Plato on Pseudo Art and True Art

It has been a long standing view amongst aestheticians and art theorists that Plato was the “arch-enemy of all poetry and art.”[1] This position arose out of Plato’s negative responses regarding imitative artists in the Republic and the Phaedrus, yet the philosopher’s consistent separation of pseudo art from true art is often overlooked. While Plato does not explicitly set out a theory of aesthetics in any one dialogue, one is implied throughout his various works, most prominently in the Symposium, the Phaedrus, and the Republic. Poetry is perhaps the art form for which Plato has the highest regard, while the visual arts receives the least praise and is held closest to criticism as it appears to be the most obviously imitative. However, due to the distinction between pseudo and true art, the visual arts has the same standing as poetry and the two share the same positive qualities. For Plato, the world of sensory perception is indeed inferior to the ideal world of Forms, but it is not evil or useless because of it – the senses are bad only insomuch as people may fall into the trap of not perceiving beyond the sensory world. From an aesthetics standpoint, the Allegory of the Cave is not a condemnation of fine arts as is popularly believed. Along with the Ladder of Love, it is instead an argument for the important role of art. This role is educative and is a lesson on the way to elevated understanding, in the same way a single beautiful body is the first step in the ascension to the love of Beauty itself.


It has traditionally been held by scholars and students alike that Plato condemns the arts on the grounds that they are imitative and takes one further away from truth and reality.[2] This sentiment is often oversimplified and taken as a blanket criticism of all forms of art. While it is true that all arts are considered imitative, there are different degrees of imitation. That all art is evil is useless for the seeker of true knowledge is a gross misconception. Plato clearly separates true art from pseudo art, where the former has one less degree of imitation than the latter. The terms ‘true’ and ‘pseudo’ are borrowed from Constantine Cavarnos[3] and are more accurate than other scholars’ terms, such as Oates’ use of ‘philosophically creative’ and ‘imitative’, as ‘true’ and ‘pseudo’ do not imply that one kind of art is imitative while the other is not. For both true and pseudo art are imitative, but they differ in their subject and method of imitation. So, Plato does not condemn the latter because it is imitative, but rather because it imitates improper objects, and in an improper way.


Pseudo art is often said to be a “shadow of a shadow,” i.e. the imitation of objects in the material world. The imitation here is of particulars, for the phenomenal world is composed of particulars of an Ideal, and thus pseudo art imitates mere appearances. It can also be said that pseudo art is a “semblance of true art,”[4] in the sense that it purports to be art but only possesses the superficial qualities of art. In this way it lacks the essence and entirety of things which constitute true art. Artists of pseudo art “creates without knowing what one is doing or why, but only as a matter of knack and experience.”[5] Thus pseudo art arises out of an irrational and imperfect activity in which the artist is not conscious of knowledge nor wisdom, but only a semblance of supposed wisdom. Plato argues that “a maker of an image… knows nothing about that which is but only about its appearance,” (Republic 601bb7-8). The pseudo artist creates by copying what is purported to be true and right, though he does not know its nature nor why it is so. This inadequacy of only appearing to know, but not actually knowing, is the same problem that Plato had with rhetoric, which serves to convince others of an opinion through a mechanical routine and not justified knowledge (Phaedrus 260d). Not only does the pseudo artist take as his subject insufficient and improper objects, i.e. mimesis of material things which are themselves only shadows, he is entirely unaware and merely utilizes a knack. Again, much like Plato’s opinions on rhetoric, art is immoral if unaccompanied by philosophy and higher truths, which is the case with pseudo art. In Republic X, Plato argues that mimetic artists “are a plague only for those who do not possess an antidote to them in that they know them for what they are.”[6] This leads to the implication that once one realizes the superficiality of pseudo arts, he can move onto the appreciation of the true arts, and from there ascend even higher through his love of Beauty.

Figure 1.  Onement I.  Barnett Newman, 1948.  The first painting from Newman’s mature period, Onement I is a complex conceptual exploration of the metaphysical and mystical elements of the creation and birth of the universe.  The formal qualities, including his signature “zip” line, were motivated by his philosophical inquires.  

True art is concerned with the imitation of things beyond the sensory realm, and the true artist seeks to occupy himself with true being and not mere appearances. One finds an extreme example of this in the later work of Barnett Newman, an Abstract Expressionist in the mid-twentieth century. Newman sought to abandon physical and material subjects to explore a higher truth and to incite inquiry and discussion. Not only is his work abstract in form, i.e. there is an absence of recognizable objects, it was abstract in concept by tackling universal metaphysical concerns. An example with which Plato would have been more familiar with is the way that the true artist seeks to produce “a perfectly beautiful man – a man such as may never have existed.”[7] In this situation the artist imitates the Ideal – Beauty – and the existence or non-existence of the painted subject has no consequence on his creation because the artist does not imitate any particular man. In contrast, pseudo artists only imitate a particular man who has some beautiful qualities, i.e. he partakes of Beauty. In the creation of true art, the artist knows exactly what he is doing and why. The true artist is conscious and proceeds in a rational way. In the Phaedrus, Plato writes that “all the great arts require endless talk and ethereal speculation about nature: this seems to be what gives them their… universal applicability,” (Phaedrus 270a1-3). The process of creating true art is itself an inquiry, and the finished product also lends to others the spark for discussion. This is the case of Newman’s Onement I, which the artist was motivated to create for the sake of philosophical inquiry (see Figure 1).[8] The above outlined creation of true art mirror’s Plato’s conception of true poetry, in that both possess divine inspiration – what the philosopher cited as “Bacchic frenzy,” (Phaedrus 245a2) and the “Muses’ madness,” (Phaedrus 245a6). To glimpse the divine through inspiration constitutes contact with truth (Phaedrus 249c). No matter how fleeting the glimpse, it is essential for the creation of true art. Without it, even if equipped with “expert knowledge of the subject” (Phaedrus 245a5), which in the in case of the fine arts would be technical and formal proficiency, the art is sure is fail. Like rhetoric, art is meaningless without philosophy. So true art is great in two ways – it not only imitates superior, perfect objects, it is also the product of a superior activity, i.e. a creative process that is conscious and rational. “In the case of pseudo art one imitates inferior objects, grasped by an inferior power, while in the case of genuine art one imitates superior, perfect objects, grasped by a superior power in man.”[9] Plato places the lives of the pseudo artist and the true artist in significantly different ranks in the Allegory of the Chariot; whereas the life of the mere “representational artist,” is in sixth place (Phaedrus 248e3), the lover of Beauty, “who will be cultivated in the arts,” has the finest life (Phaedrus 248d2-4).[10] The large disparity between the two ranks implies that Plato believed that there was a considerable difference between true and pseudo art. This is due to the heightened capacity for true art to elevate one to love of Beauty itself, whereas pseudo art holds the danger of convincing a person of false or empty opinions if the viewer does not recognize the difference between the true and pseudo arts.


The Ladder of Love is a short passage found in the Symposium (210a1-212ba1) that harbors a wealth of implications for the fine arts, and is an example that cements the important educative role of art. In it, the priestess Diotima details a lover ascending “upwards for the sake of this Beauty, starting out from beautiful things and using them like rising stairs,” (Symposium 211c3-4) to arrive in the end at the sixth and final step, Beauty itself.[11] As a Form, Beauty is unlike the particular instances of beauty such as in a body or in an institution because it is not relative in any way, is constant and universal, and does not change for different people or for circumstance. In the same way that the Ladder of Love describes a lover who ascends to know Beauty by beginning with a particular beautiful body, i.e. one beautiful thing, it is possible that one can climb the ladder through the love of any one beautiful thing, and not just the body of a beautiful boy. Indeed, Plato takes each ‘rung’ of the ladder as a lesson towards the next step (211c6-7), and taking the Ladder in abstract makes it possible to substitute different particulars at each stage while retaining the element of successive education. The central task of education as Plato conceived, “is to train one to love, know, and realize beauty.”[12] Aestheticians such as Boris Groys have often argued that the fine arts are “a means of education in notions of taste and aesthetic judgement,” and that the “real world is the legitimate object of the aesthetic attitude.”[13] So, applied to Plato’s Ladder, the fine arts constitute lessons which bring one towards the real world, which would be the world of Forms. The Form at the top of the ladder in this case would still be Beauty, as the beautiful has long been one of the foremost aesthetic concerns.[14]

	The Cave	Ladder of Love	Ladder of Love with Art
1	Shadows of puppets in the cave		Pseudo art, i.e. a semblance of art
2	Puppets in the cave	A beautiful body	A beautiful work of art (i.e. true art)
3	Fire in the cave	All beautiful bodies	All beautiful works of art
4	Stairs leading outside of the cave	Beautiful souls	Beautiful souls (of the artist-creator)
5	Reflections of outside objects	Beautiful institutions/laws/customs	Beautiful institutions/laws/customs
6	Outside objects	Beautiful knowledge/learning beautiful things	Beautiful knowledge/learning beautiful things
7	Sun	Beauty

Table 1. Comparison of the stages between Plato’s Cave and Ladder analogies along with a modification of the Ladder of Love with the first four stages replaced by other particulars with equivalent hierarchical positions.  

Art’s Ladder of Love has seven stages, four of which (numbers four to seven) are identical to Plato’s original Ladder (see Table 1 for the stages of the modified Ladder in comparison to the original and also to the components of Plato’s Cave.) So this modified ladder has only a few replacements and concludes in the same manner as the original. It begins with the love of pseudo art, arising from the pleasantness in its semblance to material objects. As previously discussed, pseudo art is considered to be a likeness of true art, insomuch as it possesses the superficial qualities but not the essence of the latter. Thus, the love of pseudo art has no equivalent to any stage in the original Ladder of Love, in that Plato’s Ladder begins with the love of an object rather than the reflection of an object. More specifically, the first stage in the original is the love of a body and not love of a imitation of the body. However, the love of pseudo art can be mapped with the first stage in the Allegory of the Cave, which too has one more step than the Ladder of Love. The Ladder of Love as modified with art can then be said to truly start with the love of a beautiful work of true art. In this, the lover appreciates both the formal and conceptual aspects of a single work. Similar to the lover who is enamored with his beloved, the lover of the art work is captivated by the piece and at first has eyes for only it. The symptom of this kind of singular love is shown when people often make pilgrimages to see one particular work of art and quickly bypass all other pieces to experience it. Another manifestation of singular love is found in people who only endorse the beauty and worth of one kind of art, and rejects all other forms. Examples of this are common, such as the often seen cases where a person appreciates only Impressionist art and disregards Cubism, or the person who likes only Monet and not Picasso. Like the lover of one person, this kind of love is the most amateur, which is why nobody calls the person who loves only one piece or type of art a connoisseur. The connoisseur of art is one who loves all works of art, and recognizes the beauty of all art. This is the second rung in the Ladder, and is equivalent to the lover of all beautiful bodies. Once he sees the beauty in all works of art, the lover begins to understand the beauty of their creator, the artist of the works.


The idea that the beautiful soul of the artist is responsible for the beauty of the art work is not a foreign one. Since the Renaissance, great works of art were attributed to originating from artists with beautiful and profound souls.[15] Johann Winckelmann, Moses Mendelssohn, and Immanuel Kant are three philosophers who argued for the beauty of the soul as the prime motivator for beauty in art.[16] Mendelssohn wrote that the awe we have for a work of art is in fact awe for the “perfection of [the work’s] creator,” and that all art is a “reference to the spiritual gifts of the artist which make themselves visibly known.”[17] From this point on, the new Ladder is identical to the original, in that from recognizing beautiful souls, one moves to love beautiful customs for the reason that laws and institutions shape a person’s character. From that, one ascends to love the knowledge and learning of beautiful things. Finally, his love heightens to reach the love of Beauty unequivocally and in itself.


