments will ever be received by the Governmental agencies that were involved in happenings such as the one the image displays. This displays an inmate at the Abu Ghriab prison who is being threatened with electrocution by his guards. Sadly, this is one of the many torturous events that took place. Our country cannot benefit from acts such as the one this image displays and Plato would agree with that fact. Yet, he would not recommend the controversy that would arise in the community from this apparent truth. But, as a philosopher seeking what is true and real in the world, why shouldn't the people be aware of what is going on in society.

Ashley G., Post 2

Ashley Green

In Book X of Plato’s The Republic, Plato discusses the influence of the poet’s and painter’s work on the soul. He proposes that works of these artists are negative in several ways- they remove the viewer even further from the truth, or the ideal realm, and they appeal to the emotional side of a person’s soul, instead of the rational in which he deems “the best side.” Yet he acknowledges that the pull artistic works has on the emotional side of a person’s soul can be useful because it unifies. Throughout modern history, various figures have attempted to use artistic works to glorify their achievements and unite the people. In the early stages of America’s war with Iraq, the images presented by the media to the American public had a very distinct flavor- they were of Iraqi children cheering on American soldiers who were fighting for their liberation, men cheering in the streets because of the end of a tyrant’s regime, and a president standing behind a “mission accomplished” sign on a Air Force flight hanger. One of the most pervasive images from the time was the photo of a group of Iraqis tearing down the statue of their former leader. It represented the end to a tyrants rule, the liberation of a weary people, and victory against terrorism. It helped Americans feel that they were right to be in Iraq because the work that was being done was paramount to the preservation of freedom and justice not only for Americans, but for all people. I believe Plato would approve and support the images above because they not only unified a nation behind a cause, but also promoted the ideals of justice for all people. Also, this set of images would conform to Plato’s idea that art should be restricted to only works that unify. The photos that emerged from the beginning of the war in Iraq were very censored, and only chosen by various media sources if they fit particular “patriotic” purposes.

The second set of images is from an anti-war campaign. They use a popular advertisement, for Apple iPods, and alter them to show more controversial images of the war, particularly the scandal from the Abu Ghairb Prison and soldiers in battle. They would be considered provocative, divisive, and combative by many. The works, however, are intentionally meant to be disharmonious in order to evoke an emotional response against the conflict in Iraq. Plato would disapprove of the works, likely for both their function and content. He would disapprove of the photos because of their blatant attempt to provoke a negative emotion over a rational emotion. Furthermore, the above images are an example of an unmediated and uncensored image. He would not approve of a work that did not glorify or promote the nation at large.

Aaron Post 2

Aaron Childree

I think this is the type of image that does not help move society forward at all. There are many images like this that mock President Bush’s intelligence or leadership ability. I understand that there are lots of people who disagree with some of President Bush’s actions and they probably have very good reasons for disagreeing, but he is the current President of the United States and it would be better for the country as a whole if we were unified in our thinking. I think it is important to understand that free speech and speaking out against the government is our right in this country and that at times it can be beneficial, but I think it is also important to understand that our country is in a difficult time right now and that President Bush is handling the situation in the way that he thinks is best for the country (whether it actually is best is a different story).

I think Plato would agree that images bashing President Bush are not beneficial to society. Plato understood the power of images and thought that they should be used to benefit society. I think that a personal attack on the president doesn’t help the problem at all. This image gives no solution to any issues the country is dealing with, it only points out that the President is not very intelligent. I think that the greatest benefit would come from images that unify the country under our current leader, whether they agree with him or not and if they do disagree, it should be done in a way that addresses real issues and offers solutions.

On the other hand, this image is an image that affects society in a positive way. Instead of mocking someone who is against Civil Rights, it shows Martin Luther King, Jr. giving a speech to a large crowd during the Civil Rights movement. This image reminds people how hard some people had to fight to obtain equality in this country and will hopefully cause people of all races to not take their freedom for granted.

