We have to discern blind imitation of so called 'dead' realism in arts from
creative re-presentation or re-interpretation of nature.
Aristotle meant the second. He was not dummy, nor was Worringer.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Worringer: Abstraction and Empathy
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:31:28 GMT

Boris, I made two claims about Aristotle.

First, that for him, the human instinct for imitation follows from the human
love of learning. (Part I, Section IV)

Then, I noted that he did not distinguish between imitation and "naturalism"
(or "the expression of organic vitality").
And why would he?.   "Organic vitality" is just one more quality that is
being
imitated. (instead, he distinguishes between the instinct for imitation, and
the instinct for harmony and rhythm, which, together are the two causes from
which Poetry springs, according to him)

If, as you claim, "Aristotle's 'imitation' has a broader application", please
tell us what that is (and where, in the Poetics, it can be found)

As everyone here must know by now, the dreaded Miller is not  inclined to
agree with  statements just because they were made by Aristotle or any other
celebrated  authority.

But in this case, it has also been my experience that  imitation is part of
the  enjoyment that I take from the imaginative arts, so I strongly disagree
with Worringer when he writes that "the instinct of imitation, this
elementary
need of man, stands outside of  aesthetics in the proper sense and that its
satisfaction has in principle nothing to do with art."

We can rest assured that as a 19th C. German intellectual, Wilhelm Worringer
was quite familiar with the Poetics and had probably studied it in the Greek,
so I'm a bit puzzled how he seems to have ignored its insights.

For example, Aristotle allows that imitation may be of people who are quite
bad and situations that are quite fearful, so the total effect might be one
of
terror.  And as we know, the theater of his time offered many such examples.
The world of Tragedy was a very scary place where bad things relentlessly
happened to good people. But these depictions were not especially abstract,
were they?  Wouldn't they have been far more realistic than the kind of
highly
formalized rituals that usual accompany religious services?

Aristotle did not develop a notion of empathy that would restrict it to
positive feelings about the world -- but then, I wonder who has?



____________________________________________________________
Develop a fitness program that works for you. Click here for free info and
revolutionary products.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVDll21pOniiXfDgL8f5Jemm
AxjtUwCNM8XmBpYOWamkdleKJvOD2/

Reply via email to