In Drishtantoist Sight, Journey for Enjoying Poetic Beauty
First chapter: Plagiarism and Imitation
(Poetry is the creator of theory. In reverse order, theory may be so. Here are obviously two statements. The two statements are true. For this, we have had romanticism, realism, impressionism, futurism, surrealism, existentialism etc. And we have had poetry by the influence of the theories. Holding western time-based postmodernism, (it is mentionable, some Uttar Adhunik writers say that postmodernity and Uttar Adhunikata are not same matter. They want to say that the translation of ‘Uttar’ may not be ‘post’. According to them, `Uttar’ means ‘Uttoran’, the ascension of Adhunikata) some scholars of our two Bangla (Bangladesh and Calcutta) claim that they are working for showing movement of poetry of the mentioned areas from the first time of our independence. And they also claim that they are working for show main road to Bengali poetry from the time. Thinking the practice of western modernism as malignant tumor, to me, they are giving importance to be root-loving. But, at present, scholar of the world is working on language poetry, new formalism, critical theory, multi-culturism, new narratives and identity poetics avoiding the chapters of classical, modern and postmodern poetry….
…Drishtantoism is neither a blind exponent of modern and postmodern literatures nor an extreme opponent of them, wants to make the readers (or the society) argument-prone and freedom-loving. This philosophy takes importantly the positive-creative aspects of the mentioned two flows of literature criticizing their existing backwardness & darkwardness, and extremely supports the exposition of thing-based reality ignoring every intangibility and invisibility…
…Of the two propositions, namely ”’there is God”’ and ”’there is no God”’, which is really true, Drishtantoism realizes, will remain uncertain forever. Taking these by the practice of another’s religion some will be theist and some will be atheist. The philosophy is neither theistic nor atheistic. For this, ”’to serve creature is to serve own world”’ is acceptable, but “to serve creature is to serve God” is…
…The imitation theory of Plato is: common is archetypal, nature is its’ example and Fine arts are the imitation of the example. His ‘common’ indicates the idealistic world. To him, the common is true. And, because of being imitated by common, worldly matters are not true. Fine arts are the imitation of worldly matters, for this, they stay at far difference from the common. That is, to him, Fine arts are an imitation of an imitation. Drishtantoism doesn’t support the speech as Aristotle didn’t. Criticizing the speech, Aristotle said that real world was not the imitation of another world (or, copy of copy), fine arts was the imitation of the real world.
About imitation, Drishtantoism criticizes Aristotle, when he said that artists became eager to bring out model or exact form of a thing. To mean imitation of nature, Drishtantoism doesn’t accept its photograph except its imaginary presentation. And such imitation is rudiment of arts. A poem may be said imitated by nature, when it will be written by using identical name (word) of vivid things….)