Plato & Art as Imitation.

In class today, we began discussing Plato's view of art as it fits in his ideal society. His approach to art begins with the world of Forms in which the ideal, eternal, immaculate idea of an object lies (in the eyes of the gods). Take a bed, for example. The Form of a bed is non-changing and perfect - the "truth" of what the bed truly is. A step down from that would be the artisan's construction of a real bed, which is just a mere reflection of what he or she sees the Forms as. Finally, a painter's interpretation of the artisan's bed is only an imitation of what he sees - it is twice removed from the world of Forms and, therefore, twice removed from the Truth.

Because, in Plato's view, an artist is so removed from the truth, he should not be allowed in Plato's ideal society. The truth should be honored most of all. If an artist is allowed into society, his ideals would be infused into society and corrupt once-rational people into irrational, truth-fearing people. In the text, he writes as Socrates, "He'll [the artist] go on imitating, even though he doesn't know the good or bad qualities of anything, but what he'll imitate, it seems, is what appears fine or beautiful to the majority of the people who know nothing" (19). Art appeals to the inferior part of the soul that sympathizes with emotion instead of reason, because it is in our human nature to naturally hunger for these things. In Plato's view, this cannot be controlled, but the overindulgence in such emotional hedonism weakens us as humans and makes us unrealistic, irrational, "wretched" beings, which drives us away from ultimate happiness.

My question is, "Throughout the text's excerpt of the Republic, there is obvious contempt for artists through the eyes of Socrates. Doesn't this give him a subjective outlook on who should be entered into his society? Therefore, how can one be certain that what he says is for the best?"