Another problem arose to me through Tolstoy's theory: two of the most important factors of defining art, he says, are its infectiousness and its content. If we reexamine Plato's theory, specifically in The Republic, we find that their is a "world of forms" and everything on earth - or everything physical, rather - is at least once removed from this world through imitation. How far removed then, I ask you, is the emotion being communicated to the audience through art?
For anything to exist, it has to exist in the world of forms. Otherwise the Gods would not know about it, but they know about everything, being omnipotent. Therefore, an emotion that we feel is an imitation of its true form in the world of forms. If we, being the artist in this scenario, were to transmit this feeling by portraying it in a work of art, the emotion within the piece would be an imitation of an imitation. Would this not make the emotion received by the audience members a 3rd-degree imitation, receiving a yet further-removed emotion?
Tolstoy argues in his What is Art? text that, in order for a work to have strong quality, it needs to be very infectious. This means that the artist has to feel the emotion strongly, the emotion has to be clear in the work, and that the recipient has to feel the emotion strongly. This seems to be a quizzical situation considering the above logic that I've provided through Platonic terms.
Help me figure this out - Does the emotion become weak, distorted, or false through all of this imitation, or does it remain strong and clear?
No comments:
Post a Comment