Stevens 1
Representation Rift
Believing in the existence of an ultimate truth, both Plato and Aristotle perceived the representation of universal reality to be of great importance. In pursuit of the rightful conveyance of truth, Plato went so far as to advocate the eradication of all literature which presumably distorted a clear understanding of such universal truths, and Aristotle, likewise, limited the arts to the portrayal of the plausible. While Plato and Aristotle agreed to the extent that universal truths exist and ought to be known and emulated, the two philosophers differed considerably on their views of how representation in art leads to or away from the universals.
While Plato approached artistic mimesis from the standpoint that it draws people further away from understanding the universals, Aristotle believed that mimesis in the arts actually moves people closer to the universals.
Plato perceived representation to be a gross distortion of the rightful universal forms, ultimately leading its viewers further from the understanding and emulation of truth. Within his written works, Plato set forth what he believed to be “a realm of unchanging being to which the world of individual mutable objects is subordinate” (42), a realm known as the Forms. He believed that because the Forms were an unchanging, incorporeal entity, they exist as the rightful forms, or true objects, of everything experienced in the material world. For Plato, then, the material world consists merely of downgraded imitations of the ideal Forms, the basis of everything proper and good (43). In accordance with his understanding of the material world as a sensual replica of the Forms, Plato saw art as particularly abhorrent because it “represents[s] what is already an inferior representation of the true original (the Forms), and can only lead further away from the truth, and further into a world of illusion and deception” (43). Based on his assumption as to the prospect of art, Plato viewed poets and their work as highly

Stevens 2 objectionable as well as dangerous to society. He sums his up his assessment of art succinctly in the Republic when he states “that not only does painting—or rather representation in general— produce a product which is far from truth, but it also forms a close, warm, affectionate relationship with a part of us which is, in its turn, far from intelligence. And nothing healthy or authentic can emerge from this relationship” (72).
Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that mimesis within art functions to bridge the gap between the particular occurrences of life and the universal ideals, ultimately moving its viewers toward recognition and internalization of truth. Aristotle did not view art as a downgraded conveyance of the particulars; rather he believed art to be a superior form to the particulars mainly because it portrays events or situations that may in actuality occur (95). He explains this point in Poetics by differentiating between history and art. He writes, “For the historian and the poet do not differ according to whether they write in verse or without verse….But the difference is that the former relates things that have happened, the latter things that may happen” (95). For
Aristotle, this difference qualifies as well as validates art as a means of discerning truth: “For this reason poetry is a more philosophical and more serious thing than history; poetry tends to speak of universals, history of particulars” (95).
Believing that art does not merely convey a cheap imitation of the particulars, Aristotle asserted that it functions to bridge the gap between the particulars of life and the universals.
He puts forth the validity of this assertion through his detailed explication of tragedy, purporting this idea specifically in relation to the central action of tragedy as well as through the contained environment of its display. Aristotle writes in Poetics that “Tragedy is a representation not of human beings, but of action and life” (93) and that “[the actors] do not act in order to represent the characters, but they include the characters for the sake of their actions” (93). Aristotle

Stevens 3 believed that tragedy is not about displaying the particular actions of any one character, but about creating an overlying plot that transcends the individual actors. The contained environment in which the universally relevant action is acted out affords audiences a means of internalizing universal truths without actually having to make the fatal mistake of the protagonist. Within a contained setting, then, people are able to synthesize the particulars of life into a universal truth.
In Oedipus Rex, for example, the universal expression of truth—fate cannot be avoided—is synthesized through an overriding action that leads Oedipus to eventually kill his father and marry his mother. Without actually making the mistake of the tragic protagonist, the audience is induced to synthesize the particulars of the represented action and simultaneously internalize a universals truth—subordination to fate is inevitable.
Plato perceived art to be a cheap imitation of already diminished material forms. He called for the eradication of poetry because he believed it to have the capacity to influence people for the worst by leading them further from the truth. He writes in Book X of the Republic that “‘what’s in the balance here is absolutely crucial…It’s whether one becomes a good or bad person’” (77). Aristotle saw art as a means of amalgamating the particulars and universals, ultimately causing people to internalize the universals. For Aristotle, the recognition of ultimate truth superseded even the accurate portrayal of the particulars, an idea which would have likely outraged Plato. Aristotle writes that “Impossible incidents that are believable should be preferred to possible ones that are unbelievable” (111). While Plato disregarded art in order to search for truth through philosophical study and discourse, Aristotle embraced art as a valid means of ascertaining the universals.

Stevens 4
Bibliography
Aristotle. Poetics. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Eds. Leitch, Vincent B.,
William E. Cain, Laurie A Finke, Barbara E Johnson, John McGowan, T. Denean
Sharpley-Whiting, and Jeffrey Williams. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.
83-115. Print.
Plato. Republic.
The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Eds. Leitch, Vincent B.,
William E. Cain, Laurie A Finke, Barbara E Johnson, John McGowan, T. Denean
Sharpley-Whiting, and Jeffrey Williams. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.
41-77. Print.