Imitation Imitation

The discussion in this chapter that really stuck out to me was the one of Plato. “Plato discussed art forms like tragedy, along with sculpture, painting, pottery, and architecture, not as ‘art’ but as ‘techne’ or skilled craft. He regarded them all as instances of ‘mimesis’ or imitation.” It made me stop and think about how I see the world around me. Plato believing in ideal realities known as Forms or Ideas is an interesting concept. To think that the world around you is very unreal shocks me a bit. However, the knowledge that things are made up of tiny atoms moving at a zillion miles an hour seems to help Plato’s case. If everything is made up of tiny things that no one can really see, then why can’t we say the world is nothing but an imitation of an Idea. Art then, is an imitation of an imitation. But we are using the same particles to make that piece of art as we are to make the original imitation (if not more or less). Therefore, could not one conclude that an imitation of something is no more an imitation than the original is of the concept. Of course Plato would not have known about atoms, but if he did I think he might agree with my logic.

Aristotle’s argument is intriguing as well. I really like that he acknowledges that imitations are natural and something needed for humans to learn and develop. His theory is a bit more digestible. Instead of thinking we live in a world of complete meaningless imitations, it argues that the imitations are in fact for the good of mankind. If we didn’t replicate our ideas, we would never understand ourselves or the thoughts in our heads. We may not always understand the world around us, but the world around us is made up of the ideas of many individuals. I say this excluding those things that are natural.

Both Plato and Aristotle had arguments that were at first a bit out of this world to me. However, once I took them in a modern sense it was easier to ponder.

The Natural History of Art - A Reflection

The article entitled “The Natural History of Art” highlighted an aspect of art and art opinion that I had never heard of before, let alone thought about in any depth. I went into the article with an open mind and just read the words and took them in. The quote about art perception being guided by a “ghostly puppet master” was a bit disturbing to think about at first. I do not like the idea that I have no real choice in my likes and dislikes. However, after I thought more about the subject, it started to make a bit of sense. It is natural for humans to be drawn to certain scenes and describe them as beautiful. Like the article mentions, we are just looking at things our ancestors saw as a means of life and as images of warning. I think of the enjoyment of certain art scenes by certain people the same way I think of hunting as a means of enjoyment for some people. Our ancestors hunted for their food and thus the “game” brought them great joy. They knew that if they made a kill, they would get to eat. Today, hunting is mostly sport. People hunt because they like to or because they enjoy the taste of venison or wild fowl. It is not necessarily the desire of all mankind to hunt, as well as it is not necessarily the tendency of all people to enjoy the same type of art. There is a correlation between what once was and the lifestyle choices of today. You rarely find someone who absolutely hates water. But, with all generations and lineages, there is going to be a select few who break the mold. They are the ones who prove an exception to the rule. As we mature and develop, our tastes and opinions mature and develop. I am sure that not every single one of our ancestors agreed on what was beautiful, and what was needed for proper survival. However, I am sure that our ancestors lived in a relatively similar environment and they all needed food, water and shelter to survive. These amenities are what we innately find beautiful. I think the theory discussed has some validity and would like to learn more about the research behind the article. I think that with more background information, I could grasp the full meaning and science behind the theory.