bval1988

Muckelbauer Response

Beatriz Valdez

Summary Response: Muckelbauer

WC 847

Imitation and Invention

                In Imitation and Invention, Muckelbauer argues that imitation has always been present in everything that has been done, from art to teaching; imitation is at the core of these common practices. He contends that imitation was, especially, rooted in the art of teaching. However, he notes that imitation died out because of the movement of romanticism: invention, individuality, creation, etc.

                Even though it has been discussed that imitation has died out because of the Romantic Movement, Muckelbauer argues that imitation and invention are intertwined. How so? While imitation is not always regarded as original, it is argued that invention is a product produced by the imitation of something or someone internally. For example, when the poet writes his emotions out on a piece of a paper, is he not imitating his heart’s feelings? Even if people disagree with this idea, it can be said that the poet is imitating an imitation of his heart. In other words, imitation is inevitable because people are always searching to demonstrate exactly what they are feeling; in a sense, inventing a way to imitate something so that it may be regarded as new. This demonstrates that the relationship between imitation and invention is not as opposed as people believe it to be; there is a great deal of complexity between the two.

                The problem with imitation is that it presents itself everywhere. How do people distinguish between different types of imitation? One way people distinguished it was to categorize its use into three different categories: The first use was to expose ideal truths (philosophy), the second use was to use it in a way that would represent human actions (art and poetry), and the third use was to use it to copy and study models (learning). However, Muckelbauer notes that even though it is very simple to separate the three different types of imitation, they all intersect in some way. Yet, is there another explanation that won’t be as complicated? Muckelbauer discusses another approach which involves categorizing the use of imitation. He contends that each imitation has a model, a copy, and a relationship that exists between the model and the copy. It is the way that the imitation uses the model that will determine what kind of imitation it is.

                In the first movement of imitation, the subject tries to copy the model exactly as it is. This is known as repetition of the same: reproduction. In this sort of imitation, the subject tries to duplicate the model exactly as it is, therefore, alterations are not acceptable. If alterations are not acceptable, then invention is something that is certainly opposed. When this method is applied to teaching, the ideal outcome is for students to imitate the style of respected authors. The students would select several authors, do extensive research on the authors, select one, and study the authors works intensively. Ideally, this approach is strictly imitation, but invention is actually present in this process. Muckelbauer points out that each student has different thoughts about the same pieces of work; inevitably, different viewpoints will be introduced. Also, while a student was developing a style, he was absorbing information from different authors. All the ideas from the different authors would produce the style the student was trying to imitate, but it would invent a new way of looking at a piece.

                In the second movement of imitation, the subject attempts to reproduce the model, but has an understanding that variation with the imitation is inevitable. According to Muckelbauer, Aristotle believed that in this sort of imitation, the subject would not only imitate, but add something of himself to the model.  Poetry is an excellent example in demonstrating this movement of imitation. According to Muckelbauer’s text, poetry is supposed teach and entertain. While someone is imitating a piece of poetry, they are teaching the general audience about poetry, but they will inevitably add voice, style, etc to the piece to make it their own. Muckelbauer contends that as a result, imitation is important in this movement of imitation, but invention is also important.

                The third movement of imitation is known as inspiration. In this movement, the relationship between the subject and the model is the most important. It is how the model makes the subject feel that will produce the inspiration necessary for this type of imitation. According to Muckelbauer, the subject tries to duplicate the model from within. He states that Quintilian noted this and made the realization that students will not know how to respond to every situation and that it is the students’ responsibility to become inspired by the models and learn that way.

                Muckelbauer ends the essay by realizing that imitation is not as clear cut as it may seems; imitation is an underlying, intertwined, intersecting practice that trickles into everyday practices such as philosophy, literature, and rhetoric. He contends that as long as people approach imitation by the type of model rather than the movement, he assures that imitation and invention will be something that is not easily explained.