On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Friday, September 9, 2011
Aristotle vs. Plato
Explain how Aristotle's ideas differ from Plato's in terms of his views towards artists, art and individual expression. Do you see Aristotle's legacy in the way we think about art today?
Aristotle and Plato have a very different view towards artists, art and individual expression. Plato sees art as an imitation of his “abstract ideal world” and therefore proposed that one cannot find any truth in something that is “thrice removed from the reality”. Plato view individual artistic ability as a form of “divine inspiration” rather than a “techne” – something that can be taught and learn. He places artists in a lower hierarchy than people who belongs to the “techne” category e.g. medicine, building, arithmetic. In Plato’s view art should not be something personal to anyone but something that need to be control and uses for good causes of the state. Aristotle has a more positive view towards artist and individual artistic expression. Aristotle argued that individual’s ability to create art is in fact a “techne” and required the same amount of learning and practices as other form of craftsmanship. Aristotle further suggests that a study of an unpleasant object can actually be beneficial to people if they recognize the “beauty” inside that particular object. Aristotle did not talk much about individual artistic expression but he did recognize imitation as a way for human to learn and obtain knowledge. We can definitely see Aristotle’s influence in how we perceived art today. Although artistic ability is still widely seen as a “gift” and “talent” it is common for people to take an art class and train themselves to draw and paint better. A life drawing class is structured based on Aristotle idea of imitation i.e. the closer we look at the object the more we learn about it. When artists take their time to look at the object ad try to imitate it they start to learn more about the object.
Aristotle and Plato's views on art, and perhaps more importantly the value placed on art, are dramatically different.
Plato believed that artists did not possess a skill ("techne") so much as they possessed inspiration, and that because inspiration was given to mortals by the gods and not conceived by the mortal artists themselves that it was not nearly as valuable as techne. He felt that there was a difference between a aesthetically beautiful artwork that focused primarily on color and shapes, and a "good" piece of art which had to "institute superior judges." This is to say, that Plato saw the enormous power of art to influence the public as a kind-of double-edged sword that could either lead them to become ethical, outstanding citizens or to destruction.
Aristotle believed that artists possessed more than just inspiration, but a technical skill that could be approved upon and perceived as impressive to the average human. He believed that to portray an object was to reveal something important; whereas Plato believed imitation destroyed the original object, Aristotle believed that the study of an object created awareness and learning.
I do see Aristotle's influence to be very prevalent in how most people would look at and judge art. To be able to mimic or create a likeness to a specific object or person is considered very impressive and most people view the ability as an incredible skill.
Plato believes that imitation merely takes the viewer farther away from the truth or the true nature of things, with his whole “copy of a copy of a copy”, thrice removed theory. He also states that artistic talent is something of a fluke, a “divine gift” that requires no honing. Artists, when evaluated in this light, are pretty lowly human beings, people who have no function in society. More than anything, they are liars who weave deception into the minds of the easily influenced. Aristotle, on the other hand, is of the opinion that imitation is a form of education. Artists reveal the true nature of an object through mimicking it and the viewers are able to fully comprehend what is presented in the art through the experience. We see Aristotle’s way of thinking pervasive through how we interact with art in the modern art world. More than ever, art is used as a means of better understanding our environment.
Plato believed that the more an object is mimicked the farther away it is from the truth. Therefore when an artist creates a work of art he is just creating another falsity. Aristotle believed that when an artist mimics is an object he must know about the object and therefore is teaching the viewer more about the object. Aristotle believed that the artists must be knowledgeable and skillful in order to do his work and therefore Aristotle had respect for artists. Plato did not like artists, he was threatened that they would teach society things he did not want them to learn. Nowadays artists are viewed more from the Aristotle point of view. They are expected to teach the viewers what they are trying to get across.
I find it interesting the differences between the two men. Plato believes that all artist's muse come from a divine source, which is hard to pin down exactly. Hence why he prefers techne, the things within society which can be taught and useful to society. Plato deemed realistic art dangerous, and was cautious about its influence in terms of propaganda. He spoke about how art is a representation of something else, and is twice removed from it.
On the flip side, Aristotle argued that actually creating art could be considered a techne, since it too requires skill. On this note, he also argues that art was fundamental in recognizing the beauty inside a particular object. Thankfully it was Aristotle's ideas that stuck and were able to influence our mindset today that art can be taught. I mean, think of how crazy it'd be if I weren't an artist (If Plato's ideas were the ones that 'stuck')... Somewhat mind blowing. Also that alternate reality is kind of bleak.
Aristotle and Plato’s views towards artists, art and individual expression drastically differ. One of the most prominent features of Plato’s philosophy is his hostility towards artists, especially poets. He believed that artists did not possess skill or techne. He thought that artists were mere makers of images, capable of corrupting the souls of people. Plato stood by the theory that the more an object was mimicked, the further it was from the truth and that because inspiration was given to mortals by the gods and not conceived by the mortal artists themselves that it was not nearly as valuable as techne. Aristotle’s view on artist inspiration is completely different. Aristotle believed that imitation is an active and creative process, literally producing an object that has a “life of its own.” He also believed that imitation is an important role in education and learning and has an “essential connection with human nature.” I believe that today, we are connected with the views that Aristotle set forth. As infants, we learn through imitation and it certainly is a creative process. An artist is constantly gathering inspiration from other objects, people, beliefs and in turn manipulate or create something entirely new. Artists can claim to have a unique individual expression, but in many cases we had once seen something that created an idea that might not have occurred to us if we were not gathering inspiration.
As we learned through the readings, Plato and Aristotle have very different approaches towards artists, art, and individual expression. As my peers have already stated, Plato perceives art as an imitation of the "ideal", of something that only the divine can perceive. he regards artists as lower beings that got their inspiration from the divine and thus trying to insert a "fake" and deceptive idea into the mind of the society. He viewed art as something that could possibly be a threat to the society and the minds of the people. Aristotle, on the other hand, viewed art as a means to educate and teach society valuable lessons, and even though he only regarded art as being a techne, and an imitation of reality, he still valued it. Theatre for example, which is basically mimicking events, people and the gods, was a form of education in ancient Greece, and is still today regarded as something important for the society. He was able to see the beauty of it, and the further meaning that it could have. I believe that Aristotle's views still stand true in todays world in some extent, as people value art highly, and have further developed into new forms through the development of art and all the different stages it has gone through.
Even though Aristotle was a student of Plato, they still had very different views on art and the thought behind it. The fact that Plato thought that he should be the one to decide what would be acceptable to be viewed and what would be dangerous for society to view, to me, sounds so closed minded, which is in contrast to Plato being thought of as such a great thinker. Plato and Aristotle also had contrasting ideas on the idea of mimicking objects and ideas. Plato believed that to copy something is to take away its meaning, while Aristotle thought that to copy something is to understand that something. Another difference is in the way that they viewed an artist’s abilities. Aristotle felt that artists possessed an actual skill that could be learned and improved, while Plato viewed artists as a bit mad (which is actually kinda true sometimes…) and merely given a gift to do these things. Thank goodness that today we follow Aristotle’s thinking more than Plato’s. Because we have adopted Aristotle’s views we are able to make our own minds up about what we want to view and what we want to create.
Plato does not regard art highly, in fact he places artists below craftsmen. Plato has a thrice removed theory which means that there is a perfect bed, for example, somewhere in the heavens. Then you have a carpenter who makes an earthly copy of their understanding of that bed. Then the third copy is when an artist is to paint a bed thus being below craftsmen. The root of his low respect to art stems from Plato's understanding of the emotional power of people that art has. He feared of the repercussions that paintings and sculptures could cause. Aristotle on the other hand celebrated this power that art has. He recognized that artists have a talent and that the creation of art is a window for learning and further understanding of whatever was representing. Aristotle's views are much more agreed with today then Plato's. Throughout art's history and development, many more people have an affinity to valuing art then seeing it as Plato did, without much worth.
Plato and Aristotle’s views differ greatly when it comes to the role of the artist and the function of the arts in society. Plato strongly condemns the arts, and does not allow artists to participate in his “perfect state”. They are dangerous imitators in his mind, employing mimesis to copy the forms we see in nature. This ability to copy nature is treacherous because it misleads the viewer into believing the artist is not only a master of painting, but of the objects which he paints as well. In this way, Plato sees artists as mimics who poorly copy nature, which itself is a copy of the perfect form that exists only in the divine realm. Aristotle, on the other hand, recognizes the skill, or “techne”, that is implicit in artistic creation. His view of mimesis is more accepting. He realizes that imitation is an inseparable aspect of life, and sees it as a method though which we learn and inspire. Aristotle also accepts that viewing art is a pleasurable experience, rather than a dangerously deceiving one. Certainly society has moved past Plato’s outright condemnation of the arts, and has taken up a more Aristotelian and accepting view. We recognize Aristotle’s belief that artistic creation is a foundation of humanity itself, and foster this creativity rather than denounce it.
How Plato and Aristotle viewed art and artist is, well, VERY DIFFERENT. Plato viewed art as a copy of a copy of a copy. Needless to say he didn't like copies. So art in his mind was essentially the lowest of the low (unless it was being used to promote good virtues and values a.k.a. PROPAGANDA). The artist wasn't too great to Plato either. He didn't see art as a techne and thus it wasn't of high importance in his perfect society. In case it isn't clear I don't like his opinion very much. Aristotle on the other hand I like. He views art as a techne and thus puts more importance in both the art and artist. He also begins to talk about the content a work needs (yay messages in art!!). Plato was all about imitation being bad, whereas Aristotle thought an imitation could bring knowledge about the object itself. I think we definitely see Aristotle's ideas in the art world of today. As Nat said there are art classes where you can learn the skill of art, but I also think we see it in our pursuit of meaning and knowledge pertaining to work. Essentially you see it in Art History classes everywhere. Most of what we do is talk about what this work or that work reveals about its subject matter and how that informs our interpretation of history.
Plato and Aristotle have very different views about art, artists, and individual expression. Plato believes that art has been removed from reality three times and is therefore not very useful. For Plato there is the ideal form, then the actual form, and finally the artists representation of the form. Since art is so far away from the ideal form how could it possibly be of use? Plato places higher value on techne because he believes that it is beneficial to many people and it can be taught compared with art that is divinely inspired. Art is not as useful as techne because it does not help large amounts of members of society. Plato also believes that individual expression and viewing art can be very dangerous because of the thoughts they can spark. Bad things could happen as a result of being inspired by art. Plato believes that art is very dangerous threat to society. Aristotle believes that since we learn through imitation, art can be of great use to humans. Imitation is valuable. It reveals the nature of things. It is not dangerous, it is educational. Our western view on the value of art is more in line with Aristotle's philosophy. We agree that imitation is valuable and we usually value art over techne. Art is useful in society and just because it is not reality does not mean it isn't beneficial.
Plato would not include artists in his ideal state because he considers artists to be merely copyists and artworks as too far removed from the original ideal form to even be useful within education. Artists are considered inferior compared to other craft based skills because an artists representation is three times removed from the ideal realm. Furthermore, Plato does not see art as a creative process but rather something that should be monitored and controlled by the state. However, Aristotle sees the craftsmanship within a work of art arguing that there is a creative process and an individual, unique expression behind creating a piece of art. Aristotle sees that the artist’s goal is not simply to copy the world but to interpret the world perhaps with a means of educating or enlightening the viewer. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of beauty and mimesis in art and presumes that an artist would never draw a foot disproportionate to the rest of a body. Consequently, even though he recognizes the individuality that goes into a piece of art, the boundaries of successful artistic expression are very limited. Many people still think of art as needing to show craftsmanship and needing to relate to the world we see around us. The closer the representation is to what it is trying to represent, the more successful we believe it to be.
Plato viewed art as something lowly. The ideal, something incomprehensible to humans, was reality, and our creations only imperfect copies of that reality. Art was even worse, for it imperfectly copied those imperfections, making it a very flawed thing. Art could be dangerous and it was emotion driven. It could be used as a tool to inspire goodness (love of the state, appreciation of logic, etc.), but that was the extent of it. He thought art should be censored, and in his idea of a perfect world, completely absent. Aristotle, in contrast appreciated art. He found the act of creation to be much more worthy a cause, and believed an inverse of Plato’s idea of forms. Aristotle believed that all of our ideas of the perfect form merge together to create it. The ideal didn’t create outside of us, but was formed by our ideas. Furthermore, copying what we saw didn’t make the copy valueless. We learn by copying what we see and hear; it’s a natural impulse and it is helpful to the person. Copying shouldn’t be condemned so outright. His ideas still influence art today, because he considered it to be more of a craft or technical ability. We view artists today as a select group of people who have not only inspiration, but very developed skills. This idea of the skilled artist comes from Aristotle.
Aristotle and Plato have a very different view towards artists, art and individual expression. Plato sees art as an imitation of his “abstract ideal world” and therefore proposed that one cannot find any truth in something that is “thrice removed from the reality”. Plato view individual artistic ability as a form of “divine inspiration” rather than a “techne” – something that can be taught and learn. He places artists in a lower hierarchy than people who belongs to the “techne” category e.g. medicine, building, arithmetic. In Plato’s view art should not be something personal to anyone but something that need to be control and uses for good causes of the state. Aristotle has a more positive view towards artist and individual artistic expression. Aristotle argued that individual’s ability to create art is in fact a “techne” and required the same amount of learning and practices as other form of craftsmanship. Aristotle further suggests that a study of an unpleasant object can actually be beneficial to people if they recognize the “beauty” inside that particular object. Aristotle did not talk much about individual artistic expression but he did recognize imitation as a way for human to learn and obtain knowledge. We can definitely see Aristotle’s influence in how we perceived art today. Although artistic ability is still widely seen as a “gift” and “talent” it is common for people to take an art class and train themselves to draw and paint better. A life drawing class is structured based on Aristotle idea of imitation i.e. the closer we look at the object the more we learn about it. When artists take their time to look at the object ad try to imitate it they start to learn more about the object.
ReplyDeleteAristotle and Plato's views on art, and perhaps more importantly the value placed on art, are dramatically different.
ReplyDeletePlato believed that artists did not possess a skill ("techne") so much as they possessed inspiration, and that because inspiration was given to mortals by the gods and not conceived by the mortal artists themselves that it was not nearly as valuable as techne. He felt that there was a difference between a aesthetically beautiful artwork that focused primarily on color and shapes, and a "good" piece of art which had to "institute superior judges." This is to say, that Plato saw the enormous power of art to influence the public as a kind-of double-edged sword that could either lead them to become ethical, outstanding citizens or to destruction.
Aristotle believed that artists possessed more than just inspiration, but a technical skill that could be approved upon and perceived as impressive to the average human. He believed that to portray an object was to reveal something important; whereas Plato believed imitation destroyed the original object, Aristotle believed that the study of an object created awareness and learning.
I do see Aristotle's influence to be very prevalent in how most people would look at and judge art. To be able to mimic or create a likeness to a specific object or person is considered very impressive and most people view the ability as an incredible skill.
Plato believes that imitation merely takes the viewer farther away from the truth or the true nature of things, with his whole “copy of a copy of a copy”, thrice removed theory. He also states that artistic talent is something of a fluke, a “divine gift” that requires no honing. Artists, when evaluated in this light, are pretty lowly human beings, people who have no function in society. More than anything, they are liars who weave deception into the minds of the easily influenced. Aristotle, on the other hand, is of the opinion that imitation is a form of education. Artists reveal the true nature of an object through mimicking it and the viewers are able to fully comprehend what is presented in the art through the experience. We see Aristotle’s way of thinking pervasive through how we interact with art in the modern art world. More than ever, art is used as a means of better understanding our environment.
ReplyDeletePlato believed that the more an object is mimicked the farther away it is from the truth. Therefore when an artist creates a work of art he is just creating another falsity. Aristotle believed that when an artist mimics is an object he must know about the object and therefore is teaching the viewer more about the object. Aristotle believed that the artists must be knowledgeable and skillful in order to do his work and therefore Aristotle had respect for artists. Plato did not like artists, he was threatened that they would teach society things he did not want them to learn. Nowadays artists are viewed more from the Aristotle point of view. They are expected to teach the viewers what they are trying to get across.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting the differences between the two men. Plato believes that all artist's muse come from a divine source, which is hard to pin down exactly. Hence why he prefers techne, the things within society which can be taught and useful to society. Plato deemed realistic art dangerous, and was cautious about its influence in terms of propaganda. He spoke about how art is a representation of something else, and is twice removed from it.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, Aristotle argued that actually creating art could be considered a techne, since it too requires skill. On this note, he also argues that art was fundamental in recognizing the beauty inside a particular object. Thankfully it was Aristotle's ideas that stuck and were able to influence our mindset today that art can be taught. I mean, think of how crazy it'd be if I weren't an artist (If Plato's ideas were the ones that 'stuck')... Somewhat mind blowing. Also that alternate reality is kind of bleak.
Go Aristotle!
