Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| omnipoetics:diamond [2025/02/11 19:33] – audriana | omnipoetics:diamond [2025/02/12 22:51] (current) – audriana | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| - | **Themes** | + | **"Plato and the Definition of the Primitive" |
| + | In his writing on “Plato and the Definition of the Primitive, | ||
| - | **Major Works** | + | Of particular significance to the field of ethnopoetics is Diamond’s discussion of the dramatist. Diamond dictates, “Plato regarded the art of the tragic and comic dramatists, along with that of the painters, as essentially imitative, as dealing with appearances only. The painter, for example, paints a bed, but this image is ‘thrice removed’ from the truth” (81). This example explains Plato’s dismissal of artists as creators, since he declared they could not create that which had already been conceptualized in an ideal form by God, then concretely created by an artisan. Therefore, art could only exist as a copy of a copy and never as a unique creation in and of itself. |
| + | This theory is akin to Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionist literary theory, which dictates that writing is farther separated from the author’s intention than other forms of language, such as speech, due to the difference in interpretation that words can hold dependent on their relation to other words in text (Caputo). An author thinks of a word and then writes the word. The reader then interprets that word in order to create meaning through their own lens of understanding. However, the meaning interpreted by the reader may deviate from the author’s original thought due to its context and relation with the words around it and differences in the background and perspective of the author and reader. Diamond addresses this connection, reflecting, “In the basic sense, every linguistic system is a system of abstractions; | ||
| - | **" | + | However, it is precisely this quality of the unique in the interpretation of the abstract that Diamond claims contradicts Plato’s statement that art cannot be creation. Diamond writes, “The uniqueness of the object inheres in the immediate, concentrated response of the unaided, humanly experienced eye. The object is //connotative//. Through the structure of analogy and metaphor that defines discourse among primitive people, it reveals a manifold and spontaneous reality” (85). |
| - | + | ||
| - | In his writing on “Plato and the Definition of the Primitive, | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Of particular significance to the field of ethnopoetics is Diamond’s discussion of the dramatist. Diamond dictates, “Plato regarded the art of the tragic and comic dramatists, along with that of the painters, as essentially imitative, as dealing with appearances only. The painter, for example, paints a bed, but this image is ‘thrice removed’ from the truth” (81). This theory explained Plato’s dismissal of artists as creators, since he declared they could not create that which had already been conceptualized in an ideal form by God, then concretely created by an artisan. Therefore, art could only exist as a copy of a copy and never as a unique creation in and of itself. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | This theory is akin to Jacques Derrida’s literary deconstructionist theory, which dictates that writing is farther separated from the author’s intention than other forms of language, such as speech, due to the difference in interpretation that words can hold dependent on their relation to other words in text (Caputo). An author thinks of a word and then writes the word. The reader then interprets that word in order to create meaning through their own lens of understanding. However, the meaning interpreted by the reader may deviate from the author’s original thought due to its context and relation with the words around it and differences in the background and perspective of the author and reader. Diamond addresses this connection, reflecting, “In the basic sense, every linguistic system is a system of abstractions; | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | However, it is precisely this quality of the unique in the interpretation of the abstract that Diamond claims contradicts Plato’s statement that art cannot be creation. Diamond writes, “The uniqueness of the object inheres in the immediate, concentrated response of the unaided, humanly experienced eye. The object is connotative. Through the structure of analogy and metaphor that defines discourse among primitive people, it reveals a manifold and spontaneous reality” (85). | + | |
| Altogether, Diamond argues that primitive ways of thinking and utilizing common experience to aid in the universal human search for meaning and identity must be maintained and integrated into civilized thinking, rather than abandoned to the past. Diamond concludes, “In the end, the dramatist must either become an antagonist to Plato’s perfectionist God, or he must cease being a dramatist” (88). | Altogether, Diamond argues that primitive ways of thinking and utilizing common experience to aid in the universal human search for meaning and identity must be maintained and integrated into civilized thinking, rather than abandoned to the past. Diamond concludes, “In the end, the dramatist must either become an antagonist to Plato’s perfectionist God, or he must cease being a dramatist” (88). | ||
