Of what use were the arts if they were only the reproduction and the imitation of life?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
All art is but imitation of nature.
Sometimes art imitates life.
For the Chinese, the Greeks, the Mayans, or the Egyptians, nature was a living totality, a creative being. For this reason, art, according to Aristotle, is imitation; the poet imitates the creative gesture of nature.
Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life.
Art is not a treasure in the past or an importation from another land, but part of the present life of all living and creating peoples.
Art does imitate life, it has to come from somewhere. To put boundaries and limitations on it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Art should be life. It's an imitation of life. It should have some humanity in it.
The arts, as a reflection of human existence at its highest, have always and spontaneously lived up to this demand of plenitude. No mature style of art in any culture has ever been simple.
The arts stimulate imagination. They provoke thought. And then, having done that, all sorts of other things happen.
Painting and sculpture are very archaic forms. It's the only thing left in our industrial society where an individual alone can make something with not just his own hands, but brains, imagination, heart maybe.
No opposing quotes found.