Thursday, May 6, 2010

Is beauty as frivolous as Plato puts it?

Are you referring to the beauty of theatre and literature? That's the only kind of beauty I can remember Plato discounting, which might be the result of me not reading Plato for awhile.

I completely understand, and might even agree with, Plato's assertions that artistic works can lead to weakness and other questionable personality traits when the audience identifies with certain characters. However, I do not believe that art needs to always serve a purpose. It is not always the responsibility of art to help its audience grow as people and society members. Sometimes its purpose, or lack thereof, is just to be art. Keep in mind Wilde's "art for art's sake" philosophy.

Beauty may not serve a grand purpose, but that doesn't make it bad. And sometimes, it does serve a purpose: making life more enjoyable, and making the points of the artistic work drive home in a more intense fashion.

Ask me anything, lovelies.

No comments: