On Art Actually Mattering

In Book X of Plato's Republic, Socrates, in describing his ideal Republic, calls for the complete removal of the poets, considering the lot of them to be charlatans, pale imitators of truth, and corrupters of public morals--"Notwithstanding this," he concludes, "let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her."

Over the past 2,400 years, Western poets have attempted to answer Plato's sally, arguing in turns that poetry--and art & literature generally--is indeed useful for moral instruction (which argument still colors our discussions today on whether certain art should be banned or censored), or that literature is beneficial towards stimulating the imagination, and thereby engendering empathy (Percy Shelley's defense, still in use by most literary scholars I know today).  All of these attacks against and defenses of literature, of course, presuppose that art and literature have some sort of definable influence upon people and society.

Which by the end of the 20th century is no longer a given.  Kurt Vonnegut once noted that the totality of American writers during the '60s focused like laser beam on stopping the Vietnam War, and didn't make one iota of difference.  Art may perhaps make a good coping mechanism, goes this argument, to make one feel less alone in this sordid world of ours, but its actual influence is vastly overrated.

In fact, by the 21st century, many artists and critics have begun to glory in art's pointlessness--since it all has no real influence, questions of censoring and banishment are silly, because they are ultimately irrelevant.  We are hereby free to enjoy all the banned-books and "deviant" art we want--not to protect freedom of expression mind you, but simply because it's all so harmless.  We are likewise now liberated to enjoy all the trash we want--reality shows and the like--because what does any of it matter, anyways?  Real Housewives are no more likely to corrupt public morals than Hamlet was gonna save 'em.  So goes the argument.

But I've lately come full 360 on this argument (and yes, I'm using that term correctly) to consider that art really does matter after all, that maybe Plato was right all this time, that perhaps art--or, at least bad art poorly handled--can in fact have a genuine, traceable, tangible impact upon the political state.  Part of this comes from a paper I've worked on, about William Butler Yeats's very real influence upon the 1916 Revolutionaries in Ireland.

But, much more negatively, my other recent example is, well, Donald Trump.  Call it correlation if you must, but it's no accident that a Reality TV star became a Presidential candidate custom made for Reality TV audiences.

I remember when Reality TV first saturated the airwaves, 10-15 years ago.  There were all the standard, unoriginal jokes about how it was making us all actively dumber, a sign of the decadence of Western civilization...to which the viewers would simply respond, "Oh, lighten up!  It's just entertainment!  No one takes this seriously."

But oh my, how we have!  A Reality TV star, one who has honed his skills at playing to his audience's basest desires, continues to manipulate his supporters towards the nomination.  Is this for real??  Is there really such a thing as bad art after all, and can bad art have a verifiably bad influence on society?  Was Plato right all along?!  Of all the things for him to be right about!

On one hand this is terrifying--but on the other hand, it's weirdly encouraging.  Because if there is such a thing as bad art, that has a bad effect on society, this by corollary means there can also be good art too, that can have a good effect on society, as well!  Art matters again in this model! Or at least, maybe it can be used for good instead of evil.