I think Plato would agree that this is a positive image and would benefit society because it unites people under the banner of freedom and equality of the races. It shows a time in which changes were made in a way that benefits society, whereas I would argue that the personal attack on President Bush is asking for a change in a way that is detrimental to society.

Fatema K. post 2

Fatema Kermalli

http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/135/054_8435~Faith-in-America-Posters.jpg

This picture by Donald Zolan is capable of uniting the country and leading it forward as a whole. It inspires love for the United States and faith in its values. This binds all Americans together, which in turn gives strength to the country itself. The US is represented by the flag in the picture’s background. The children standing in front may be seen as a symbol of innocence and trust, the same feelings which the image is meant to evoke in the viewer. Both genders are represented in the artwork, as both men and women are the intended audience. The children appear well fed, dressed, and cared for; when seen as America’s “children”, this representation offers a view of the US as a concerned and loving mother. Also interesting is the fact that the children are seen in a praying position. This put together with the image’s title, Faith in America, also seems to attempt to connect the nation itself to religion/those higher ideals which Plato was so intrigued with and connected to.

Plato would have heartily approved of this image as a method to empower the nation and lead it towards a more unified existence. It provides an image of the country that is good and can serve as a base for patriotism. He also may have considered this particular image to be more “inspired” and therefore allowable due to its relation to the ideal (as seen within the faces and actions of the children). In Ion it states: “The gift which you possess… is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an inspiration; there is a divinity moving you, like that contained in the stone which Euripides calls a magnet….” This explanation is only reserved for the best forms of art as it relates one to the highest realm of existence, just as this image attempts to do. The aspect of prayer that is present therein also correlates with Plato’s council in Book X of The Republic, “…that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always….” Thus, his view of this piece of art would very likely have been favorable.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42441000/jpg/_42441151_ap_marchers_416credit.jpg

This image of Guantanamo Bay protesters in Cuba is one which some would argue leads the US towards disharmony and away from glorification. It makes the American government appear to be weak and to lack control of and backing by the people. The picture itself was taken in Cuba, which is indicative of the disapproval shown by other countries regarding Guantanamo. However, a simple glance at the image would neither tell you the location of the scene nor the nationality of the protesters themselves. The mixture of various peoples shows unity against the actions of the United States, while the presence of stereotypically “American-looking” Caucasians gives the impression of disunity within the US itself.

The wording on the front banner is also harmful towards the country’s image because it associates Guantanamo with torture, an illegal action which is considered inherently wrong in today’s age. A closer look at the sign in the top left corner of the picture provides yet another reason for interpreting the image’s connotation negatively. The sign calls for justice and, by doing so, accuses those in charge of Guantanamo Bay of being unjust. This association of the US with torture and injustice is harmful to America’s image and is a source of great conflict both within the country and among potential allies. In a world where human rights are valued above militarism, it leads the country away from glory instead of towards it.

Plato would most probably have deemed this image detrimental to the society. Its power is used to go against the government rather than to aid and empower it. This power lies a great deal in the ability to evoke emotions through reference to torture. Such emotion which is awoken by a mere imitation of the “passionate and fitful temper” is seen by Plato in Book X of The Republic as “irrational, useless, and cowardly”. Such a state of heightened feeling he would find dangerous to the health of the country, and would thus rather keep under check. In the sense that this image, just like poetry or “honeyed muse”, plays to the emotions, it may be said that Plato would reiterate his warning issued in Book X that “not law and the reason of mankind, which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State.”

Kelly G. post 2

http://www.posterwire.com/wp-content/images/uncle_sam.jpg

I think this image of Uncle Sam is greatly responsible for increasing the number of citizens in the army. It promotes patriotism, civil service, and the common good. Essentially, Uncle Sam has become the poster boy for the United States recruitment process. This poster has contributed greatly to a positive mentality that citizens have had while fighting in previous wars. I think Plato would support the use of Uncle Sam to promote the good of the state. He’d be in favor of any art that pragmatically helped further the country’s military ability.

http://ronwade.freeservers.com/clintonher.gif

This would be an example of an ad deterring unity. When Bill Clinton had his multiple sexual affairs while in the White House and then proceeded to lie about one of them, he caused the country to lose faith in the government. This ad influences people to harp on Clinton’s errors as a president and as a sex fiend. Plato would agree that this hurt the citizens’ morale and the state of the union.

