The topic of this post comes from a question posed by Brycen Waters: "What about objects that were the first of their kind to be created, for example the wheel? How do they follow the same logic as through the Platonic metaphysics of the imitation of an imitation?"
First, by Plato's logic, everything that has ever existed, now exists, and will ever exist is an imitation of a Form. So in the Realm of Forms--or Ideas--there is the Form or essence of a wheel, a radio, a polygraph, a roller skate, a school, a tennis ball, etc. I think Plato thought of the Realm of Forms as constantly accessible, and the Forms in it were/are (for any modern-day Platonists) fair game as models of any and all new inventions.
Following this logic, assume that the Realm of Forms contains the Form of a roller skate, an invention not around in Plato's day. The inventor of the roller skate (who About.com simply gives as "an unknown Dutchman") drew on that Form and imitated it. An artist could then imitate the roller skate as it exists in the material world, resulting in an imitation of an imitation.
However, that artist might also be able to directly imitate the Form of a roller skate, which is where Plato's definition of art might not entirely hold up.
Question: Even if an artist models his creation on the Form of an object, is that creation still equal to something made for its function rather than for its form (lowercase "f")?
Info on roller skates found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/rolle_skates.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment