Plato’s Theory of Mimesis and Aristotle’s Defence
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Relevance of Classical Criticism
1.3 Plato’s Theory of Mimesis and Aristotle’s Defence
1.3.1 Aristotle's Reply to Plato's Objection
1.3.2 Aristotle's Objection to the Theory of Mimesis
1.4 Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy
1.4.1 The Definition of Tragedy
1.4.2 Six Formative Elements of Tragedy
1.4.3 Plot and Character
1.4.4 The Tragic Hero
1.5.1 Unity of Action
1.5.2 Unity of Time
1.5.3 Unity of Place
1.6.1 Why Aristotle had adopted this theory
1.6.2 The Meaning of Catharsis
1.6.3 The Relevance of the Theory of Catharsis in the Present Scenario
1.7 Let us Sum up
1.9 Reading List
In his theory of Mimesis, Plato says that all art is mimetic by nature; art is an imitation of life. He believed that ‘idea’ is the ultimate reality. Art imitates idea and so it is imitation of reality. He gives an example of a carpenter and a chair. The idea of ‘chair’ first came in the mind of carpenter. He gave physical shape to his idea out of wood and created a chair. The painter imitated the chair of the carpenter in his picture of chair. Thus, painter’s chair is twice removed from reality. Hence, he believed that art is twice removed from reality. He gives first importance to philosophy as philosophy deals with the ideas whereas poetry deals with illusion – things which are twice removed from reality. So to Plato, philosophy is superior to poetry. Plato rejected poetry as it is mimetic in nature on the moral and philosophical grounds. On the contrary, Aristotle advocated poetry as it is mimetic in nature. According to him, poetry is an imitation of an action and his tool of enquiry is neither philosophical nor moral. He examines poetry as a piece of art and not as a book of preaching or teaching.