ETHNOPOETICS.ORG : a collaboration to extend the valuing and study of global poetries

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
omnipoetics:diamond [2025/02/12 22:48] – audrianaomnipoetics:diamond [2025/02/12 22:51] (current) – audriana
Line 18: Line 18:
 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.  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 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; each sorting out of experience and  conclusion from it is an abstract endeavor; every tool is a symbol of abstract thinking” (83).+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; each sorting out of experience and  conclusion from it is an abstract endeavor; every tool is a symbol of abstract thinking” (83).
  
 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). 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).

Trace: • schechner • editing_guide_2025

Navigation

Current:

Alcheringa:

Print/export
QR Code
QR Code omnipoetics:diamond (generated for current page)