Mimesis, Plato and Arts - Essay Example

?Mimesis, Plato, and Arts The history of aesthetics and mimesis can be traced as far back as the Pre-Socratic period (Halliwell 15). This presupposition does not negate the fact that some historians consider the formal beginning of aesthetics started with Vico or Kant (Halliwell 30). This, despite the fact, that Baumgarten coined the term in 1735. Rather, it intends to raise the notion that mimesis and aesthetics have been considered as an integral in understanding both the human nature and the human condition in the story of humanity. In this context, mimesis and aesthetics draw us towards the notion that there is sustained effort in understanding the relationship between arts, society and humanity, as there is a continuing attempt to grasp beauty, forms, myth and structures in and through the arts. In this regard, Plato is no different from other eminent thinkers. In The Republic, Plato has provided one of sharpest arguments against mimesis and arts to the point that Plato proposed the position that the arts should be banned in the city (392a-401e; 595a). Plato’s concept of mimesis is complex (Cohn 45). However, it has been valuated as negative towards the arts (Schipper 200). Nonetheless, despite the seeming negative judgment to Plato’s stand, Plato is correct in ascertaining that any forms of mimetic arts should be prohibited. As the purpose of this paper is to create a deeper understanding mimesis vis-a-vis arts, it will attempt to address the following questions. First, what are the notions of mimesis relevant to arts? Second, what are the roles of imagination and play in mimetic exploration? Third, what is the value (or harm) of mimetic exploration? Finally, what is its connection to aesthetic value of a work of art? Recognizing the enormous academic literatures related to the subject matter, the study would focus on Plato’s theory of mimesis. Mimesis: It’s Etymology The etymology of mimesis is said to come from the Greek term mimos, which can be understood as referring to dumb mimes. However, the problem with this concept is that the relationship between mimos and mimesis is subject to misinterpretation since actors who are into mimes are specialized (Halliwell 17). In this sense, the Greek word mimio is considered as closer to mimesis because mimio refers to imitation or representation of the “voices of the bull” (Halliwell 17). It gained more impetus when the word mimio is associated with the term mimeisthai, which was used by Homer, to refer to the chorus of Maidens in the Hymn to Apollo who imitated the voices of all men and captivated the audience. As mimeisthai refer to imitation of voices in chorus, Aeschylus introduced the concept of mimeisthai as imitating movements of animals in Pindar. In addition, Aeschylus, in the play Theo roi, also instigated the idea of mimeisthai as referring to an object that has taken a realistic form by rendering its appearance as lifelike. (Halliwell 18 -19) From its evolving etymology, it can be observed that since the Ancient period the word mimesis has been used within the arts – poetry, music, dance and visual arts. In addition, the term is consistently associated with actions, both in the performing and visual arts, as imitating or mimicking others. As such, even during the Ancient period mimesis has been ‘praised’ in view of its effectiveness in deceiving others (Halliwell 20). These observable characteristics of the term mimesis are indispensable in understanding the reason why there are different conceptions of mimesis in relation to art. Conceptions of Mimesis The concept of mimeses has been approached from several perspectives. It is viewed as referring to imitation. It is ascribed to the dichotomy between truth and lies, and, it is considered as referring to the distinction between the interior feelings and sentiments of men and women vis-a-vis the outside world. Finally, it connotes the supposition that it assists in identifying the gap and tension between art and nature, imagination and creativity, illusion and idealism (Halliwell 22). These perceptions have influenced and served as a guide in the understanding of mimesis in the arts. Of the various theories forwarded to explain mimesis, one view of mimesis deals with the strain between nature and the creation of art or actions of actors that are imitating nature. Mimesis in the arts, in this regard, is interpreted as reflecting, mirroring or imitating the world or nature. In this approach, the art is deemed as integrated in the human condition and part of the human world. As such, through mimesis, one can reach awareness and knowledge of the world as the arts mirror the world (Mathijs and Mosselman 77-78). This concept of mimesis is supported by Plato. For Plato, mimetic art is thrice removed from reality (595a - 608). This means that the painting of a tree is a copy of the copy of the ideal tree. Being thrice removed from reality, arts cannot be a source of knowledge, but is in fact, a manifestation of the ignorant mind trying to tackle that, which is real and deciding to settle on the image rather than what is real. For Plato, mimesis is anchored on the ignorance of the mind of the artists because the artists instead of searching for that which is true, has looked inward into one’s self and tried to convey into the world what one sees in one’s own mind not because it is real but because it suits him and the public (Glidden 365). On the other hand, mimesis in the arts is also perceived as inwardly looking and covers only the formal structures and coherence of the arts. It speaks of a world of its own, and it is not referring to any external reality, which may appear to be similar or maybe alluded to in the work of art. In this regard, art is removed from the human condition and is claimed to be existing in the realm of its own. As such, the structure and the form become crucial in the appreciation of mimesis in the arts. These two understandings of mimesis in the arts reveal not only the tension inherent in the concept of mimesis, but it also shows the ambiguity of the concept resulting from the various tensions and divides with which mimesis in the arts has been used. Nonetheless, despite the several approaches of apprehending the notion of mimesis in the arts, what is undeniable is the claim that imagination and play have a significant role in mimetic exploration. The Role Imagination and play are significant in mimetic exploration. Imagination and play are the spring from which creativity flows (Mathijs and Moselman 95). It is the source of power from where the inspiration for the mimetic exploration is coming. As emotions provide color to our experience, imagination becomes the source wherein recreation of the experience prodded by emotions in relation to what has been experienced. It does not attempt to justify the emotions that come with the experience, but it becomes an affirmation of a common vulnerability shared within the human condition. In this regard, imagination and play allows the soaring of the spirit to the heights of creativity while basking