According to Plato art is an imperfect imitation of yet another imperfect projection of an ideal world. As art is capable of awaking our senses bringing about related emotions on the viewer influencing accordingly the viewer's character and actions, art should be monitored and youth should only be exposed to those kind of art objects that inspire 'virtuous' actions. Aristotle, although, belonging to a more mathematical school of thought, claimed that exposing the youth to only beautiful, artistically made objects would help in building up their critical thinking ability since this would create a taste for the beautiful and at the same time make them capable to reject distasteful objects. To this end the Greeks decorated their streets and their meeting places (Agora) with beautiful statues.
'Art' refers to a number of human activities which include among others the visual arts (e.g. sculpture, painting, photography etc.) and other forms that refer to film production, music, opera (combining music-sound, visual as in the accompanying acting and staging and poetry reciting),rhetoric, drama and many other forms. In all its forms Art is connected with the philosophy of 'aesthetics', quite a recent invention necessitated by the trend the utilitarian culture of the era we are experiencing. On the other hand, 'aesthetics' is the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, the sense (in everyone) of what is 'beauty' and the ability of human beings to appreciate 'beauty'. The paradox implied by the definition have to do with the following: if art has to do with the inherent sense in everyone to recognize and appreciate appealing objects then why do we need 'aesthetics' to tell us what beauty is and what not? Why, again, Aristotle claimed that we have to expose youth to beautiful objects so as to help them, among other things, to get accustomed to beauty and develop critical thinking? Could art influence humanity to such extend?
Furthermore, if art is the deliberate action of arranging items to form a composition appealing to our eyes with the purpose of evoking senses and emotions while at the same time stimulating our intellect, could art have contributed in the development of the human species through the ages? If we look around what is considered today artful has very little to do with the art exhibited in the Roman statues and those of classical Greece. A look at the graffiti, a recently recognized art-form, one would be struck as much by the themes used as by the forcefulness of colors and shapes.If there are any emotions evoked those must be of violence and desperation. Yet, one could not call them 'ugly'. Why would art, then, give rise to negative as well as positive feelings in us? Could aesthetically appealing objects contain such symbols and, or, items that would influence our thinking process in such ways that people would exhibit (self)destructive behavior?
