Worringer tells us that "it is necessary to agree on this, that the instinct of imitation, this elementary need of man, stands outside of aesthetics in the proper sense and that its satisfaction has in principle nothing to do with art." --- which he tells us "is created out of mankind's psychological needs, the highest happiness"
Whereas Aristotle asserted that wrote that "to learn gives the liveliest pleasure, not only to philosophers but to men in general; whose capacity, however, of learning is more limited" -- and that is Aristotle's explanation for the universal pleasure felt in things imitated. So, it looks like what we have, here, is a profound difference of opinion. I'm inclined to agree with The Philosopher, because I'm really not sure how to draw the line between imitation and what Worringer calls "naturalism" or " the expression of organic vitality" And I'm doubting that Aristotle would have made that distinction, either. I.e. -- one sort of man (the ordinary kind - of limited knowledge) is pleased by an imitation of ordinary things, while another kind of man (the philosopher) is pleased by an imitation of things that only a philosopher might be able to notice. ____________________________________________________________ Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxSDIDDfzF79agcQFQspfDG3z jfiT6chWyEsLrEbjJ0cUNLLhKsXFO/
