The biggest difference between the two lies in the fact that while the aesthetic theory would seemingly be most concerned with the audiences reaction, particularly its allowing for the creation of one, the representational theory would leave the artist more concerned with the object itself having meaning. This previous statement would be true especially with the outdated belief where certain absences of imitation restricted classification of certain objects as art.
Per page 3 of “Art and Representation,” “views like this are presently regarded as philistine-the opinion of people uniformed about art and, unfortunately, unashamed by displaying their ignorance. But that ignorance does not come from nowhere. It is a residue of the imitation theory of art, which theory, until the nineteenth century had, as we have indicated, some empirical credibility. Several things, however, have happened since then to undermine the theory decisively.
” Fortunately, these theories have adapted; by the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, “visual art clearly beings to deviate from the aim of imitating nature. ” This deviation is definitely a positive as it allows for the theories to acclimate within the realm of that specific era and therefore allow them to become more relevant. While it does seem counterintuitive to include reference of sport within the scope of a philosophical paper on art, sport does meet the definition of art laid out by the Greeks.
Carroll referenced their belief that for them, “an art was any practice that required skill;” not solely paintings or plays, but medicine and soldiering too. For example, within the realm of the NBA, Kobe Bryant uses his skill to counteract his aging. He has learned to play in a way that will enable him to have a more durable career. He was influenced by those in his youth such as Michael Jordan, when still within the learning stages of perfecting his art – basketball.
If you were to see Kobe Bryant stick out his tongue on the court, he would most likely be doing so to mimic Michael Jordan. This is relevant because this is a pure example of imitation. Furthermore, various other concepts, other than imitation, mentioned previously in this paper exist that draw parallels to modern day. Another example connecting these ideas with modern day portrayals is with the movie Avatar and using the second definition of Aesthetics that focuses on the “audience’s portion of the interaction between artworks and readers, listeners and viewers. ” James
Cameron, the director, appealed to the aesthetic theory; he wanted to create a world, Pandora, where the audience can perceive it as if they lived there. His main use of expression was reliant on intricacy, being concerned with all the minor details—a blade of grass or a strand of their tail and how it reacted during the bonding which he coined “tsaheylu. ” This attention to detail made it very likely that, as an artist, James Cameron would support the Aesthetic theory as his main concern was with the “receptive side of things” and the way in which “art addresses spectators.
” The last modern day example that this paper will cover focuses on arguments like Plato’s against poetry that are “still heard today when it comes to discussions of the mass media. ” Carroll states in page 1 of “Art and Representation,” that “often we are told that TV with its seductive imagery-its seductive appearances-makes for an unthinkable electorate. ” These reasons for wanting to ban dramatic poetry still echo today in such instances as protective parents wanting to restrict the easy availability of “R” rated material that might lead to violence when imitated be it in movies or edgy commercials.
If Plato were still alive today, it would be extremely feasible that he would fit within this group. In conclusion, both representationalism and aesthetics are beneficial to analysis of art. Perhaps if I were view the painting of the Mona Lisa, I could apply the concept of imitation to realize that it was painted by Da Vinci with the mindset to replicate the facial features of whom it mimicked.
A series of seemingly meaningless brush strokes that to the outward eye of one observer can appear to mean nothing might be a masterpiece of art to another observer. This all falls within the definitions of how some people perceived art while others would say it was not art because it did not represent something else or have meaning. Furthermore, this provides for an interesting paradox where two different people would have two remotely different classifications for the same object.