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

Popular posts from this blog

Erica Gamester - Language and Poetry

Beauty of Simple Worship

Taylor Duffy - Reconsidering the Spiritual in Art