Between
Imitation and Invention
When
settling on a title for my book on emulation in art and architecture, I wanted
the publisher (Ashgate UK,) to include the word “Challenge.” Emulation is a challenge: it is challenging to
understand, since most people don’t understand how it differs from imitation;
it is challenging to adopt as a method, since those who discern in themselves
(or are taught) a love of the past tend to revere it to the point of pessimism,
not able to imagine how one might actually rival
Bernini or Bramante; and it is challenging to practice, because the standard of
achievement is not the pale approximation that most “traditional” artists and
architects are satisfied with, but at least parity with a model, if not exceeding
it. The point, as Quintilian suggested for orators, was that if one didn’t try
to surpass a model, he or she would always be behind. And, for pre-Modern
cultures, that was never enough. This aspiration to exceed explains everything
from Roman sculpture to Gothic architecture to Renaissance painting to Baroque
opera.
I
hope this new book, now available, will recover for our culture that optimistic
relationship with the past we once had, which has been lost since the late
eighteenth century. It is the way out of a cultural morass that pins us between
pessimistic imitation and naïve invention (there is certainly a form of
invention that is not naïve, but that is for another book…).
I
welcome comments on the book from engaged readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment