Are landscapes an imitation of an imitation? They could be described as the creation by God or the gods of an idea that came from them. This seems problematic though because if a god developed the idea and created it they are imitating their own concept, and imitation is usually described as copying someone else. Then if an artist paints a landscape, it would only be an imitation because they are copying only a higher power and not the middle figure of the craftsperson. This does not change the meaning of Plato’s idea because the purpose of the landscape would still be to the emotions. It would also still be the same idea as holding up a mirror. It creates the illusion of three dimensional space without having it. Films and television also create the illusion of three dimensions while having only two and usually serve the purpose of appealing to the emotions. They can serve other purposes though. A documentary can expose people to different ideas and forms of reasoning, but it is imitating either the people that choose to be interviewed, the aspects of nature it includes, or the crafts involved. An abstract film is not based on any previously developed form and comes directly from an idea. The film The Critic pokes fun at this quality be showing abstract images and adding a voice over saying things like “I think this is symbolic. I think this is symbolic of junk.” His confusion is based upon his not understanding film based on form and not imitation. The concepts that Plato expresses are not as clear as they may appear at first glance. Landscape art surely existed at the time he was writing, yet even this does not seem to clearly fit into his definition of art.
If God has an idea and creates something based on it is he imitating his own idea?
No comments:
Post a Comment