"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.
The 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.
