Response to Plato

I attempted to relate the concept of the Allegory of the Cave back to art instead of the broader topic of philosophy, unlike my first reading of the passage during my senior year of high school. The issue raised by Plato then becomes a question of what art should be at its most fundamental level. Should art aspire to represent “the world of light” beyond the shadows of what we readily perceive as inhabitants of “the cave”? Or is art’s purpose to represent and interpret the shadows in the cave that we all find familiar as a part of our everyday lives?
I personally do not believe there is any one answer to this question, nor is any answer as simple as one or the other. Art that is considered conceptual tends to relate to themes of human existence beyond our perceptions. The result can be one of two things. It can cause the work’s viewers to contemplate this deeper meaning, guiding them on their own paths of questioning and searching, or it can cause the viewer to become frustrated and lose interest due to being unable to readily understand the work’s meaning. On the other hand, there is art that is purely representative of the world we perceive with our senses. Most viewers can easily identify with such works and apply their own sentiments towards them. However, the potential for deeper questioning of this world more easily becomes lost and underutilized. My personal opinion, while constantly shifting and open to change, is that an artist should endeavor to achieve balance between these two seemingly divergent philosophies. Where this balance lies is the timeless question artists will ask themselves and each other.