فصلنامه نقد ادبی (Aug 2022)
Form of Mimesis: Rethinking the Neglected Aspect of Mimesis Theory
Abstract
Mimesis, as one of the fundamental views on the nature of art and literature, has always been a dominant theory in the philosophy of art from ancient Greece to the eighteenth century. In the contemporary period, thinkers such as Auerbach, Gerard, and followers of the Chicago School - each from a particular perspective - have given a new reading of it. However, mimesis is essentially an anti-formalist theory that focuses on the state of affairs in the real world due to its adherence to the principle of reference. Accordingly, the theory of imitation implies the examination of the truth and falsity of works of art based on the principle of conformity and attention to the referential function of language. This is why mimesis in Plato's system of thought leads to his anti-artistic stance. However, the present study has emerged from the heart of the tradition of imitation in the philosophy of art. Relying on the principles of the theory of mimesis, it has tried to examine the origins of this view and make arguments according to which mimesis, in case it addresses the form and not the subject of mimesis, has the potential to become, in a new reading, an introduction to formalist theory and not necessarily an alternative or competing theory. In this research, it becomes clear that mimesis in its specific meaning, in the first place, requires the abstraction of the form of affairs. In the second place, the abstracted form is reconfigured and takes on a new form based on the artistic matter (which, in verbal art, is language and its signs). In this way, the truth and falsity of the work of art in this case is possible not by referring the extra-text or the outside world but by examining the internal system of the work. This entails the self-sufficiency of the work of art, which is one of the fundamental traits of formalism. Extended abstract Introduction: Mimesis is one of the fundamental theories in the philosophy of art and literature, under which the nature and essence of art is discussed. Therefore, for a more accurate understanding of the role of mimesis and its importance in explaining the mechanism of the work of art, we first briefly mention those key questions that are addressed under the common views on the philosophy of art, and then the issues that we believe are related to the theory of mimesis. We are then detremined to yield each question a suitable answer. The fundamental viewpoints about the philosophy of art and literature can be divided into four groups (cf. Abrams, 1953: 3-46): a. The first viewpoint focuses on the "what" of the work of art and basically deals with the issue of representation. According to this view, art is like a mirror that represents the outside world; But the problem is, which category of phenomena, actions, state of affairs or human deeds is going to be represented and through what means. The theory of mimesis is placed under this viewpoint. b) The second point of view focuses on the "how" of the creation of the work of art and basically deals with those artistic arrangements that transform the raw material of art into a desirable and ideal form of art. Formalism, and new criticism can be examined under this section. c) The third point of view is directed towards the creator of the art work or to "who" is the author of the work. From this perspective, the social, historical and psychological contexts of the author are important. It is obvious that examining the position of the artist or the author in order to examine the work is one of the most important concerns of such viewpoints. The subject of poesis is examined under this point of view. d) The fourth point of view focuses on the purpose of the work of art and answers the question "why". This point of view generally pays attention to the audience of art and consequently the moral, rhetorical and telological purposes of the work of art are examined under this viewpoint. In this way, according to the first point of view, in case the subject of art or literature is limited to the state of affairs in the world, it seems that documentary cinema, photography, historiography, biography and realist or naturalist novels are more original in comparison with other genres and literary types. However, the question still remains whether the theory of mimesis is limited to these aesthetic boundaries and if it could examine all literary and artistic genres from this static point of view, or it is bound to change in a way that it does not neglect any longer other aspects related to the nature and value of art. In the same way, if a literary theory claims that the literary work is aimed at the representation of the outside world, the question still remains that through what means/devices the representation itself is possible. Accordingly, is it necessart that the concept of the outside world, the state of affairs and nature be expanded in such a way that the theory of mimesis includes all forms of art, or should the conceptual scope of mimesis be limited in such a way that those forms of arts just due to their not being included under the concept of mimesis are automatically removed from the ideal concept of art, or else interpreted as non-original works. In order to answer these questions, the present research, while paying attention to the theoretical considerations about the theory of mimesis, in the first stage analyzes the issue of reference and the principle of correspondence in works of art to clarify whether non-mimetic representation is necessarily non-referential or is it dependent on it. For this reason, after differentiating mimesis into two general and specific types, we argue how the form of mimesis makes the work of art be dependent upon the referential theory while simultaneously evade it. As a result, the present research finally reveals the arrangements through which the form of mimesis, as a non-semantic layer, has a potential to be semanticized. Results: Examining the theory of mimesis from the perspective of the form and not the subject of mimesis reveals that despite the common idea about "mimesis in its general sense" according to which mimesis is based on the representation of the outside world, the scrutiny of how mimesis works through special artistic means and arrangements revelas that in " mimesis in its specific sense" the principle of reference is suspended. Based on the principle of reference, the representation of the outside world requires paying attention to the examplars, the state of affairs and the world as a whole. However, this study shows that mimesis in a specific sense not only suspends the principle of reference, but also expands the concept of the outside world to the concept of the possible world. Therefore, in case there is a reference in the context of art, it is considered as art’s secondary purpose. Indeed, such a reference is not necessarily directed to the outside world in its general sense, but operates in a wider realm of possible worlds. According to such a reading, which is the result of the writer's reflections, mimesis theory- in the sense that we apply- adheres to one principle in order to represent the world, i.e. mimesis entails the reflection of the state of affairs. But reflecting the state of affairs, according to our arguments in this research, can be done in two ways; One by paying attention to the content of mimesis and the other by paying attention to the form of mimesis. The content of mimesis is related to determining the truth and falsity of propsitions. Their truth and falsity can thus be checked by referring to the possible world. Of course, we note that the conditions of truth and falsity in possible worlds are variable, and in fact, each possible world imposes its own conditions on the truth and falsity of propsitions. Above all, content mimesis ultimately does not imply the negation of the referability of artistic propositions. On the other hand, the form of mimesis is not necessarily true or false, although it does not fundamentally negate it. This means that when representation is made through specific mimesis, rather than the content of the state of affairs or the subject of the mimesis, it is the logical form or form of affairs that becomes important, so the artist, while paying attention to the state of affairs, which is considered extratextual, abstracts the logical form of the events or situations and takes them in his work. This logical form has the ability to reproduce a new situation with the specific raw materials of the work of art, which on the one hand is symmetrical - and not necessarily compatible - with the outside world, and on the other hand has its own special logic due to the dominance of the work's internal system. It is worth noting that the internal system of art provides the possibility that the non-semantic layers of the work, which are non-referential, are semanticized, and in this way their referentiality would reappear in another way. It is obvious that the referential function in this case has a secondary function, and its originality as well as its artistic value depends on its relational value within the system.