Maxine R. Post 2

Maxine Rivera

This now famous photograph is of fire fighters raising the American flag over the wreckage of the World Trade Center. I feel this is the perfect example of art leading a nation on a "prosperous path, toward unity and glorification." This image has become such a source of inspiration that it has been reproduced, and circulated hundreds of times all over the country in many forms; copies of the picture, paintings, sculptures, etc. This picture displays national pride even in a time of despair. It shows all our enemies that no matter how badly they hurt us physically they cannot break our spirit and they will never put a dent in our love for our country. In spite of the evil things people do, we must stand up and stick together, that is what the flag stands for, unity. Placing the flag in the midst of all the terror and destruction sent a strong, clear message, not only to our enemies, but also to the distraught people of our nation who needed it."'Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away."¹

The second photograph once again features an American flag but in a very different way. This time it is pictured not in an attempt to promote unity or national pride, but rather to discourage them. As I said before the flag stands as a symbol of and for the American way. To show it in flames symbolically burns what the United States and its citizens stand for. Flag burning in a portrait or in a public park is to display anti- American sentiment. Of course burning a flag will not bring down the United States, but it makes a powerful statement as to one's displeasure with the nation, just as erecting a flag makes a powerful statement of pride and love for the nation.

I feel that Plato would agree with me on both accounts. There is no question as to the patriotic value of the first piece of artwork, it would fall in line with his feelings that artwork should serve to support the state. I am not so sure about the second. The paragraph on the anti-American sentiments behind flag burning was undeniably tainted by my own personal (negative) views on the subject, perhaps there are other opinions on it. Either way, I do not think Plato would allow this kind of art in his Utopia. In Book X he comments on the power of poetry (which I will extend to art in general) to corrupt even those who we would not expect to be corrupted. In essence he is saying that art has the power to put ideas in our heads. If images such as the second one had never been presented to me, I do not think I would have ever thought of burning a flag. Would I now, simply because I've seen that this practice exists? Probably not, but discovering flag burning makes the possibility much greater.

Ashley C. Post 2

Ashley Cannaday

http://www.deathreference.com/images/medd_01_img0030.jpg
The first image I chose for this assignment is of The Kennedy family at the funeral of John F. Kennedy, with John Jr. giving a salute. To me, this picture creates unity and strength among Americans. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy shook our nation. It was a major tragedy that, in the end, brought us closer together. For days straight, every television was on, and everyone was glued to footage of the incident. It was as if the rest of the world had just stopped. America became more connected, and came together as a nation in order to get through the tragedy. Plato would have approved of this image, because it benefits the state. It makes the nation stronger and more empowered. To Plato, the death of JFK may be justified because it resulted in the greater good for the state.


The second image I chose shows an aborted human fetus next to a U.S. quarter. It is a very graphic image and may be offensive, so I will only post the link to the image: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/slaughtered_child-abortion.jpg

. In this photo, the first object that you see is the quarter, and what draws the most attention is the word “Liberty.” However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the quarter is on top of the remains of an aborted fetus, and that the hands and feet are clearly definable. This image is an example of one that would lead the nation towards disharmony and conflict. The issue of abortion is heavily debated in America today. Some believe in a woman’s right to choose, while others argue that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. This image evokes sadness and even disgust in the viewer. By showing the hands and feet of the fetus, it is humanized. It makes you think of the fetus as a person, and not just a clump of developing cells. This image is obviously used to support the view that abortion is murder. The topic of abortion has divided America, causing conflict rather than camaraderie. Plato would not approve of this image because it causes dissent among the nation. It splits the state into two opposing views, and as Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided cannot stand.” This image threatens the prosperity of the nation.

