Joseph Kosuth

One and Three Chairs

1965

1. How many chairs are in Kosuth’s artwork? Explain your answer.

In the excerpt from Plato's discussion, Glaucon, with direction from Socrates, decided that the carpenter was in fact the imitator of a real presence. For the one who builds a duplicate of the image is not the creator, but the imitator. In my opinion, the true imitation is the photograph of the chair. Yes, the artist did create art from a true chair, but through the transformation of media (true form to photograph) the chair is not longer in its original form, and hence an imitation of a true chair. However, I do not disagree with Glaucon and Socrates, because I also think that the wooden chair, or in the reading a bed build from a carpenter, is an imitation. All chairs follow a rule for form, and carpenters follow this set of initial rules to create deviations from the original chair. I do not believe that there was a first chair and from this carpenters built more, I think that there was an idea of a chair, and from this original idea, chairs are constructed. So in conclusion, the carpenter's version of a chair is another imitation, because it is a chair built from the original idea of a chair, and personalized by the builder- so it is no longer a true form. I only think one chair is present in Kosuth's artwork, and that is the definition of a chair. The thought, or theory of a chair is the purest form of chair, because it acts as the roots for all other chairs that are built, or painted, etc. The definition of chair can be referenced to as a chair, because it is the mold for all other models that come after. In a sense it is the only chair that there truly is, as all others come from it. So between the wooden chair, the photograph, and the definition, I believe the definition is the only chair in Kosuth's artwork because it is the purest form of a chair (see Socrates reference to God's idea for a chair.)

2. Which, if any, would Plato consider the real chair (the photograph, the wooden

chair, the dictionary definition, or none of them)? Explain your answer.

I want to say that Plato would consider the definition of the chair the real chair, for in their mindset God would have created the perfect example which would outshine all others. However, I am torn because individuals in this time appreciated art, and it was a huge part of education. An a picture would not alter the perfect form of a chair- but capture it, and preserve it for others to interpret. But in that sense- it would not be the actually chair, but just a snap shot of the true chair. Since photography captures the essence of the chair, and does not distort it, I want to say that the photograph would be considered the real chair by Plato. I am going to remain with my previous answer because the definition had to come first- the idea. For without the idea there could be no creation, and without the first chair created, there could be no photograph of the chair. So in this way, the photo of the chair is the farthest deviation from the real chair.