Plato vs. Pollack

On Plato's theory of art as imitation, Professor David Clowney of Rowan University writes:  "It is at least plausible as a theory about representational painting, drawing, and sculpture; and it can be stretched to fit some abstract work, as in the case of Brancusi and Mondrian.  But even with such work it leaves a lot out.  With an artist like Jackson Pollack it leaves out everything; what do his drip paintings imitate?"

Jackson Pollack, Lavendar Mist, 1950

I think Professor Clowney has it the wrong way around.  We shouldn't use Pollack's drip paintings to critique Plato's aesthetics; we should use Plato's aesthetics to critique Pollack's drip paintings.  Twenty-three hundred years after his death Plato's dialogues are taught in schools and universities around the Western world.  Will anyone remember Jackson Pollack two millennia from now?  That the art world calls his drip paintings "art" (not to mention "groundbreaking" and "influential") says more about the art world than the paintings.  Pollack's drip paintings should be called "decoration" not "art."