Majority of critics in art and literature have not only been enthralled by Plato’s views on the ‘Republic’ but also questioned on the validity of mimesis in art. Other critics have opted to understand the reliability of Plato’s mimesis by criticizing his works. In his work on ‘Republic’, part three, Plato banishes some of the imitations used by Aristotle but agrees to their use in other ways of imitation of good men in the society. Contradictory, in ‘Republic 10’ he agrees to Socrates banishment of imitation of the ideal society.
Nehamas believes that Plato is unable to take a general stand on inclusion of mimesis in his works. At times, Plato is seen to imitate actions of people, sounds, dramatic events, and looks of people to bring out his messages and at times, he criticizes mimesis. Nehamas does not believe in imitation adding value to an ideal city. He argues that Plato may have lifted ideas of what he saw in pictures and translated these pictures. He gives an example of a settee which may be actual or just a fallacy.
Nehamas idea of mimesis as just a misleading notion of getting readers to study various works of art holds much evidence. Mimesis may not really be valid and reliable way of conveying themes in the society. Kant versus Hume Immanuel Kant is one of the philosophers that attempted to come up with the best criteria to judgment of taste. He brings into the open the ideas of universality and subjectivity. Kant argues that taste is judged on the basis of one’s sensation towards
an object or person. This feeling is driven by one’s liking or disliking of someone or something. One’s taste will determine whether they describe something as beautiful or ugly. At times, people make a judgment on taste based on the influence from other sources, not from their own free will. Kant’s ideology needs a lot of improvement especially in terms of influence as a factor for making sensible judgments. It is important to highlight the characteristic of gratification on which verdicts on beauty are founded. Beauty cannot be discussed autonomously of metaphysical factors about realism. The main question is whether beauty incorporates both features of being ugly and beautiful. Kant questions that if beauty does not on ugly and beautiful two features, then could beauty be discussed under maudlin basis? Kant believes that there is a form of pleasure in beauty that comes about from representation of an object but not mere gratification of seeing the object. He continues to argue that there is no pleasure in beauty but an intended purpose towards an object. Basically, Kant says that there is no contentment or desire in beauty. Taste, according to Kant, claims general validity. Some people may term something as beautiful, but that claim does not agree to opinions of other people. Can we equivocate this to there being no taste in the universe? If each person has their own taste, then there is no unanimous agreement to what is beautiful and what is not beautiful. There is no universal claim to the elements that describe the beauty and whose idea may be right or wrong. Conclusively, Kant argues that there is no correct manner to describing beauty. People may have their own reasons towards considering beauty; others may be shocked by a piece of art and term it beautiful amongst others. Therefore, beauty is relative according to Kant's ideologies. Hume regards taste as a result of an agreement between collective decisions and factual critics that hold much evidence. Beauty, therefore, lays in the arguments brought forward bay a person. Though it may be difficult to decode the best taste, Hume argues that coming