Mimesis (Matthew Potolsky, preface, Mimesis)
=============================================
Wolran Kim
September 2013
I often heard that all creation begins from imitation. Literature is not exceptional here. The dictionary meaning of mimesis is the representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature, or the deliberate imitation of the behavior of one group of people by another as a factor in social change. Usually in everyday experiences, the word mimesis gives a negative feeling rather than a positive one. Mimesis reminds me of all the unjust and dishonest words such as imitation, copying, copycat, parody, pattern, model, example, mixed, plagiarism, risk, and impurity.
Mimesis also makes me recall immature images like monkeys, parrots, or children who mock humans or adults. Potolsky’s expression, “approaching, emulation, mimicry, dissimulation, doubling, theatricality, realism, identification, correspondence, depiction, verisimilitude, resemblance (Potolsky, p.2)” is also accompanied by negative connotations such as ignorance, folly, simplicity, danger, illegal, or distortion. Mimesis is stealing the soul. The reason for my awareness of the irrational behavior from mimesis is the same as Plato’s opinion in Republic, which argues about the expelling of a poet.
Plato criticizes mimesis with the concept of Idea, the truth. According to him, the truth is the most essential thing inherent in formation, and it is only enabled through pure rationality, not by imitation. In metaphysics, reality and the truth are invisible and unchangeable pure Ideas. However, literature is far from the truth because it only targets visible objects or symptoms. Thus, all artists’ creations are nothing more than imitated faults and pretenses. Plato’s anti-art is the same theory of a shadow of the truth, which never shows reality. People are deceived by the shadow in Plato’s Cave. Literature that only copies visible things is not required.
On the contrary, Aristotle’s Poetics praises mimesis; according to a theory about ‘the instinct of imitation,’ all behaviors of human beings begin from imitation, and all patterns of education are done in the process of mimesis. All mankind’s cultural heritage also exists by mimesis. Especially in literature, the French Revolution was sparked out from the works of Voltaire and Rousseau, Russian serfdom had shocked the novels of Tolstoy and Turgenev, Ibsen’s Doll’s House became a prelude to feminism, and Mrs. Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was the flash point of the Civil War, such as Potolsky pointing out the ‘Werther effect’ from The Sorrows of Young Werther.
All creations of people are positive and developed results that began from the negative image of mimesis. This paradox of mimesis is similar with the contradiction between the individual and society, and the relationship between privacy and national security issues. Aristotle’s imitational instinct led to philosophical thought. God created human by imitation of his own image in the Old Testament.
The DNA of mimesis is a congenital gene and also a tool for the survival of the human race because children are born with similar looks as their parents and the children die after giving birth to their children who look just like them. Children learn language and go through the learning process by mimesis. All humans have the same needs and desire of representations. The boundaries of mimesis are bound to be ambiguous if we consider Freud’s unconscious imitation and the model of Darwinian imitation.
The patent wars in the industrial society and the concern of copyright in the Internet world that are caused by mimesis have become the biggest issues in modern society. It is plagiarism if I copy a letter and the way of writing; however, it would be secondary plagiarism if I wrote stagnant expressions of emotions and opinions after reading others’ works. True mimesis is not simple copying.
A great mimesis understands strong points, advantages, merits, and mental idealism of the original. This point is an advantage of the mimesis theory of Aristotle. This is not a mimicking plagiarism and blind obedience, but a creative mimesis. Authors should input created respiration based on modeled works to show excellent results. Mimesis should be a means to overtake. Aristotle’s positive theory of mimesis is also a type of an imitative result based on his mentor Plato’s negative theory of the same topic. Thus, mimesis is the most useful method of competition or conflict.
According to Aristotle, a reason for the existence of art is human instincts of mimesis, and the pleasure and learning of imitated results. Art is much more universal than reality because it contains all possibilities. History is only about certain individual occurrences but art includes future expectations and suppositions beyond the past and present. This is a very impressive theory about the negative image of mimesis to me, so I can totally agree with his opinion that art is more universal, real, and philosophical than facts. Aristotle’s universal concept of mimesis helps us understand human’s ability of representation and its method. His middle concept between learning and experience shows accurate cognition about art. People will know what a dog looks like when they see my pictures of my dog, Toby.
Aristotle sees the aesthetic world of arts to the world of mimesis, and all mimics of fine art have a reason for existence and their own value system, rather than just an imitation of reality. His concept of mimesis is not for the truth, justice, or virtue, but by instinct. Art is mimesis because it simulates different types of material, not because of imitation of other entities or ideas. I personally am convinced by Aristotle’s contention rather than Plato’s because even that distorted shadow from the truth shows the shape of truth or reality, and further, it brings solace about the artistic human desire and emotional catharsis. Human instinct always passes over the truth.
In Plato’s argument, literature is simply mimicry of a monkey without any relationship to the truth. It is just fake, imitation, and is never serious. However, as Aristotle claims, art inevitably comes into being as long as humans possess an unchanging nature, and obtain pleasure and satisfaction. Mimesis, especially in literature, is not about ideas outside of human reality, but about the universal human mentality and behavior of the living world. The essence of things eventually could be found in fact, not outside of it. Universal essence of human beings always exists inside of human lives and it is their true essence. The individual and special facts cannot represent universal nature.
