“What is poetry?” Aristotle starts his Poetics book with this enchanting question. After reading Aristotle’s Poetics I began to think about poetry. Poetry to me is an art and art comes in very many different intermingled objects and ideas. After discussing what is art in my Fysem class and reading about it in Poetics, I will discuss in my paper what I think is art. Even though Aristotle’s Poetics is a lot about poetry, poetry is art and there are tons of properties the reader can use in any type of art based off of Aristotle’s Poetics. When I read the Poetics, I read it as a manuscript. The way I took it is Aristotle wrote the book for readers to teach them how to write poetry and with that skill, be able to perform all kinds of different …show more content…
Sure, there are the common works of art that everyone knows: poetry, music, painting, and film. Aristotle wrote “They differ from each other in three ways, either in respect of the medium, the object, or the mode of the representation.” (p.17 Lines 16-17) This quote to me proves anything can be art. All art has to do is be a representation of something. It can also come in so many different kinds of representation. All art is, is a representation of how the medium, object, or mode are combined differently (p.17 Lines 17-18). There could be so many different combinations from these three items. Some pieces could have all three or some could only have one. There could be two pieces that have all three items but could differ in the amount of each item. The possibilities from medium, object, and mode are endless. Daily life occurrences can be art. If one would stop and look at the world around them, they would see life is created from art. Mother Nature is itself art, a canvas, a film, or music depending on how one looks at life. After the class discussion about what is art, as I walked back to my dorm I couldn’t help but think about that question and saw everything I walked past as art. Life has so much beauty in it and that’s one of the many things art is… beauty. I think as long as one looks for art they will find it. They could find it in anything if they wanted …show more content…
Sure humans create art everyday; a writer writes a book, a poet writes a poem, musicians create songs and on and on. To me though art can be created by anything. Humans are just the mass producers of art. Mother nature, some people believe Mother Nature is its own force, creates the environment of Earth. Natural occurrences and weather are the artists of nature. In the Poetics, Aristotle wrote about how intelligence plays a role in how people see things. The smarter someone is the more they will see and understand it. Not only will they see it as it is but they will also see the piece of art in different ways too (p.20 Lines 12-19). I agree with Aristotle that art is more enjoyable with intelligence. When I was younger I did not appreciate art like I do today. I find myself enjoying art more after years of school. To me art is everywhere and is everything, it depends on if the person looking for the art has enough experience looking for it. Anyone could see art in everything they need to open the minds to the experience and be willing to
Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: 1996 Lucas, D. W., ed. Aristotle: Poetics. Oxford: Oxford U-Clarendon P, 1968.
Homer who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey used a number of different techniques to convey his poems and stories to his audience. I will be writing about these in this essay.
Art has been around for as long as humanity has existed, and it is much more than just drawings or paintings. Art is what every a person makes of it. Art can be drawings, paintings, writings, or even dancing, but never is it contained to just one of those things. As we explore just two aspect of art it is important to realize that there is no right or wrong way to look at the art. Art comes in many different forms, in which they are all interpreted a little differently by different people. For me, when I read a poem I do not instantly know what the poet is trying to say and I don’t find it as interesting, but when I look at a painting so many more thoughts comes and I can’t help by imagine what that artist was thinking while he was painting.
Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.
We encounter art everyday. Art is paintings and sculptures, music and dance, film and photography. It is also fashion designing and architecture, novels and magazines. These seemingly different things have one thing in common – they are all ways in which humans convey themselves. For thousands of years, humans have used symbols to tell a story or describe a struggle. Art is the use of these symbols, symbols that represent us in some distinct way.
Art, what is Art? It is an ambiguous matter: without an exact form, an exact meaning. Does it have any rules or restrictions? However, it can be a great influence on the lives of people. In the novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, two lovers have fell in and out of love due to Art!
poetry and representations as dangerous inclusions in the education of "the craftsmen of the city's freedom" (Plato, Republic, 395b-c).
