Plato was wary of Art. He deemed it dangerous as it was thrice removed from truth and reality. Stating that an art is merely a copy of an already existing copy. Knowledge derives from his theory of the World of Forms, stating that all kinds of ideas/things have a perfect form in the world of forms. Those that we see in our reality (in the material word) are but mere copies/shadows of the things in the world of forms. Seeing that Art is but a mere copy of a copy, meant that it distracts/misinterprets the truth/reality/object itself. Knowledge that is derived from art would adversely lead to misconceptions on the true nature of the subject.
Plato knew about how art influences the people and how it can divide opinions of the people. People with divided opinions are far from his idea state which is in harmony. Having opposites thoughts on what a thing should be will only lead to further quarrels in the society. This can be easily illustrated in the image above. Two people are pointing out at a symbol. One states that it was six and one states that it was nine. Although this would be far from what is commonly understood as art it’s implication would still prove the same. This being that people arrive at different conclusion on what a thing is because art’s nature to stir discord. We now see why Plato wanted to ban the Arts in his society, because art seems to divide the opinions of the people, which was problematic for Plato as it is far from his notion of harmony.
We then ask ourselves “is this harmony that Plato speaks about really that good for something as essential as art to be banned?”. Is it not art’s nature to reflect the current conditions of society prove to be more beneficial than claiming a one-sided view of reality? It has been seen evidently in fascist regimes the attack against poets and artists. They are forced to be silent in order not to cause disturbance for society, for them not to insinuate a revolt or let people know what’s actually happening in the dark corners of the dim lighted alleys. Plato’s refusal of art for the sake of harmony could be only good in paper, as it is rather just too idealistic. It is as if it’s presumed that society is a just utopian place where everything is perfect. That isn’t the case in reality. Plato spoke about the truths of form and the value of copies, but he did not see how reality can be outside of his theoretical utopia. Indeed, art might divide people, but such is the case when there are actual issues that are needed of different perspectives/opinions. A newspaper article might feature an image of a politician in the form of a crocodile to convey a particular message. Indeed, it is actually more than thrice remove from reality, but it holds a certain message. Yes the politician isn’t actually a crocodile but it represents not the validity of something that which is (the politician and a crocodile) but rather something that is (the politician and corruption).
Going back to our previous examples of the two people debating whether the symbol is actually six or nine, symbolizes to justify that indeed art can divide the people, but it does not justify that it must be censored. Art reflects the ails of society, that which it’s significance and influence shouldn’t be one that is censored as it conveys important messages that must be seen by society. The act of censorship becomes a fatal flaw in the society that Plato advocates. The mere act of censorship hinders the society to see things in various perspectives, that which would be detrimental in arriving to a proper judgement.