Response to Plato's View (Art As Imitation)

Throughout the week, we have discussed how art is an imitation of copied or ultimately "unreal" objects (which in my opinion does not make sense) through a platonic view. This whole conversation does make logical sense that artistic objects are copied on daily basis, but why does those objects have to be imitations. In my opinion, I feel that the word "imitation" has a negative stigma in society and should not be used to describe the inclusive subject of art. In general we can say that everything in this word is an imitation (which actually is true), ranging from furniture to human beings. But the topic that puzzles me the most within the field of imitation is "architecture". More or less, architectural structures such as styles of buildings (Victorian, Gothic, Colonial etc) are copied when new structures are being created, however those structures are being modified to an extent. Therefore the process of imitation is taking place but new ideas are being invented in the architecture world, although these new ideas are modified imitations. On the other hand,I can agree with the idea of imitation when relating to the internal framework of a building (electrical work, plumbing, carpentry etc.) because when it comes these tasks, there is only one correct to follow by. For instance lets say that I am a contractor and I decide to install the electrical work in a completely different manner than usual, creating a new innovative method that may or may not be successful. Most likely this new innovative method that was created probably will not be successful, therefore the building will not be properly lit. However in general, I cannot see "eye to eye" on Platos theory of art (which can be defined as anything) and most of his theories are based through his personal opinions. So the question that I am going to leave is that even though Plato claims that art is an imitation....., how can this statement be acceptable i the field of art?