In response to Davion Hart...

I wholeheartedly agree that in order to give the art world respect, it is essential to differentiate, not specifically between what is good or bad, but what is and isn’t art.  Looking back to my first post, I definitely do NOT consider a urinal a piece of art by any means, signed by an artist or not. Picasso and Warhol’s paintings, though, took talent and study in order to come to their final formulation. “Skill of the artist” in my opinion is definitely one of the best, if not the best, ways to decipher an artwork’s quality. Looking to Cage’s 4’33, I agree that if Cage hadn’t been predetermined as an expert in his field that no one would have given such a ‘contemporary’ work a second look; certainly if I tried to entire the music world with a purely silent piece, people would dismiss my work and likely call me crazy! 

I disagree, however, with the statement that “art in its basic form is something that the artist intended to use as a mode to move you in some way.” I think that oftentimes, an artist doesn’t set out to create a great work; many a time, stunning pieces are a result of improvisation or a sudden inspiration.  And art shouldn’t have to move any audience. Isn’t it true that many artists create their work just to get out or explore their own emotions and that the piece wasn’t even originally intended to be shared with anyone? 

And with Davion’s last point, I agree that more often than not majority rule is the ultimate deciding factor of what makes a work ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Certainly, a museum isn’t going to keep a work displayed or a theatre continue showing a performance that no one appreciates; and yes, this undoubtedly, but unavoidably, limits the world of art. 

Knowledge and Imagination

When it comes to materialistic things, Plato states that users are the only ones who can tell the makers whether what they make is 'good' or 'bad'; the makers simply follow the users’ instructions to make a 'good' thing. When it comes to this, though, what if maker and user are one in the same? Can it not hold that (to use the example from The Republic) many flute makers are also the users of these flutes?  How would Plato explain an instance such as this? Following this belief of Plato, craftsmen and artists (as makers) can never know if what they imitate is good or bad as they have no real knowledge or proper opinion about what they are making.  
To go along with this and to address a topic we temporarily discussed in class, what does it mean to have a real 'knowledge' of something? Socrates states that “some people...say that if a good poet produces fine poetry, he must have knowledge of the things he writes about, or else he wouldn’t be able to produce it at all.” I find a huge flaw with this point; even if all things are simply imitations of the real Forms, one doesn't have to know about it in order to create it. How would someone draw a tree if they'd never seen a tree or been told what a tree is supposed to look like according to the predetermined characteristics of what makes a 'tree' in our realm of existence what it is? A tree in my mind may look different than a tree in another person's mind. On that same note, how would someone create something that is based off of something in their imagination but that has never been materialized in our realm? To use the example I raised in class, where did the idea of fairies come from? I'm sure creators of legend and folklore never actually had any direct knowledge or experience with fairies. I actually liked the way Alex put it in class--that what we create in our imagination is actually a misunderstanding of the Forms. Is it true that our imagination just tricking us?
In The Republic, Plato somewhat contradicts himself with these ideas. With one point he says that users of things are the only ones who can ever know them; on the other end, though, he states that makers (artists) must know the thing they are creating in order to produce it.
I don't know, Plato, but it seems to me that you didn't fully think this one through...

Emotion vs. Reason

“Art is dangerous, for its appeal to the irrational distracts from the legitimate claims of reason.”

According to Plato’s beliefs, we are apparently all born knowing the truths of the universe, but as we become more and more influenced and corrupted by society we lose these truths and are reduced to nothing more than mere imitators—craftsmen, or worse, emotional artists.  As we grow up, we become more inclined to give into our emotions; and when this is the case, our souls can never be privy to the truth.  Like a hazy dream, we may vaguely remember certain truths; but they’ll always be on the tip of our tongues, never fully articulated or understood. 

If this is the case, though, then why is it that no one (besides, in Plato’s opinion, true philosophers who are somehow above it all) can ever simply let go of all their emotions and base all actions and decisions off of pure untainted reason?

Socrates mentions, “The law says, doesn’t it, that it is best to keep as quiet as possible in misfortunes and not get excited about them?...human affairs aren’t worth taking very seriously…” 

True, I agree that one should never sulk over a misfortune for too long; but I do think it is necessary to reflect upon it--about what went wrong, why, how it could have been avoided or prevented in the future--, write in your journal, do whatever you must in order to get over it and move on. Otherwise, we’d all wind up with our emotions welling up inside and causing much more of a hassle in the long wrong. These so-called “human affairs,” if I am correctly interpreting Plato’s meaning of the term, however, seem to make up the bulk of our lives, so I don’t think that they can so easily be dismissed. I believe it’s  necessary to at least acknowledge your emotions—by no means allowing them to control your decisions or actions—and to then let reason have the rest of the say in the bulk of life’s affairs. 

With emotions and reason constantly at odds fighting one another for one to prevail, is it truly possible to ever be 100% controlled solely by reason, dismissing all of our emotions?