Aristotle proposed the theory of probability. According to him, the universe and nature are under the rule of common law, and this law contains elements of generality and probability. Thus, the discovery of probability is the way to the truth, and this probability makes literature universal. History is just a description of individual facts so it cannot deal with what is more valuable to the truth. His theory about literature and history is really interesting to me. Literature deals with probability, and consequently, it is the universal truth. In this sense, literature imitates the truth of life, the probability.
In Aristotle’s argument, the picture of an animal is not mimesis but creation. Literature also imitates nature because it has organizing principles such as organisms of life and of animals. The unity of literary work is the same as organic life and it produce a unique pleasure. His admiration of tragedy is from a simple, complex, characteristic, or pathos matter.
That literary parody brings catharsis such as fear, sorrow, pity, or joy. So mimesis, literature, and pleasure are equal. “Aristotle extends his claim that mimesis is rational to his account of the ways in which tragedy affects its audience (Potolsky, p.43).” All mimesis are dramatic forms, not description of the stories, and their characters deliver fear and pity to the audience or its readers. Those similar feelings develop delightful emotions.
All humans go though stages of mimesis. Some professor replied, “You read all the stories of the world and write something different from them,” to the student’s question, “How can I write a great novel?” Here, reading all others is a stage of mimesis, and writing a different story is a kind of secondary mimesis because we can only write something different when we know about the originals. Thus, I think that no one can be free from mimesis fundamentally. Reading the classics is a way of learning and imitating the principle, the rule. The boundary of mimesis in technical skill of representation or reflection becomes a matter of course.
I am curious to know how Aristotle describes comedy as literature in his lost Comedy compared with his praise of Tragedy. His admiration of tragedy is convincing because a film that makes me cry is much more lingering than a film that makes me laugh. The excitement of the tragedy evokes philosophical speculation and the truth of life. The audience comes out of the theater peacefully after throwing away all their pains.
“Aristotle also argues that the tragic action should adhere to reason and the norms of human cognition (Potolsky, p. 42).” The feeling of unhappiness that anyone can have is an element of catharsis, and the pleasure of catharsis is the same as the solving of physical needs in the bathroom. Aristotle’s first definition about the tragic effect is much more sympathetic than Plato’s opinion that literature is useless because we can just feel from reading without even playing or experiencing it.
=============================================
Wolran Kim
September 2013
I often heard that all creation begins from imitation. Literature is not exceptional here. The dictionary meaning of mimesis is the representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature, or the deliberate imitation of the behavior of one group of people by another as a factor in social change. Usually in everyday experiences, the word mimesis gives a negative feeling rather than a positive one. Mimesis reminds me of all the unjust and dishonest words such as imitation, copying, copycat, parody, pattern, model, example, mixed, plagiarism, risk, and impurity.
Mimesis also makes me recall immature images like monkeys, parrots, or children who mock humans or adults. Potolsky’s expression, “approaching, emulation, mimicry, dissimulation, doubling, theatricality, realism, identification, correspondence, depiction, verisimilitude, resemblance (Potolsky, p.2)” is also accompanied by negative connotations such as ignorance, folly, simplicity, danger, illegal, or distortion. Mimesis is stealing the soul. The reason for my awareness of the irrational behavior from mimesis is the same as Plato’s opinion in Republic, which argues about the expelling of a poet.
Plato criticizes mimesis with the concept of Idea, the truth. According to him, the truth is the most essential thing inherent in formation, and it is only enabled through pure rationality, not by imitation. In metaphysics, reality and the truth are invisible and unchangeable pure Ideas. However, literature is far from the truth because it only targets visible objects or symptoms. Thus, all artists’ creations are nothing more than imitated faults and pretenses. Plato’s anti-art is the same theory of a shadow of the truth, which never shows reality. People are deceived by the shadow in Plato’s Cave. Literature that only copies visible things is not required.
On the contrary, Aristotle’s Poetics praises mimesis; according to a theory about ‘the instinct of imitation,’ all behaviors of human beings begin from imitation, and all patterns of education are done in the process of mimesis. All mankind’s cultural heritage also exists by mimesis. Especially in literature, the French Revolution was sparked out from the works of Voltaire and Rousseau, Russian serfdom had shocked the novels of Tolstoy and Turgenev, Ibsen’s Doll’s House became a prelude to feminism, and Mrs. Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was the flash point of the Civil War, such as Potolsky pointing out the ‘Werther effect’ from The Sorrows of Young Werther.
All creations of people are positive and developed results that began from the negative image of mimesis. This paradox of mimesis is similar with the contradiction between the individual and society, and the relationship between privacy and national security issues. Aristotle’s imitational instinct led to philosophical thought. God created human by imitation of his own image in the Old Testament.