Christopher Post 2

Christopher McCauley

The World Metro Map, by Mark Ovenden, which hangs in the Tate Modern Museum in London, is a very different piece of art. It is a “parody,” for lack of better words on the design of the map for the London Underground System. The “map,” is made up of a crude representation of the entire globe, and the stations represent different major cities all over the world. I think this piece of art suggests to lead the nation forward because it depicts how tied together we are with the entire globe. There is not one city that can not be reached by some means except for a few in the area represented by Africa; however this area is shown as “under construction,” which means that attempts are being made at linking this part of the globe as well. Ovenden shows our nation as a part of the whole (world, that is). I think if Plato were to look at this piece of art he would be slightly confused. I am sure he would not know what Vancouver or Jakarta is, and I do believe he would not enjoy the fact that Sparta is not shown on a representation of today’s world. Context aside however, Plato would argue that this piece of art is only the “essence,” of what today’s world is. We would like to believe that we are all connected on a lovely little subway map, but the truth is we are caught up in war, and violence, and hatred, and terribly apocalyptic ideas. The idea of unification exists, but it is not a plausible, palpable thing, except perhaps, on this piece of art.

This image of a burning flag is negative for the advancement of our country because it shows the disorder and disharmony that exists within it. It shows that people are unhappy with our government or with the direction in which our country is going. Whether it is a certain man from Texas, or a certain wife of a certain man from Arkansas, or even that certain man from Arkansas himself, people are unhappy with the government. It perhaps shows that democracy is ineffective, at least, for those who venture to burn flags, and they might prefer anarchy. It does not seem to me that having no government would help move our country along. I think Plato would look at this image and say that “the maker of the image knows nothing of true existence…” (A quotation directly from Book X of The Republic). He would look at those who burn flags and say that they do not truly understand what the government is exactly because it is just a representation of truth, and that with no government at all, the essence of government also disappears and therefore, would be completely chaotic.

Joe K Post 2

Joe Kelly

"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.

theresa post 2

Theresa Chu

Image 1

The cover of TIME magazine’s annual Person of the Year issue is a work of art that Plato would have deemed acceptable, for it serves to “empower” the state. In 2003, American troops had been deployed to Iraq, and the United States was beginning to experience a severe division in views regarding the Iraq War; however, this magazine cover depicting three American soldiers served to bring many Americans together in support of the troops.
As Plato states in Book X, art has the ability to bring out emotions in the people experiencing the art. In this way, this magazine cover allows readers to feel pride in their country and troops as well as a sense of freedom and security. Because of this, the country is able to progress and to become more unified.

Image 2

This work of art (Picnic) by an Iraqi surrealist painter named Muayad Muhsin depicts an arrogant Donald Rumsfeld with his army boot-clad feet propped up on a destroyed artifact of Iraq’s past. In the background stands a giant statue of a lion with his head smashed open; furthermore, white papers are flying into the air symbolizing the loss of libraries and museums due to the bombing of Iraq by the United States. Plato would have disapproved of this painting not only because it is art, but also because it has the potential to divide a country and provoke conflict; moreover, this painting evokes emotions of hatred and sadness that Plato believed to be the weaknesses in humans.

Jenn Post 2

Jenn Shea

Image 1

In this post- September 11 poster, the New York City World Trade Center buildings are represented and shown billowing with smoke prior to collapsing. In the background is the American flag waving and the phrases “Never Forget” and “United We Stand” are a very bold aspect of this poster. This image, although it portrays a very disturbing and upsetting image, is seen by many to promote unity and forward movement in the United States. It calls for a more unified nation in the war against terror. In this sense, this poster could also be seen as propaganda in support of the war the United States is currently fighting. Nonetheless, whether one supports Bush’s war policies and actions after September 11, it is clear that this image strives to bring the country together in an era of mayhem, uncertainty, and threat. According to Plato, even though this is imitation and clearly not the actual World Trade Center, this image would be acceptable in the advancement of the state because it is trying to move America toward order after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. This can be seen in Book X of The Republic when Plato writes, “…let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her—we are very conscious of her charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth.”