Aristotle and Plato’s views towards artists, art and individual expression drastically differ. One of the most prominent features of Plato’s philosophy is his hostility towards artists, especially poets. He believed that artists did not possess skill or techne. He thought that artists were mere makers of images, capable of corrupting the souls of people. Plato stood by the theory that the more an object was mimicked, the further it was from the truth and that because inspiration was given to mortals by the gods and not conceived by the mortal artists themselves that it was not nearly as valuable as techne. Aristotle’s view on artist inspiration is completely different. Aristotle believed that imitation is an active and creative process, literally producing an object that has a “life of its own.” He also believed that imitation is an important role in education and learning and has an “essential connection with human nature.” I believe that today, we are connected with the views that Aristotle set forth. As infants, we learn through imitation and it certainly is a creative process. An artist is constantly gathering inspiration from other objects, people, beliefs and in turn manipulate or create something entirely new. Artists can claim to have a unique individual expression, but in many cases we had once seen something that created an idea that might not have occurred to us if we were not gathering inspiration.
ReplyDeleteAs we learned through the readings, Plato and Aristotle have very different approaches towards artists, art, and individual expression. As my peers have already stated, Plato perceives art as an imitation of the "ideal", of something that only the divine can perceive. he regards artists as lower beings that got their inspiration from the divine and thus trying to insert a "fake" and deceptive idea into the mind of the society. He viewed art as something that could possibly be a threat to the society and the minds of the people. Aristotle, on the other hand, viewed art as a means to educate and teach society valuable lessons, and even though he only regarded art as being a techne, and an imitation of reality, he still valued it. Theatre for example, which is basically mimicking events, people and the gods, was a form of education in ancient Greece, and is still today regarded as something important for the society. He was able to see the beauty of it, and the further meaning that it could have. I believe that Aristotle's views still stand true in todays world in some extent, as people value art highly, and have further developed into new forms through the development of art and all the different stages it has gone through.
ReplyDeleteEven though Aristotle was a student of Plato, they still had very different views on art and the thought behind it. The fact that Plato thought that he should be the one to decide what would be acceptable to be viewed and what would be dangerous for society to view, to me, sounds so closed minded, which is in contrast to Plato being thought of as such a great thinker. Plato and Aristotle also had contrasting ideas on the idea of mimicking objects and ideas. Plato believed that to copy something is to take away its meaning, while Aristotle thought that to copy something is to understand that something. Another difference is in the way that they viewed an artist’s abilities. Aristotle felt that artists possessed an actual skill that could be learned and improved, while Plato viewed artists as a bit mad (which is actually kinda true sometimes…) and merely given a gift to do these things. Thank goodness that today we follow Aristotle’s thinking more than Plato’s. Because we have adopted Aristotle’s views we are able to make our own minds up about what we want to view and what we want to create.
ReplyDeletePlato does not regard art highly, in fact he places artists below craftsmen. Plato has a thrice removed theory which means that there is a perfect bed, for example, somewhere in the heavens. Then you have a carpenter who makes an earthly copy of their understanding of that bed. Then the third copy is when an artist is to paint a bed thus being below craftsmen. The root of his low respect to art stems from Plato's understanding of the emotional power of people that art has. He feared of the repercussions that paintings and sculptures could cause. Aristotle on the other hand celebrated this power that art has. He recognized that artists have a talent and that the creation of art is a window for learning and further understanding of whatever was representing. Aristotle's views are much more agreed with today then Plato's. Throughout art's history and development, many more people have an affinity to valuing art then seeing it as Plato did, without much worth.
ReplyDeletePlato and Aristotle’s views differ greatly when it comes to the role of the artist and the function of the arts in society. Plato strongly condemns the arts, and does not allow artists to participate in his “perfect state”. They are dangerous imitators in his mind, employing mimesis to copy the forms we see in nature. This ability to copy nature is treacherous because it misleads the viewer into believing the artist is not only a master of painting, but of the objects which he paints as well. In this way, Plato sees artists as mimics who poorly copy nature, which itself is a copy of the perfect form that exists only in the divine realm. Aristotle, on the other hand, recognizes the skill, or “techne”, that is implicit in artistic creation. His view of mimesis is more accepting. He realizes that imitation is an inseparable aspect of life, and sees it as a method though which we learn and inspire. Aristotle also accepts that viewing art is a pleasurable experience, rather than a dangerously deceiving one. Certainly society has moved past Plato’s outright condemnation of the arts, and has taken up a more Aristotelian and accepting view. We recognize Aristotle’s belief that artistic creation is a foundation of humanity itself, and foster this creativity rather than denounce it.
ReplyDeleteHow Plato and Aristotle viewed art and artist is, well, VERY DIFFERENT. Plato viewed art as a copy of a copy of a copy. Needless to say he didn't like copies. So art in his mind was essentially the lowest of the low (unless it was being used to promote good virtues and values a.k.a. PROPAGANDA). The artist wasn't too great to Plato either. He didn't see art as a techne and thus it wasn't of high importance in his perfect society. In case it isn't clear I don't like his opinion very much. Aristotle on the other hand I like. He views art as a techne and thus puts more importance in both the art and artist. He also begins to talk about the content a work needs (yay messages in art!!). Plato was all about imitation being bad, whereas Aristotle thought an imitation could bring knowledge about the object itself. I think we definitely see Aristotle's ideas in the art world of today. As Nat said there are art classes where you can learn the skill of art, but I also think we see it in our pursuit of meaning and knowledge pertaining to work. Essentially you see it in Art History classes everywhere. Most of what we do is talk about what this work or that work reveals about its subject matter and how that informs our interpretation of history.
ReplyDeletePlato and Aristotle have very different views about art, artists, and individual expression. Plato believes that art has been removed from reality three times and is therefore not very useful. For Plato there is the ideal form, then the actual form, and finally the artists representation of the form. Since art is so far away from the ideal form how could it possibly be of use? Plato places higher value on techne because he believes that it is beneficial to many people and it can be taught compared with art that is divinely inspired. Art is not as useful as techne because it does not help large amounts of members of society. Plato also believes that individual expression and viewing art can be very dangerous because of the thoughts they can spark. Bad things could happen as a result of being inspired by art. Plato believes that art is very dangerous threat to society.
ReplyDeleteAristotle believes that since we learn through imitation, art can be of great use to humans. Imitation is valuable. It reveals the nature of things. It is not dangerous, it is educational. Our western view on the value of art is more in line with Aristotle's philosophy. We agree that imitation is valuable and we usually value art over techne. Art is useful in society and just because it is not reality does not mean it isn't beneficial.
Plato would not include artists in his ideal state because he considers artists to be merely copyists and artworks as too far removed from the original ideal form to even be useful within education. Artists are considered inferior compared to other craft based skills because an artists representation is three times removed from the ideal realm. Furthermore, Plato does not see art as a creative process but rather something that should be monitored and controlled by the state. However, Aristotle sees the craftsmanship within a work of art arguing that there is a creative process and an individual, unique expression behind creating a piece of art. Aristotle sees that the artist’s goal is not simply to copy the world but to interpret the world perhaps with a means of educating or enlightening the viewer. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of beauty and mimesis in art and presumes that an artist would never draw a foot disproportionate to the rest of a body. Consequently, even though he recognizes the individuality that goes into a piece of art, the boundaries of successful artistic expression are very limited. Many people still think of art as needing to show craftsmanship and needing to relate to the world we see around us. The closer the representation is to what it is trying to represent, the more successful we believe it to be.
ReplyDeletePlato viewed art as something lowly. The ideal, something incomprehensible to humans, was reality, and our creations only imperfect copies of that reality. Art was even worse, for it imperfectly copied those imperfections, making it a very flawed thing. Art could be dangerous and it was emotion driven. It could be used as a tool to inspire goodness (love of the state, appreciation of logic, etc.), but that was the extent of it. He thought art should be censored, and in his idea of a perfect world, completely absent. Aristotle, in contrast appreciated art. He found the act of creation to be much more worthy a cause, and believed an inverse of Plato’s idea of forms. Aristotle believed that all of our ideas of the perfect form merge together to create it. The ideal didn’t create outside of us, but was formed by our ideas. Furthermore, copying what we saw didn’t make the copy valueless. We learn by copying what we see and hear; it’s a natural impulse and it is helpful to the person. Copying shouldn’t be condemned so outright. His ideas still influence art today, because he considered it to be more of a craft or technical ability. We view artists today as a select group of people who have not only inspiration, but very developed skills. This idea of the skilled artist comes from Aristotle.
ReplyDeletethanks all for give me some idea on this
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for all the beneficial comments! I am currently taking a critical theory course and we werw just discussing this!
ReplyDeleteThank you for all your useful comments.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have famous examples of art in todays world that is influenced by apostotle? Works that help argue his cas. Thanks
ReplyDeleteThank you so much.
ReplyDelete