and affirming the shared joy, happiness, pain and sorrow as experience in the human life. On one end, Plato, questions the validity of the irrational emotions, which are the origin of imagination. Plato contends that emotions cannot be controlled and left unchecked it can control a person’s way of living. Moreover, the emotive content of the arts that give rise to imagination is immensely appealing to the masses, and it is something that they want without thinking and rationality because they can relate with it. This is a source of concern in the Platonic discourse according to Plato the artists is presenting to the people the representation of what the artists deems to be real for him and the people relates with it because it appeals to their emotions. The emotional value of the art becomes the strong issue with which people integrate the arts. The imagined world of the artists is then substituted to what is Real. In ascertaining the central part of imagination and play in mimetic exploration, another crucial consideration is the value of mimetic exploration. The Value Following the Platonic discourse on mimetic arts in The Republic, Plato holds that mimetic exploration is harmful to the human person and as such should be removed and banned from the society (595a). Understanding Plato’s position entails appreciating Plato’s theory of Reality, Truth, and epistemology, the nature of human beings, society, education and psychology. If we try to understand Plato’s position outside form these other elements, then there is a danger that we may not be able to see why Plato proposed the removal and expulsion of mimetic arts in the city. As such, it has been mentioned at the beginning of the paper that Plato’s position is complicated. Arts are thrice removed from Reality. It is the copy of the copy of that which is Real. Reality for Plato is the Realm of the Ideal. It is the transcendental Reality where even the gods take their ambrosia (see Phaedrus). Likewise, it is where the Forms are found. As the realm of the Ideal is that which are Real, human beings should not dwell their attention to the physical realm, but should direct their attention to the Transcendental Reality. It is only through this attentive focus on Reality that one can move from opinion to true and justified belief. In this way, access to Truth is gained, and knowledge is attained. However, human nature is such that there is a tension between the rational part and the irrational part. As reason tries to seek the Real and the Truth, the irrational part of human beings seeks to indulge on the illusion manifested in the human realm. This tension is perpetual as it is inherent in the human nature. Nonetheless, there is a way the rational part of human nature can control its irrational part – education. Education is the tool use to train the mind not to be attached to things of this world, but to be attached to the Forms. In the same way, education becomes the method with which members of the society can be stratified. As such, Plato recognizes the truism that education is the solid anchor in the midst of changes in the culture and values of the society. In this regard, if education shapes and trains the mind so that it becomes attuned to that which is Real, then, education should demonstrate that which is good in human beings, harness that which is right and support endeavors leading to truth. However, the artists following mimetic exploration manifests through his works disregard for Truth and Real. This is shown by the fact that his works of arts are based on his ignorance. Ignorance that is lodged in himself because he refuses to pursue Truth. By copying that which is already a copy of Real, the artists know nothing. He projects his opinion as real, yet does not know what is Real. He makes stories that are full of contradiction and debase human nature, yet he claims to be speaking of the representation of the Real. He dwells in his own consciousness, yet he claims to speak for the world. Artists succumb to the inspiration of the irrational part of human beings, and still he claims that what he says is True. Plato reproaches mimetic exploration because it denies Truth. Artists supporting mimetic exploration lives in fiction, lie, and choose the world of spectacles rather than the Real. This is the reason why Plato wants mimetic exploration to be removed from the city. It seeks falsehood and presents the lie to the people as real. It deceives people of what is true, right, just and real and claims that it represents Truth. Moreover, it is harmful because it deceives humanity that it should revel in the shadows of the cave. It does not remove the shackles of ignorance; mimetic exploration entrenches it. As mimetic exploration affirms falsehood, prefers fantasy to Real, create a world thrice remove from Reality, dishonest and denies humanity’s capacity for rational action, it gains negative value. Mimetic exploration is harmful to human beings. It does not provide any beneficial consequences to human beings and as such, it should be removed from the city. Aesthetic Value As mimetic exploration veers away from Real, Truth and Good, then it has no aesthetic value. Aesthetic values are rooted in the concept of Beauty behold in the knowledge of Truth and Real. However, as mimetic exploration of the artists looks and attests only to beauty in the eyes of the artists and not through the lens of Beauty per se, then the artists’ work has no aesthetic value. Conclusion Plato is right when he claim that both mimetic arts in particular and arts in general should be prohibited. This is because first, mimetic arts deceive people. Second, it encourages that which is based to human nature. Third, it basks on lies and fiction. Fourth, it denies that which is Real. Finally, fifth, it reproaches Truth. In this regard, mimesis, mimetic arts and the arts distort human nature; ensconce lies in the human condition and refuses Truth and that which is Real to be authentically pursued. As Plato touches an acutely sensitive issue by banning arts in the city, he is telling us that we should be weary of the influence of mimetic arts. People should break free from the oppression of ignorance and enjoy the bliss of Truth, Knowledge and Reality. Bibliography Glidden, David. “Mimetic Ignorance, Platonic Doxa and De Re Belief.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 2.4 (Oct., 1985): 355 – 374. Print. Halliwell, Stephen. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Text and Modern Problems. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2002. Ebook. Karelis, Charles. “Plato On Art and Reality”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34.3 (Spring, 1976): 312 – 323. Print. Mathijs, Ernest and Mosselman, Bert. “Mimesis and the Representation of Reality: A Historical View.” Foundations of Science 5: 61 – 102. Print. Plato. The Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1974. Print. Schipper, Edith Watson. “Mimesis in the Arts in Plato’s Laws.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 22. 2 (Winter, 1963): 199-202. Print. Read More