http://www.ybf.org.uk/neverforget1024x768.jpg

Image 2

In this apparent anti-Bush piece of art, George Bush is shown on a U.S. stamp with “Patriot Act” written under him and a gun pointed at his head. Personally, I am not a huge fan of many of Bush’s policies, but I still find this to be backwards progress in the Unite

d States, as apparently many others also would because this image was banned in Wisconsin. This image shows animosity toward the president in reaction to the USA Patriot Act, but takes disagreement to a new level by displaying the gun pointed at President Bush’s head. Not only would Plato see this as a false representation of a stamp, he would also comment on the manipulation of the photo, as he comments in Book X of The Republic that, “Thus every sort of confusion is revealed within us; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving by light and shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an effect upon us like magic.” Another idea that Plato touches upon is the ignorance of an artist in regards to reaching the truth of something when he says, “The poet is like a painter who, as we have already observed, will make a likeness of a cobbler though he understands nothing of cobbling; and his picture is good enough for those who know no more than he does, and judge only by colours and figures.” This piece of artwork then, according to Plato, would only be worthwhile to those who agree with the creator of this art and who do not fully understand the intentions of the Bush administration. To Plato, this would create disorder within the state in the obvious sense that it furthers the political divide in the United States and in a deeper

sense because it furthers the ignorance of the American people as they only look for what displeases them about Bush.

http://www.bigredandshiny.com/issues/issue28/pix/news/ANTI-BUSH_ART_CENSORED_24191115_thumb.jpg

Ruth Post 2

Ruth Ellen Day

This first image I chose is an ink drawing by Mary Hilger. It is a depiction of Mother Theresa in many of her works of love. This image would lead a nation forward because it is an example of how all humans should act toward others. People should act with compassion, not hatred, and should strive to make the lives of all people comfortable and livable. Viewing this artwork would call to mind all of the acts of love and charity that Mother Theresa performed. It would inspire citizens of a nation and of the world to live their lives as close to this example as possible. I believe that Plato and I would have been in agreement on this particular piece. In the Republic, Plato implies that art is useful only as examples of ideal beauty. This image may not display beauty in the physical sense but it does display beauty of the spiritual sense and Plato was a strong believer in the immortality of the soul, “… considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil.” (Book X). Also, though this image does not depict literal truth, it does represent the true nature of Mother Theresa’s life and the acts of love that she performed. This would not cause the viewer to “neglect justice and virtue” but to embrace them.

The artwork I chose that I believe does the opposite of my first image is called “Bearded Orientals: Making the Empire Cross” by Priscilla Bracks. This image, which was showcased in a prestigious religious art completion in Australia, depicts Osama Bin Laden in a Christ-like pose. I believe that this glorifies a mass murderer and promotes violence. Christians and most Americans should be offended by such artwork because it degrades Jesus Christ and glorifies a man who was responsible for an unforgettable tragedy in the United States. It is impossible for anyone who dislikes violence to see this image as beneficial. Jesus Christ is a symbol of love and peace while Osama Bin Laden is a symbol of hatred and violence. Depicting the two as one entity not only makes a mockery of Jesus but also of the virtues that he represents. This image, does not in anyway promote truth, so I am convinced that Plato would agree that this image would prove detrimental to any society. What Plato desired for his Republic was war from without and peace and cooperation within. Such an image would only cause misunderstanding and controversy within a state or nation. Its only purpose is to spread lies.

