Abstract

Plato has something more than 'aesthetic' to say about the art object. The descriptive account of an image becomes the basis for understanding the art object as an image. To substantiate this hypothesis, an ontology of the art object is presented. ;The first chapter examines the art object as a product; from the perspective of the artistmaker; of the percipient-user; and within the criteria of metaphysics. The art object is understood relationally. It requires a rational, precise account which leads to a discovery of interconnections in an interrelated system. ;The second chapter investigates the ontology of the image under kinds of images; participation of appearance in reality; and consequences of the metaphysics of the image. The divided line and cave allegory elucidate the epistemic status of images. Participation and paradigm idioms describe how being is relational. They verify that there is no univocal analysis of the way image reflects being. Their different usages reveal Plato's sophisticated understanding of the copy-original relation. ;The third and concluding chapter studies the art object under its ontological status; and its metaphysical limitations as an image. The mimesis terminology most clearly defines the art object. Like the participation and paradigm idioms, it shows the same dialectic ambiguities between copy and original. A paradox is created by those criteria which define the art object as an image. While it can refer to formal beauty, the art object is not a 'true' image of formal beauty. The paradox is resolved if understood within the realistic dialectic of copy-original, particular-form, image-exemplar, and imitation-model. ;By employing the art object as an example of appearance, this investigation reconfirms how Plato can make sense out of appearance in a way which would offer neither the subjectivist nor illusionist solution, but rather, would recognize the ontological ambiguity of the real and less real, which characterizes all images. By recognizing that there are interior references which define the way image reflects being, this study proves that Plato does say something meaningful about the art object