In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 2)

Plato’s view of art seems overly critical in my opinion. His explanation of art as an imitation of an imitation is understandable by means of seeing how some art may be thrice removed from the original art form, but being so does not mean that it holds less truth or reality to the point of being meaningless. I do agree with Plato on the point that art is unnecessary because the world without art would still exist in an entirely functional manner. On the other hand, I disagree with Plato on his views of art’s importance. Although the world would be fine without art’s presence, many aspects of the world would change dramatically and not necessarily for the better. Art, in its many forms, supplies jobs (as musicians, dancers, writers, painters, etc.). It also does other less noticeable things such as bring joy or evoke another emotion to an onlooker, or keep people entertained in their attempts to create it. It is of utmost importance to our society. Although works of fiction do not depict the truth, in my opinion, Plato is incorrect in saying that art and poetry cannot depict truth at all. There are many works of art that are not fictitious which do demonstrate the truth. Even as an imitation of an imitation, art tends to be a very close representation of the original form which is as close to the truth as one can get. What do you think the world would be like without any art forms? Do you think there is one particular art form that the world could be rid of in its entirety and not have society change drastically?