Ted Henderson post 2 second half

There is in fact a style of artwork that, for the most part, I find unhelpful in promoting the general good of the public. This is not to say that every piece of art created in this style is destructive and unworthy of being deemed expressive and useful, but in general, I believe that graffiti, most notably that seen spray-painted on countless concrete surfaces in urban areas, does not promote any general state of being for us as a nation. Graffiti, as much as many people believe it to be a substantial form of artistic expression, is without a doubt a common form of vandalism, and is a direct violation of not only United States law, but blatantly goes against the moral code upheld in the minds of many citizens of any country that it is wrong to deface or misuse property that is not one's own. A fact that causes me to be even less sympathetic with those who take part in graffiti is that, in most cases, graffiti in no way glorifies or makes note of any sort of worthwhile moral thought, or deep thought of any kind for that matter. Certainly those who practice graffiti as an art would have a bit more of a defense against the argument that the spray-painting they involve themselves in is not morally worthwhile to a nation if it weren't for the fact that nearly all of these building-side paintings of theirs are simplifying a fancy looking version of the self-given nickname of the artist. If one is going to take part in defacing property not belonging to them self and deem it art, I at least ask that this art display something slightly more meaningful than their own name, be it fancy looking as it may. I believe it to be quite clear from his writings in The Republic that Plato would in no way find graffiti to be a morally substantial art form. Plato made the point in these writings that art was not fit for a "well-ordered State" (The Republic, Book X) unless it was created with the purpose of either honoring a famous and noble man for his deeds in life, or glorifying the creator of humanity and the ideal realm which he, along with other philosophers of his time, believed all people should continually strive for in the lives they lead. Obviously, graffiti seldom servers either of these purposes, and in the only instance in which it seems to be utilized in some sort of a moral sense are those few instances in which it is used by a mistreated people as political protest. It is because of the fact that graffiti does not fulfill these ideals that Plato believed all art must consist of that I find it safe to assume he would have blatantly scoffed at those who believed the spray-painting of buildings, sidewalks, and monuments to be an art form which was worthy of existing in a "well-ordered State".

Brynne post 2

Brynne PiotrowskiThe aftermath of the disastrous and horrific events of September 11, 2001 provided many images that demonstrate American unity and courage, among other qualities. Above is just one of the multitude of pictures taken during that day. This particular photograph captures five men rescuing a victim of the attacks. Two of the rescuers are obviously firemen, but the identities of the other three are not clear. What makes this image particularly powerful is how it demonstrates American resolve, perseverance, and unity. I believe Plato would be amenable to this photograph as a work that serves to unite the country. It depicts a common bond among five seemingly unrelated men—taking responsibility for their fellow countryman. Furthermore, the determination of these men in a very dark day in America’s history is in tune with Plato’s opinions on handling grief and emotion. Plato remarks in Book X of The Republic that, “grief stands in the way of that which at the moment is most required.” Later in the same work he says, “the feeling of sorrow which has gathered strength at the sight of the misfortunes of others is with difficulty repressed in our own [self].” The five rescuers captured in this photograph have managed to overcome what Plato terms, “a natural hunger and desire to relieve our sorrow by weeping and lamentation,” (Book X) and are carrying on to deal with the task at hand. Such a quality appears to be greatly admired by Plato, as judged from his writings in Book X of The Republic.

Quite a different message emerges from this photograph depicting protestors with a United States flag bearing an illustration of torture superimposed upon it. In addition to the silhouetted figure being displayed on the flag, the flag is being flown upside down. According to Public Law 829 passed by the 77th Congress (frequently referred to as “The Flag Code”) the flag is never to be flown upside down, “except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” Regardless of how appropriate that definition might be to the protestors in the picture, the flag was likely flown upside-down in this instance as a sign of disrespect. I believe Plato would look with disdain upon both the dishonored flag itself and the image of the protestors with the flag. I draw this conclusion primarily upon Plato’s interest in building-up the nation and focusing on harmony rather than discord. However, I believe Plato would also hold a hostile view towards this image because it deals with appearances and the flag serves as an imitation, as interpreted by the protestors’ points-of-view. Since Plato speaks with hostility towards both imitation and appearances in Book X of The Republic, he would likely express a similar attitude toward this image.

