Imitation of Imitation

OK so after reading chapter 1, I have come to the conclusion that Plato was a really interesting person that had a lot of interesting thoughts. He is the classic example of being close minded and too set in his ways. The way he dismisses art and just rejects it, without really giving it a chance can be viewed as ignorant. He speaks of art being an imitation of an imitation, and that there is no place in society for such things. Supposedly artists know nothing about the topic/object they are writing/painting about and are therefore imitators and deceivers. I understand that it is good to be logical and it is convenient to have things that you can touch and measure, however things cannot always be dubbed with reason. There needs to be a break from reason and an appeal to the emotions, just because it is the human thing to do. Plato explains that there are two parts to the soul, the logical part and the weak part which is the part that appeals to emotion and gets influenced by art. According to Plato the painter destroys the "rational." So God forbid I enjoy a work of art, and am moved by a piece of poetry, I could be looked at as ignorant, easily fooled and irrational according to Plato? I love looking at works of art and guessing what emotion was felt by the painter as he painted. I don't care that he didn't study the thing he painted or that he knows squat from where it came from. I love to see what goes on in another person's head and I don't care what Plato says, once a painter paints their version of a bed, a desk , or a chair; it automatically becomes their work of art; their original. I think Plato was the ignorant one just because he was closed minded to the arts. Is it wrong to want to escape reality for a while through art? Does everything have to rely on logic/reason?