The difference in imitation of poetry and tragedy can be narrowed down to three aspects according to Aristotle: “the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation”. He describes one form of imitation as being actions, where there is conscious effort behind the form of imitation, for example dance, music, where various objects are being represented. Prose or verse is another form of imitation that imitates just by language alone. In addition, the act of imitation imitates either a person who is above us or lower than us; they outline the good and bad of our morality and serve as examples, different from real life.

For poetry specifically, Aristotle believes that the instinct of imitation comes from a base instinct we have as children. We learn our very first lessons from imitation, and this gives us pleasure. I find his point about our fascination with the more undesirable and ill parts of life that we may dislike when in direct connection with them, like death or illness. He states that we are fascinated with these ideas because we learn from them; they are unfamiliar are therefore we feel we can gain knowledge from what we may infer. I agree with this statement and I feel it answers my own questioning as to why people enjoy true crime or why I sometimes find myself fascinated by murder and abuse even while I feel disgusted at myself for doing so. It is the longing to know more, to know why, that gives us this desire and this fixation. The other aspect of imitation in poetry is rhythm.

For Tragedy, Aristotle goes more in depth. He states that plot, is of the first importance, then character, and there are many different forms of plot that are essential. Aristotle believes that fear and pity are what captures us regarding art, and the plot must tell the story so that our fear and thrill gives way to pity. For Character, the character must be good, have propriety, remain true to life, and be consistent, according to Aristotle. Though I agree that for the most part this holds true, I also wonder why we look for characters that are ordinary, so much like us, and their stories still seem extraordinary to us in some way.

Aristotle’s positive take on imitation in art definitely helps one to understand what art is and why we are so fascinated by art. Art is part of our humanity, and always has been, but it is difficult to understand with our rational mind why we love art. Aristotle breaks this down quite simply: art is a form of imitation, and imitation is a base human instinct that we must have in order to learn. I do feel that this approach answers a lot of questions, but some remain unanswered in my mind. Must we always look for something meaningful in art, something that stirs emotion, for it to be art? I still struggle to understand where the line between art and reality remains, or if they are even separate entities at all.

512 words