e tibbetts post 2

Erica Tibbetts
According to Plato, there is an idea of something, i.e. a bed and this idea is not particular or even physical. It exists beyond the realm (or above the realm) of the world we live in. This “idea” was created by a God of some sort and cannot be replicated or recreated by a human. This idea is the only truth, the only real version. Whenever a carpenter or other manufacturers creates a particular bed, this item is one step removed from the actual or real. When a painter paints a picture of this bed, the image is now two steps removed. This picture does not even have the reality of the physical bed, it captures but one visual aspect of the bed and thus contains none of its truth. Thus, it is an imitation.
The problem with imitations, in the form of paintings and poems, is that they create “passions” in the viewers/listeners. These passions would normally be subdued and deemed unworthy of public life. However the base nature of the imitative poetry and painting lets the evil nature of restrained passion show through. Plato argues that people are more likely to react to the problems of characters in poems or are more likely to voice sorrow or awe at the sight of a painting than they are to give voice to these emotions in their own private lives. He argues that these passions are “impatience” and thus are not honorable or noble sentiments. So, poetry and painting bring out ignoble qualities in people because they tap into the impatience, unadulterated passion and socially unacceptable emotions of the public.
Plato detests imitation, undue emotion and anything that incites the mass. So, Plato only likes “art” or elements of culture that increase knowledge and reality and don’t pretend to be something they are not.
In “Ion” Plato argues about knowledge, and how a person cannot know what is good (or comment on what is good) without knowing about what is bad to some extent too. He also points to the idea of “realms of understanding” and how every profession has a set of knowledge that accompanies it. When Homer writes about many different professions and describes many different acts he cannot be speaking with the depth of knowledge necessary to make him as wonderful as Ion claims. And Ion cannot act out these parts with proficiency without somehow cheating the system. Socrates also questions the idea of art vs. some sort of divine inspiration. He seems to be mocking Ion, and telling him that the only way he can claim to know how to play all the parts that Homer provides, and still be honest is to be caught in a divine reverence and be transmitting the passion and language that Homer wrote. So, again there is a return to the issue of emotion and something unnatural, some sort of unnatural transference of knowledge and understanding. Ion is imitating Homer, he is claiming knowledge he cannot have and is creating artificial, imitated entertainment.

3 images that incite the American public in such a way (to a certain extent) are: the statue of liberty, the “I want you” Uncle Sam Poster, and the American Flag. These icons represent a range of “realities” and ideas and elicit a variety of responses and reactions in the public.
The statue of liberty is more than just an image, it is an icon, a representation of many of the ideals that the United States, as a country, is based in. Although many American have never seen it in person, almost everyone knows what it looks like. This gives Lady Liberty a strange status. First of all, she is an imitation of an ideal, but not an ideal thing, object or person, an ideal quality. So, it is hard to say whether in the case of “liberty” this statue is an imitation or just an abstract, which isn’t actually an option discussed by Plato, but would probably be preferable to an imitation. In another sense, the Statue of Liberty is an imitation of a woman. When the statue was created, someone had to pose for it. And in our minds we have the idea of a woman, the platonic woman if you will. Any particular woman is removed from this ideal, and a depiction of a particular at a particular time is even farther removed, so this puts the statue within the realm of imitation. Furthermore it definitely provokes emotion and reaction from many people, not just Americans. It creates pride, happiness, anger, resentment, and any number of emotions from people who see it as a symbol of the good America can provide or the bad she can provide. In this sense, Plato would not approve. However, as I mentioned earlier, for some people the statue itself only exists in the platonic realm. I personally have never seen it, so in my mind I have an idea of it and what it stands for. In a way this idea is more perfect than the statue itself, but it definitely stems from it. I don’t know how this ideal based on an imitation can function, but it definitely deserves its own category.
The next image I will discuss is the poster of Uncle Sam saying “I want you”. This image almost certainly falls under the heading of “propaganda”, its purpose is to incite patriotism, pride, passion. These are exactly the things that Plato would have us stay away from. Too much pride and passion cause a splintering effect, distancing people from one another. Like the Statue of Liberty, Uncle Sam is the embodiment of an idea, and thus does not encompass the same sort of imitation as a painting or an epic poem. However, also like the statue, it does have a figure which in the end is imitation. This is an imitation of a man, a particular man, and it contains little of the truth that Plato would hope for. But again, Uncle Sam means more than an old man, or a cry to arms, or anything solely patriotic. He stands for something noble and (hopefully) good about the United States. And in this sense, maybe he transcends imitation, however, it is hard to tell.

