A & P: Analysis of Chapter 1- Plato- Art as Imitation 9/25/09

In class we discussed Plato's claim that art is an "imitation of an imitation." In Chapter 1, Plato claims art is an imitation of an imitation due to its ability to misrepresent the truth of things. Plato refers to a painter as an imitator of an imitator because the painter did not originally create the bed. In the Plato discussion in class a thought provoking question was brought up; how is architecture an imitation? I liken this question to a question that originated in my thoughts when first reading chapter 1. I pondered on how Plato's theory would apply to music. One could assume that Plato would argue that the sounds within music originally came from something else such as a songbird, which in turn was created by a god-like figure. That argument would be rather weak though. No matter what form of art, Plato would always break the art down and trace it back to being originally created by some god-like figure. This makes Plato's theory too exclusive.

Have you ever sat down and doodled and produced a picture that others called art? I have and at the time I had created it, I didn't intend for it to represent anything. Yet, others saw my picture as representative of something, but to me it represented nothing. So, I pose this question; is all art meant to represent something and if not, can it be imitative if it represents nothing anyways?