Art corrupt the mind

Plato wasn't the first or the last person to think that art is imitates reality, therefore; he thinks that art is imitation and corrupt the mind.
So art is imitation. But what does it imitate? Here is where Plato's two theories come in. In the Republic, Plato says that art imitates the objects and events of ordinary life. In other words, a work of art is a copy of a copy of a Form. It is even more of an illusion than is ordinary experience. On this theory, works of art are at best entertainment and at worst dangerous delusions
Throughout the Republic Plato condemns art in all forms including literature or poetry. It appears as though his reasoning is that imitation of reality is not in itself bad, but imitation without understanding and reason is. Plato felt that poetry, like all forms of art, appeals to the inferior part of the soul, the irrational, emotional cowardly part. The reader of poetry is seduced into feeling undesirable emotions. To Plato, an appreciation of poetry is incompatible with an appreciation of reason, justice, and the search for Truth. To him drama is the most dangerous form of literature because the author is imitating things that he is not.

These are the reasons which made Plato convinced with the truth that "art corrupt the mind".

There are his opinions, and opinions are not truths, and they are sheer opinions and they are the constructions of your minds, and a such that art is an imitation of reality or that art corrupts the mind is a sheer opinion and is therefore the product of the mind and nothing else.

Art at times may corrupt the mind if you read bad ones or imitate corrupt ones, and if you imitate good ones, like William Wordsworth imitated nature, and wove them into beautiful poetry and hardly anybody can say art corrupts the mind at all.

In that case I say art cultivates the mind.

You must think while referring to Plato and inferring your ideas the type of art in question. If you read pornographic arts, maybe it corrupts your mind. This idea also suffers limitations, and this is sheer a point of view to art, and of course there are so many points of view one negating another, and some persons for that reason may argue for pornography and others may oppose it. Therefore suppositions or oppositions of something entirely depend upon your bents of minds.

Maybe what I say is just my opinion and it is not necessary that you agree to what I say, for there are too many opinions or philosophies coming in to prove one truth. And at times all fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

There are his opinions, and opinions are not truths, and they are sheer opinions and they are the constructions of your minds, and a such that art is an imitation of reality or that art corrupts the mind is a sheer opinion and is therefore the product of the mind and nothing else.

Art at times may corrupt the mind if you read bad ones or imitate corrupt ones, and if you imitate good ones, like William Wordsworth imitated nature, and wove them into beautiful poetry and hardly anybody can say art corrupts the mind at all.

In that case I say art cultivates the mind.

You must think while referring to Plato and inferring your ideas the type of art in question. If you read pornographic arts, maybe it corrupts your mind. This idea also suffers limitations, and this is sheer a point of view to art, and of course there are so many points of view one negating another, and some persons for that reason may argue for pornography and others may oppose it. Therefore suppositions or oppositions of something entirely depend upon your bents of minds.

Maybe what I say is just my opinion and it is not necessary that you agree to what I say, for there are too many opinions or philosophies coming in to prove one truth. And at times all fail.

---

I do agree with u & i dont except the idea that art corrupt the mind & i m nt against the idea of Imitation. I just mentioned Plato & his perspective view to discuss it with the members. Because in some way how i found it weired.
And for sure i dont agree that drama is the most dangerous kind of literature.
I think drama & Tragedy can be a form of education that provides moral insight and fosters emotional growth. Its imitation of certain kinds of people & actions.
I do agree with Aristotle who said that Imitation is natural to humans from childhood.

In fact I do not oppose all that Plato or Aristotle said, and of course Plato was right in a particular circumstance in saying that art corrupts the mind and of course Art does corrupt mind if there are things that creates disharmony, and at times, for instance if a novel written in a way that promotes the reader to go to prostitution then that piece of literature corrupts the reader.

Plato seems concerned with the influences of art on the morality of the citizens of the Republic (which is an extended discussion of virtue), and seems to make a distinction between that which tends to ennoble and elevate the citizen's character, and that part of art which tends to appeal to the coarser, base nature in men who are all-too-willing to indulge in excesses. In the third book, Plato makes the young guardian to be surrounded by beauty, because the knowledge and experience of beauty tends to make the soul beautiful (despite the counter example in A Clockwork Orange).
A knowledge of sensible beauty inspires an inward beauty of character and conduct. Compare this thinking with Plato's discourse on love (voiced by Diotima) in the Symposium, where the love of many beautiful bodies leads upwards to the love one beautiful body and then to love of beauty-itself (210A-211E).