The flag, the star spangled banner, is the last image I will touch upon. The flag is not an imitation, or at least the first one wasn’t, because it was original. Unless you argue that the idea or a flag, or the “ideal” exists before we can even attempt to make one. In this case, then even the first flag ever manufactured was an imitation and since then flags (especially the little tiny plastic ones, or bumper stickers, or on t-shirts, etc) have been moving further and further away from the truth and more towards kitschy kick-knacks. In this case the flag is used as a throwaway symbol of Americaness. We use it, like our language, our culture, our land, to set us apart from others. It is a representation of our independence, our difference, etc. And it is an imitation of certain things, stars, bars, colors. In a way nothing can ever be real when it takes a physical form because it creates the particular in itself and cannot get back to the platonic ideal from which it was born. So, even though the flag could be called an abstract symbol, it is still an imitation of certain artistic elements. And, although it is meant to stand for independence, democracy, etc, it still serves as a tool for division. Alas, Plato seems to condemn everything that stands for anything, and would probably have trouble accepting anything patriotic, especially produced by our power hungry, capitalistic nation.

Kim post 2

Kimberly Hambright

Available for purchase at allposters.com, the first image is one that I believe leads the nation forward. The aircrafts in the picture are arranged in a way similar to a “flying V” that we know to be extremely effective for migratory birds. The exhaust expelled from the planes appears in patriotic colors, appearing to unite the aircrafts under the title of “American.” The statement, “UNITED WE STAND If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. John F. Kennedy,” placed at the bottom of the image clarifies to the audience exactly what feelings the work is meant to evoke. In today’s society, the purpose of the image is to unite all Americans with one common agenda. The poster evokes patriotism in the hearts of the audience as they notice the grandeur of the aircrafts both in the air and in the water’s reflection. At a time of war, a poster like this is meant to strengthen support for the cause and for the troops. Through the use of airplanes and a desolate background, the picture sells the idea that America is strong, and as a unified nation, will come out on top.

I believe that Plato would be in favor of a piece like this. Without using heavy propaganda, the artist meant to evoke a feeling of brotherhood and compassion among the people. The idea was not to question the rules and regulations of society, but instead to strengthen faith in the government and their decisions. The poster urges the people to stand together as one, unafraid of war and unafraid to wear their country’s colors proudly.

In Barbara Kruger’s contemporary piece “Repeat After Me,” a strong statement is made about society. A molded doll holds up hypnotist’s circle in a representation of the oppression of government officials. The doll appears to be made of clay, possibly portraying that he was molded by society into the cookie-cutter design of an ideal citizen. This “molded” being holds up a hypnotist pinwheel, in an effort to transform his audience into like-minded law abiding ideal citizens as well. The brainwashing device acts as a ridicule of modern society, claiming that no one has a mind of their own, but instead, all conform to the norms of society, afraid to have their own opinions, and afraid to make changes. The image calls for realization more than anything. The piece is meant to make its audience look at their own life and realize the ways in which they conform to society without thinking for themselves.

This is one piece that I think Plato would have had a problem with. It asks the reader to break off from society and think outside the box. By doing this, the whole structure of a dictatorship is threatened. A government ruled by one person can only work as long as its people are content or controlled, and because Barbara Kruger’s piece asks its audience to rebel and break out of the norm, it could be considered a threat to the State. If enough people in the Republic were exposed to artwork like this, a rebellion could break out and threaten the governmental structure.