Is art truly imitation or is it truly the artist’s interpretation?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Plato and his views.
Plato’s claim that art is an “imitation of an imitation” in my opinion, its significance is truly one to be interpreted by all those who have the chance of reading it. Plato believed that art was an imitation of an imitation of an original form. Many people who have the views of mathematicians such as Plato believe that all art is just different forms, therefore they believe that art is somewhat pointless and is just imitations of another imitation. Plato's views in my opinion take away from the true meaning of a piece of art by making its significance somewhat pointless and its meaning worthless. I am not fond of his views but I do understand why his opinions and views may be viewed as meaningful, he does make a good point or two. Overall, Plato's views are that of a true skeptic, history has taught many that the way people view art and its significance has changed overtime, making many more openminded towards the world of art. I wrote on my Q&A a question that truly has been haunting me since I read Plato's views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's most likely both.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it just seems as if, people stress that an artist is just imitating what they see instead creating a new version of something that already exists. I agree that it is both though, imitation and interpretation can go hand and hand.
ReplyDelete