Disagreeing with Plato

I do not quite agree with Plato’s claim that art is imitation even though it can certainly be seen in this manner and in some instances is such. For example, depictions of nature or the human body are often realist in their style, attempting to exemplify the beauty of that which is. But is it right to call this imitation?

If one comes to their conception of art through harrisons argument of its relation to ritual, does art not then serve the purpose of recreation rather than imitation? If art is simply imitation I do not think any art after the romantics would have developed. Imitation and recreation stand along a fine line but there are subtle differences that make each distinct.

In the case of imitation, the goal sought is simply a copy of the original. This is simply trite. Recreation on the other hand seeks to reawaken the intial response that spurred the artist to create art.

When Plato argus “art detracts us from the real,” I cannot but argue in opposition. If anything in my opinion art makes the real realer. It illuminates the real and embellishes it to stand it out.