If I were to ask you what is art, and how can one find it? What would you say? Well if it were me being asked those question, I would simply say that art to me is a form of a picture; a visual painting or model of some design and it could be found all among us. You may define it differently only because art could be defined in many ways. I could simply say that art to me is a form of a picture; a visual painting or model of some design. Well according to an article written by Shelley Esaak, an art history expert she mentioned that art has a way of stimulating different parts of our brains to make us laugh or incite us to riot, with a whole gamut of emotions in between. She also mentioned that art gives us a way to be creative and express ourselves. [1]
Courageous and admirable with noble qualities defines a heroine. In Aristotle’s Poetics he describes a tragic hero as a character who is larger than life and through fate and a flaw they destroy themselves. Additionally, Aristotle states excessive pride is the hubris of a tragic hero. The hero is very self-involved; they are blind to their surroundings and commit a tragic action. A tragedy describes a story that evokes sadness and awe, something larger than life. Furthermore, a tragedy of a play results in the destruction of a hero, evoking catharsis and feelings of pity and fear among the audience. Aristotle states, "It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation." (18) For a tragedy to arouse fear, the audience believes similar fate might happen to them and the sight of the suffering of others arouses pity. A tragedy's plot includes peripeteia, anagnorisis, hamartia and catharsis. Using Aristotle’s criteria, both characters in Oedipus The King and The Medea share similar qualities that define a tragic hero such as being of noble birth, having excessive pride, and making poor choices. They both gain recognition through their downfall and the audience feels pity and fear.
Aristotle and Alexander Pope have a heavy influence on the poetic community when it comes to comprehension, elements to look for, and writing style and structure. Aristotle is a clear storyteller with a favor towards tragedy with pain and inevitable human suffering. Pope believes that humans should learn by connecting with nature and find what is essential in life. Aristotle has chaotic and vast majority of styles, whole Pope is more clear and concrete, but no matter how they choose their poems there is a sense of concern in each scholar. This concern lies in the community, how they should learn to express emotion, and what qualities in literature are the most important to teach first. This comprehension also relates to your audience being both intellectual observant scholars and entertainment poetics readers because the message needs to be clear enough for both groups, but interesting enough to have people keep writing your stories. Aristotle and Alexander have both had a large influence on the poetic community that has changed the landscape for years to come, and will continue to inspire future
According to Aristotle, a tragedy must be an imitation of life in the form of a serious story that is complete in itself among many other things. Oedipus is often portrayed as the perfect example of what a tragedy should be in terms of Aristotle’s Poetics. Reason being that Oedipus seems to include correctly all of the concepts that Aristotle describes as inherent to dramatic tragedy. These elements include: the importance of plot, reversal and recognition, unity of time, the cathartic purging and evocation of pity and fear, the presence of a fatal flaw in the “hero”, and the use of law of probability.
“Art” is an interesting and complex term. When evaluating the subject and trying to have a general understanding of what art is, one has to have a clear awareness of basic art theory and common art-related knowledge. In a textbook, art could be described as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power; it could also be bluntly described as various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance. I agree with this definition to an extent—art is more than just a medium of appreciation. Art, in my opinion, is more about the message between the artist and the viewer.
Throughout the ages art has played a crucial role in life. Art is universal and because art is everywhere, we experience it on a daily basis. From the houses we live in (architecture) to the movies we see (theatre) to the books that we read (literature). Even in ancient culture art has played a crucial role. In prehistoric times cave dwellers drew on the wall of caves to record history. In biblical times paintings recorded the life and death of Christ. Throughout time art has recorded history. Most art is created for a specific reason or purpose, it has a way of expressing ideas and beliefs, and it can record the experiences of all people.
Art can be defined in many ways by an individual. One can say that any creative output by a person is considered art. Others contend that art must conform to a societal standard and the basis of the creation should be understood by most intellectual people. For example, some contend that computer-generated images, such as fractals, are not art due to the large role played by a computer. E.O. Wilson states “the exclusive role of the arts is to intensify aesthetic and emotional response. Works of art communicate feeling directly from mind to mind, with no intent to explain why the impact occurs” (218). A simple definition may be that art is the physical expression of the ideals formed by the mind.
There are distinct differences between the theories outlined within Aristotle’s Poetics and Bharata’s The Nāṭyaśāstra which both attempt to elaborate upon the audience relationship and the phenomenon produced relating to the theatrical experience. However, despite the dissimilarities there are components of catharsis and rasa that share common elements and ideas surrounding the creation and the effects of these experiences. Aristotle contends the cathartic nature of tragedy aids in purgation of emotion, however ultimately limiting it to the powers of tragedy as only creating this, where, contrarily, The Nāṭyaśāstra outlines the power any actor has in creating bhāva, leading to rasa. Whilst both theories do have common attributes in their aims of heightening an audience experience, it is the differentiating that outcomes that greatly affect their overall influence.