Miller 1

Michael Miller

Dr. Jeffrey W. Timmons

ENG400 - 29120

March 14, 2016

Art Should Be Dangerous!

Poetry is boned with ideas, nerved and blooded with emotions, and held together with

the tough, delicate skin of words, says Paul Engle of the danger of poetry (Forbes). Art should

be dangerous it should cause a visceral reaction in the audience which spawns retrospective

thinking and, perhaps, and evolution of thought. Plato, in seeking to establish his Academy for

Philosopher-Kings, sought only noble, virtuous, and true art, or that which comes closest to his

idea of original Forms or Ideas, as a way to ennoble his pupils without instilling any of the

uncomfortable aspects of art questioning of authority, questioning the morality of civil heroes

and gods alike, or questioning any feelings that Plato did not think becoming of a statesman.

Platos three main concerns with art are that it is a representation of a copy of an original Form

or Idea, that the arts author does not need to be a subject-matter expert in order to claim true

representation of a Form, and that art can cause varying emotions which could be dangerous in a

situation where the rational mind alone should be trusted.

For Plato, any form of art can be dangerous because it is only a representation of a copy

of a Form which leads the audience away from the original truth. Plato believed that the Form or

Idea, the original entity, could only understood through philosophical rhetoric. The product of

this original Form is often a copy but more desirable than an artists representation of his or her

view of the true Form. This third representation of truth is so far removed from the original
 Miller 2

that it can only seek to distract its readers from the truth and is therefore dangerous to a utopian

society of Philosopher-Kings.

Plato also believed art in all forms to be dangerous because, although the artist presents

himself as a subject-matter expert on the subject he or she may have no direct knowledge of the

subject they feature. Furthermore, Plato questions if art is . . . designed to represent the facts of

the real world or appearances? Does it represent appearance or truth? (Leitch, 67). Since art

feeds on a true falsehood, (the state of misapprehension cause by falsehood in the mind), it

actually seeks to draw the viewer further from reality.

Lastly, Plato believed art to be dangerous because it can cause emotions which might

impede rational thought in a situation when rationality is desirable over emotions (especially for

a statesman). Plato believed that laughing and crying were equally bad because they teach a

statesman to react in life as he or she does with art (Leitch, 54).

Is art dangerous? Of course! However, the only place to fear the effect of art is while

designing a utopian society. Since Plato believed in exposing his young statesmen-pupils to only

virtuous thoughts he would have found art wrought with dangers. In a society where the

differences expressed through art serve to further an individuals growth, not stunt it, a global

citizen has no need to fear the effects of art and should rather pursue those arts that make him or

her most uncomfortable in order to evolve their own thought process about the world.
 Miller 3

Works Cited

Forbes.com: The Business of Life. 2015. 13 March 2016

<http://www.forbes.com/quotes/7341/>

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W.

Norton & Co, 2010. Print.

 Miller 4

Peer Response 1: Taylor Nativo, What about Imagination?

Although I agree with your viewpoint against censorship of ignoble topics with

children, Im not entirely sure of your argument: are you saying Platos vision of imagination is

bad because it limits the imagination of children (which isnt necessarily true since noble

tables often involve great imagination), that Plato believed immoral stories would make immoral

pupils, or that censoring children leads to a rebellious state opposite? You argue each point well,

but Im not sure what your main thesis is against Platos ideology.

I also wonder what standard of virtue Plato was using? Did he define virtue by some

Biblical or humanistic standard? In our reading, it wasnt quite clear, but this might be an

interesting expansion to your discussion. So many philosophers have been shunned, criticized,

and even killed for their ideas that it makes me wonder what might happen in one of Platos

utopian societies if someone introduced a new idea that seemed immoral to an archaic sense of

truth (i.e. Galileo suggesting the sun does not revolve around the world and that mankind is not

the center of the universe). In Platos democracy, such dissidents would probably be

excommunicated if they were ever educated to the level of questioning their education.

Peer Response 2: Jacqueline Mendelson, The Dangers of Art and Literature

Jaqueline, I really appreciated your response to the prompt of the danger of art, especially

since I chose it myself! We do, however, have very different opinions on the danger of art as

well as the necessity of arts freedom to be dangerous. I think you highlight a very good point

when you differentiate between the authors intent and the audiences interpretation: this is

where art that perhaps wasnt meant to be dangerous can become offensive to a certain group of

people which might lead to dangerous action.

 Miller 5

This topic is very interesting since it begins to tread on American First Amendment rights

of free speech, but I would worry about any sort of censorship that might hinder an artist from

expressing his or her beliefs, however wrong society might view them. Art, science, and

literature have all been considered dangerous at times for the socially inappropriate views they

express, but it is often this artistic catalyst that has caused great social change, invention, and

evolution.

Here are my questions with your argument: in order to argue that art can be dangerous,

you must first define a social moral code distinguishing virtuous art (using Platos words) from

that which might cause damage. Second, is censorship acceptable using these devised moral

codes? Third, you speak of the digitization of art as an impediment to its spread of influence,

when in fact, the ability to spread artistic influence globally through the means of the computer

and the internet could cause the exact opposite effect of what you suggest (i.e., greater exposure)

My discussion was entitled Art Should Be Dangerous, so you can see we might have

much to disagree upon, but I hope that my exploration of the logic of your statements might be

helpful in strengthening your overall argument. Thank you for your thoughtful insight and I look

forward to reading more of your work this semester!