Croce: Imitation in art

By -
"L'imitazione in arte è lecita solo, quando non è più imitazione: quando è conforme affatto al modo di concepire dell'artista, che si dice che imiti. E, in tal caso, non si può più parlare di mio e il tuo. Si deve dire piuttosto con Montaigne 'Ce n'est plus selon Platon que selon moi, puisque luy et moi nous l'entendons et veoyons de mesme.'"

Imitation in art is licit only when it is not very imitative: when it conforms in fact to the mode of conception of the artist who is said to imitate. And, in that case, one cannot talk of mine and yours. Rather one must say, with Montaigne: "Ce n'est plus selon Platon que selon moi, puisque luy et moi nous l'entendons et veoyons de mesme."

Comments

  1. Silas Barta6:48 PM

    Imitation in art is permissible only when followed by the quotation of "Imitation in art is permissible only when followed by the quotation of "

    (or something in French ...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:59 PM

      You seem to have a complaint here, Silas, But I'm not sure what it is. Is it that I did not translate the French? Well, in doing translation, One does not do that: If in the original language an author quoted something in a third language, It stays in that language. Or is your complaint something else?

      Delete
  2. nyc adventures11:30 PM

    the translation is correct.... and I like your selection of Croce

    ReplyDelete
  3. nyc adventures11:31 PM

    I like the translation and the selection you are doing of Croce

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more