The DNA of mimesis is a congenital gene and also a tool for the survival of the human race because children are born with similar looks as their parents and the children die after giving birth to their children who look just like them. Children learn language and go through the learning process by mimesis. All humans have the same needs and desire of representations. The boundaries of mimesis are bound to be ambiguous if we consider Freud’s unconscious imitation and the model of Darwinian imitation.
The patent wars in the industrial society and the concern of copyright in the Internet world that are caused by mimesis have become the biggest issues in modern society. It is plagiarism if I copy a letter and the way of writing; however, it would be secondary plagiarism if I wrote stagnant expressions of emotions and opinions after reading others’ works. True mimesis is not simple copying.
A great mimesis understands strong points, advantages, merits, and mental idealism of the original. This point is an advantage of the mimesis theory of Aristotle. This is not a mimicking plagiarism and blind obedience, but a creative mimesis. Authors should input created respiration based on modeled works to show excellent results. Mimesis should be a means to overtake. Aristotle’s positive theory of mimesis is also a type of an imitative result based on his mentor Plato’s negative theory of the same topic. Thus, mimesis is the most useful method of competition or conflict.
According to Aristotle, a reason for the existence of art is human instincts of mimesis, and the pleasure and learning of imitated results. Art is much more universal than reality because it contains all possibilities. History is only about certain individual occurrences but art includes future expectations and suppositions beyond the past and present. This is a very impressive theory about the negative image of mimesis to me, so I can totally agree with his opinion that art is more universal, real, and philosophical than facts. Aristotle’s universal concept of mimesis helps us understand human’s ability of representation and its method. His middle concept between learning and experience shows accurate cognition about art. People will know what a dog looks like when they see my pictures of my dog, Toby.
Aristotle sees the aesthetic world of arts to the world of mimesis, and all mimics of fine art have a reason for existence and their own value system, rather than just an imitation of reality. His concept of mimesis is not for the truth, justice, or virtue, but by instinct. Art is mimesis because it simulates different types of material, not because of imitation of other entities or ideas. I personally am convinced by Aristotle’s contention rather than Plato’s because even that distorted shadow from the truth shows the shape of truth or reality, and further, it brings solace about the artistic human desire and emotional catharsis. Human instinct always passes over the truth.
In Plato’s argument, literature is simply mimicry of a monkey without any relationship to the truth. It is just fake, imitation, and is never serious. However, as Aristotle claims, art inevitably comes into being as long as humans possess an unchanging nature, and obtain pleasure and satisfaction. Mimesis, especially in literature, is not about ideas outside of human reality, but about the universal human mentality and behavior of the living world. The essence of things eventually could be found in fact, not outside of it. Universal essence of human beings always exists inside of human lives and it is their true essence. The individual and special facts cannot represent universal nature.
Aristotle proposed the theory of probability. According to him, the universe and nature are under the rule of common law, and this law contains elements of generality and probability. Thus, the discovery of probability is the way to the truth, and this probability makes literature universal. History is just a description of individual facts so it cannot deal with what is more valuable to the truth. His theory about literature and history is really interesting to me. Literature deals with probability, and consequently, it is the universal truth. In this sense, literature imitates the truth of life, the probability.
In Aristotle’s argument, the picture of an animal is not mimesis but creation. Literature also imitates nature because it has organizing principles such as organisms of life and of animals. The unity of literary work is the same as organic life and it produce a unique pleasure. His admiration of tragedy is from a simple, complex, characteristic, or pathos matter.
That literary parody brings catharsis such as fear, sorrow, pity, or joy. So mimesis, literature, and pleasure are equal. “Aristotle extends his claim that mimesis is rational to his account of the ways in which tragedy affects its audience (Potolsky, p.43).” All mimesis are dramatic forms, not description of the stories, and their characters deliver fear and pity to the audience or its readers. Those similar feelings develop delightful emotions.
All humans go though stages of mimesis. Some professor replied, “You read all the stories of the world and write something different from them,” to the student’s question, “How can I write a great novel?” Here, reading all others is a stage of mimesis, and writing a different story is a kind of secondary mimesis because we can only write something different when we know about the originals. Thus, I think that no one can be free from mimesis fundamentally. Reading the classics is a way of learning and imitating the principle, the rule. The boundary of mimesis in technical skill of representation or reflection becomes a matter of course.
I am curious to know how Aristotle describes comedy as literature in his lost Comedy compared with his praise of Tragedy. His admiration of tragedy is convincing because a film that makes me cry is much more lingering than a film that makes me laugh. The excitement of the tragedy evokes philosophical speculation and the truth of life. The audience comes out of the theater peacefully after throwing away all their pains.
“Aristotle also argues that the tragic action should adhere to reason and the norms of human cognition (Potolsky, p. 42).” The feeling of unhappiness that anyone can have is an element of catharsis, and the pleasure of catharsis is the same as the solving of physical needs in the bathroom. Aristotle’s first definition about the tragic effect is much more sympathetic than Plato’s opinion that literature is useless because we can just feel from reading without even playing or experiencing it.