Well, art can be dangerous, especially in a totalitarian state, because it has the power to make people view the world from a different perspective. Hence why very often among the first people to be sent to prison or labor camp in totalitarian states are artists.

That is very true, and at times it is a weapon or instrument for popularizing or propagating sets of ideas in a totalitarian setup. We know in so many countries, I do not want to name them for it may hurt some who hold such beliefs in high esteem. They try to blackmail or kind of condition those who are very vulnerable. In their formative years kids are highly vulnerable and they in fact listen to others and are ready to succumb to new ideas with no preoccupation.

Art is barren land, and you can plant there intoxicant plants or life saving medicinal plants, and of course it is the planter that must take accountability for all this, not art.

I think I got my point clearly across you. Art is divine, something cosmic, and we human beings smear it or make it ugly.

Art is close to divinity, and it is pure and of course clean of all impurities and human minds and of course human hinds dirty it.

Art is the next incarnation of nature, and of course the manifestation of it. There is beauty in it, and we try to hide it through layers of our corrupt minds and ideas.

Taking these view points I can say or I reverse the very idea that Art Corrupts the Mind. Mind Corrupts Art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Mind Corrupts Art.

---

Me likes.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

Plato seems concerned with the influences of art on the morality of the citizens of the Republic (which is an extended discussion of virtue), and seems to make a distinction between that which tends to ennoble and elevate the citizen's character, and that part of art which tends to appeal to the coarser, base nature in men who are all-too-willing to indulge in excesses. In the third book, Plato makes the young guardian to be surrounded by beauty, because the knowledge and experience of beauty tends to make the soul beautiful (despite the counter example in A Clockwork Orange).
A knowledge of sensible beauty inspires an inward beauty of character and conduct. Compare this thinking with Plato's discourse on love (voiced by Diotima) in the Symposium, where the love of many beautiful bodies leads upwards to the love one beautiful body and then to love of beauty-itself (210A-211E).

---

Not to mention, at that Time the definition of Art and its purpose was just starting. Plato war against the sophist and notion that philosophy leads to discovery the truth is beyond all this. Today Plato would be more close to say that bad art corrupts and great art inspires. (He, as a writer, as close to an artist we can get).

To limit the disgrace of art to totalitarian regimes, where it is often used for political purposes, seems to ignore that even in democracies, it can influence people to bad actions and ignoble thinking, or at least supplant true culture.
Some could point, for example, to the violence caused by video games or rap music or some of the more sensual music videos. Other could point to the increased infatuation with the trivial lives of celebrities and their immense, often ostentatious wealth. Others could point to our educational institutions where more time is spent figuring out how to make knowledge entertaining and relevant to the modern mind than in presenting the complexities of a subject.

That because art does not corrupt anything, since it is only a reflex of what society already is (Or even, art is even a part of it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

That because art does not corrupt anything, since it is only a reflex of what society already is (Or even, art is even a part of it).

---

That is true. Art is a picturesque presentation or expression of nature and society of how one perceives them. Through art one sees how one understand these things.

So me see dirty things and others the beauty of them.

"Plato felt that poetry, like all forms of art, appeals to the inferior part of the soul, the irrational, emotional cowardly part....an appreciation of poetry is incompatible with an appreciation of reason, justice, and the search for Truth."

Emotions cannot be bypassed and, contrary to what "Plato felt" as you say, the irrational and emotional part usually drives people to acts of heroism, ie it cannot be called "cowardly".

Art in general is controlled from "above"- intended to drive people to war or to consumme more or both-and is certainly deceptive but one should try to distinguish.

Poetry rarely falls in this category but when it does it's the worst kind of deception.






ii

My own assorted brain-droppings:

From a purely rationalist point of view, it seems that art is either useless or dangerous. Simply because the appeal of art is largely emotional.

I think Plato needed to get in touch with his Dionysian side...

Or, does art have a rational appeal? Much about art is ordered and formal. There is pleasure in structure. I'm thinking of the sonnet, the fugue.

So, is art emotional, or is it rational? Doesn't the pursuit of art in fact instill a kind of discipline?

As for the still oft-heard argument that (French novels, movies, tv shows) are hazardous to public morals, I've always felt that anyone who plays monkey-see, monkey-do with fictional characters is an idiot, a hopeless case ripe for Darwinian weeding-out.

Both Sidney and Shelley wrote the perfect responses to Plato, of which more credibility is placed. Though, I think the best comes from Derrida, who created the notion of a trace, and Différance, which more than justifies art.

Art at the core is an understanding internalization of a phenomenon and presentation of it trough a structure. It is a silhouette of nature or representation of the reflection of society.