Christopher Gabro - Plato
Plato’s theory of art holds that art is a mere imitation of
the forms that all we can produce with art is representation and not
presentation. Artworks cannot speak for themselves
nor can they speak about a particular place and time. I worry here that since
artworks can not present that the emotions that artworks stir up are subject
giving a misrepresentation of the world.
Is there a point where imitation becomes suicide? If all one attempts to do with art is
continue to imitate than there is no originality. Plato’s failing is resting of all of art’s
ability solely in mimesis. Art can do so
much more than imitate. Art can present
a world at a given time, can be an object of discourse, and echoes throughout time
a culture. Moreover, Plato’s theory
fails to take into account emulation. By
which I mean the ability to match possibly excel at that of which has or is
already being done.
The best example I can think of when it comes to emulation
would be “The Colbert Report” back when it was on. Stephen Colbert emulated the O’Reilly factor
by crafting a similar set design, logo, atmosphere and embodying the thoughts
and characteristics of Bill O’Reilly while putting his spin that captured a new
audience. This emulation opened up
audiences to see the poor rhetoric behind what Bill was saying and see how when
presented in a new setting with a new character the same material can have
drastically different consequences. It
is for reasons such as emulation that Plato’s theory of mimesis faults to
capture at arts full potential
Comments
Post a Comment