But the difference is that diderot asked for a much higher degree of reflection of nature than buvaro. He believed that everything objectively existed in nature had certain regularity of its development. There is nothing in nature that is not right, and any form, whether good or bad, has its cause. In his opinion, although classicism also advocates "imitation of nature", but that nature has been feudalized and standardized, is a contradiction created by artificiality, is hypocritical, does not occur in the nature of the action, is correct, artificial. Diderot believed that what art needs is uncarved and turbulent nature, because this kind of nature is full of primitive breath and exuberant vitality, and is full of the "huge and rough and savage boldness" that art needs. This is a very different idea from buvaro's. We can see that diderot expressed his "imitation of nature" from the standpoint of the common people or, more accurately, the bourgeoisie, which is fundamentally opposed to buvaro from the standpoint of the feudal ruling class.
Diderot also believed that art is selective in its imitation of nature. It cannot be satisfied by depicting the appearance of things, but should process the original natural things. Diderot believed that artists should have a sense of talent, imagination and poetry. To reduce and add something normal to nature, the art required to imitate nature should be based on and beyond nature. Moreover, diderot's idea of combining truth, virtue and beauty is also unique. He believed that kindness is the foundation of beauty, and that beauty in art does not exist without natural truth and moral goodness.
We can now think so, compared with the cloth the warrens diderot's theory of nature is a big step forward, first of all, he is sure to imitate nature must oppose already feudalization of the program, just eyes focused on the noble, and neglect the existence of the grassroots, so creating beauty is not perfect, it is not a sound. Diderot's proposition is to fight against the decadent feudal literature and art system with "primitive" and "rough" beauty, which can be said to be progressive at that time. Secondly, diderot paid attention to the imitation of nature, which was selective and required the unification of truth, virtue and beauty. This dialectical philosophical concept was a great step forward compared with buvaro's. In short, the warrens of imitating nature theory of literature and art exist serious defects, to art imitating nature of the restrictions and regulations greatly narrow the scope of literature and art reflect reality, and diderot as a representative of the enlightenment thinker of the 18th century outstanding against cloth warrens of literary theory defects and puts forward the new "imitate nature" is a major advance of this theory. There is no denying that diderot's theory also has some shortcomings. For example, the art he advocates should be primitive and barbaric, which is not comprehensive in today's eyes.
In any case, both buvaro and diderot, as pioneers of literary and art theory in their times, made important contributions to the development of literary and art theory at that time and provided necessary channels for us to understand the development of western literary and art theory.
