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.