Republic XII describes perhaps the most famous of Plato’s analogies – the Allegory of the Cave. This Allegory further attests to the significant role of art as education. Much like the Ladder of Love, the stages of the Cave can be analogously represented by the arts. The seven stages of progression in art, as demonstrated above, can be mapped onto the seven main elements of the Cave (see Table 1).[18] This comparison is perhaps more apt than the Ladder, in that the number of stages is identical, and thus has an analogous place for pseudo art. The Cave has another advantage in that it acknowledges the importance of the lower levels for the use of relating to the higher levels. That is, in proceeding through the stages of the Cave, the person recognizes the truth of each higher level in comparison to the lack thereof of the previous ones. For, when the former prisoner of the Cave “reminds himself of his first dwelling place,” he would “count himself happy for the change,” and his elevated knowledge (Republic 516c3-5). Each component of the Cave, even the basest, which are the shadows on the cave wall, are considered a necessary part of a person’s ascension to wisdom, insomuch as it is a reference point to compare and contrast his current revelation with. In the same way, the person who formerly loved pseudo art, analogous to the shadows on the cave wall, would be thankful for his appreciation of a beautiful true work of art, and even more so for ascending further to the love and knowledge of all beautiful works of art, and the beauty of the artist’s soul, all of which eventually lead him to what he will love the most, which is Beauty itself. Furthermore, one does not forget previous lessons upon learning new ones; while the alphabet in and of itself is more base than the words formed from them, and words strung together into sentences are superior to words by themselves, one would not understand a sentence had he not already been equipped with knowledge of the alphabet.


The view that Plato condemns all art on the basis of its imitative character is a misunderstanding of his philosophy. In fact, while all art is imitative, only pseudo art is considered base in that there is an absence of proper subject and understanding, and that there is the danger of mistaking pseudo art for true art. On the other hand, true art consists of proper subject, i.e. the Ideal, created with awareness and divine inspiration. Through analogous substitution in the Ladder of Love and in the Allegory of the Cave, true art is shown to be significant in its capacity to elevate people to higher levels of knowledge and arrive at true Beauty.

---

[1] Whitney J. Oates.  "Plato's "Philosophical Creative Artist”.” The Classical Weekly 35, no. 21 (1942): 247.

[2] Oates, "Plato's "Philosophical Creative Artist”." 247.

[3] Constantine Carvanos. Plato's Theory of Fine Art, 13. Athens: Astir, 1973.

[4] Carvanos. Plato's Theory of Fine Art, 11.

[5] Ibid, 21.

[6] Eva C. Keuls. Plato and Greek Painting, 41. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978.

[7] Carvanos. Plato's Theory of Fine Art, 24.

[8] Barnett Newman. "The Plasmic Image." In Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: a sourcebook of artists' writings, by Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz, 24-26. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

[9] Cavarnos.  Plato’s Theory of Art, 22.

[10] Morriss Henry Partee. "Inspiration in the Aesthetics of Plato." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 30, no. 1 (1971): 87-95.

[11] Plato’s Ladder of Love has stages as follows: The lover begins by loving one beautiful body to all beautiful bodies, then from loving physical bodies to beautiful souls.  In loving the characters of people, he then recognizes that he loves the beauty of laws and institutions, which are committed to the betterment of character.  Thus the love of customs are motivated by the love of souls, in that there is a causational relationship.  From the love of beautiful customs the lover moves onto the love of learning beautiful things, i.e. a love of knowledge, and from this he arrives at the love of Beauty itself.  For a list of the six stages in the Ladder, see Table 1. 

[12] Carvanos. Plato's Theory of Fine Art, 17.

[13] Boris Groys. "Poetics vs. Aesthetics." In Going Public, 15. Sternberg Press, 2010.

[14] Joseph P. Maguire. "The Differentiation of Art in Plato's Aesthetics." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 68 (1964): 389-410.

[15]."The Sixteenth Century in Europe." In The Visual Arts: A History, by Hugh Honour and John Fleming, 457-505. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.

[16] Winckelmann makes this argument in his essay, “Thoughts on Imitation,” and Kant in the Critique of Judgment, in the chapter on Artistic Genius. 

[17] Moses Mendelssohn. "On the sublime and naive in the fine sciences." In Philosophical Writings, edited by Daniel O. Dahlstrom, 197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

[18] To briefly summarize the main components: The prisoner in the Cave knows only the shadows on the wall; and from his release, he progressively sees more and more of the true reality as he encounters and passes by the puppets, the fire in the cave, the stairs leading out of the cave, the reflections of objects in the outside world, the objects themselves, and finally, he sees the sun.  As he returns to the Cave, he realizes the inadequacy of what he has previously known in light of all that he has seen.