The Object of Mimesis as the Object of Art

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Associate Professor of Persian Language and Literature, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

In the study of the nature of art and literature, the discussion of the ‘object of mimesis’ has always been of particular importance. In fact, Aristotle in Poetics, by distinguishing the object, the method and the means of imitation, initiates debates that have continued until the contemporary era. In the meantime, the issue of the object of mimesis as an artistic object was raised before Aristotle in Plato’s philosophical tradition. Of course, unlike Aristotle, who tries to recognize imitation based on the empirical ideal, Plato, due to his involvement with the transcendental ideal, considers imitation to have no epistemic value. Accordingly, scholars of the Renaissance and later on in the contemporary period, thinkers such as Lukács or Auerbach, have described the object of mimesis from different perspectives. In sum, these thinkers suggest that when an artist turns to the creation of a work of art, the object of mimesis may include the ideal, tradition, nature, state of affairs, general principles of human nature, or merely external reality. Therefore, the present study tries to examine these arguments on the object of mimesis, and explore their theoretical points of strength and/or shortcomings. Finally, the paper suggests the possible world as the object of mimesis and thus tries to open up a new perspective, which seems to have more analytical power in this regard. Accordingly, it is suggested that phenomena and events in the literary work as a possible world function on the basis of the internal logic particular to the work of art. In this way, even the non-realistic types of representation can be interpreted on the basis of the verisimilitude principle. 
 
Extended Abstract
1.Introduction
According to the theory of mimesis, art is the product of representation. In the present article, mimesis is studied as the artistic object. The article studies the definition of mimesis and discusses whether, in the ideas of thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, mimesis is merely concerned with the representation of inanimate objects or deals with a wider range of issues. The arguments put forward by major thinkers in this regard, their epistemological origins, and weaknesses and strengths will be discussed. Finally, the article will propose the idea of the world as the object of mimesis.
 
2.Theoretical Framework
In the present study attempt is made to discuss some important ideas on the idea of mimesis and explore their theoretical capabilities and shortcomings. A critical reading will be offered in order to find out to what extent the hypotheses put forward about the concept of mimesis can be employed to explain works of art.
 
3.Methodology
In the study of mimesis, scholars have tried to discuss what artists imitate in their aesthetic imitation and have formulated different hypotheses. In the present study, attempt has been made to analyze some major hypotheses in this regard and provide answers that can be of help in the analysis of works of art and literature.
 
4.Discussion and Analysis
In a work of art or literature, different elements should be arranged in a way that all events seem probable or possible without necessarily being consistent with the realities of the world. In such a possible world, the form of thinking and the logic governing it follow specific rules. Although this form shares some similarities with scientific ideas, it is dominated by different rules in terms of objectivity, time, space, and causality.
 
5.Conclusion
Before Aristotle, mimesis was discussed in Plato’s philosophical tradition. However, unlike Aristotle, who recognized imitation based on the empirical ideal, Plato, because of his involvement with the transcendental ideal, found imitation to have no epistemic value. Contemporary thinkers have discussed mimesis from different perspectives and suggest that in creating a work of art, mimesis may include the ideals, traditions, nature, general principles of human nature, or merely external realities. While works of art or literature have undeniable similarities to the real world, they extract the object of mimesis out of a possible world that depends on the real world. This possible world might be strikingly similar to the real world, which might suggest that the work of art is an exact imitation of the real world; however, when this possible world is recognized, it can be claimed that the events and phenomena in this possible world are based on the independent rules of the same possible world. Thus, surrealist works, for instance, can be considered to be imitating a reality.
 
Select Bibliography
Abrams, M. H. 1953. The Mirror and the Lamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. 1991. The Complete Works of Aristotle. J. Barnes (ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Auerbach, E. 1953. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Willard R. Trask (trans.).  Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Halliwell, S. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University press.
Melberg, A. 1995. Theories of Mimesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potolsky, M. 2016. Mimesis. New York and London: Routledge.
Tousi, M. 1355 [1976]. Asas al-Eghtebas. M. Razavi (ed.). Tehran: University of Tehran.
Wellek, R. 1377 [1998]. Tarikh-e Naqd-e Jadid. S. Arbabshirani (trans.). Tehran: Niloufar.
Zarqani, M. 1390 [2011]. Boutiqa-ye Kelasik: Barresi-e Tahlili-Enteqadi-e Nazaryeh-ye She’r dar Manebe’-e Falsafi. Tehran: Sokhan.

Keywords

Main Subjects


ابن‌سینا، حسین. 1404ق. المنطق (الشّعر)، تحقیق عبدالرحمن بدوی. قم: مکتبه آیه­الله مرعشی نجفی.
ابن‌سینا، حسین. 1405ق. شفا، تحقیق و مقدمه عبدالرّحمن بدوی، ج4. قاهره: الدارالمصریّه للتّألیف و الترجمه.
افلاطون. 1367الف. سوفیست، ترجمه محمدحسن لطفی. تهران: خوارزمی.
افلاطون. 1367ب. هیپیاس بزرگ، ترجمه محمدحسن لطفی. تهران: خوارزمی.
بازرگانی، ابراهیم. 1397. «میمسیس: قرائت‌ها و تمایزها در نگره افلاطون، ابن‌سینا و آکویناس». فصل‌نامه آیین حکمت، سال دهم (38):  ۷ -۳۲.
بلخاری قهی، حسن. 1389. «سادرشیا و میمسیس: بررسی تطبیقی حکمت هنر هندی و فلسفه هنر یونانی با تکیه بر آرای فلوطین». حکمت و فلسفه، دوره 6(2) (پیاپی 22): 35-54.
ثامتی، مژده و سجودی، فرزان و سپهران، کامران. 1396. «محاکات و روایت از دیالوگ‌های افلاطون تا درام‌های مدرن». نقد و نظریه ادبی، سال دوم (۳):  ۱۰۳ -۱۲۸.
ربیعی، هادی. 1391. «تأملی در باب فن شعر ابن‌سینا». فصل‌نامه کیمیای هنر، سال اول(4):  7-16. 
زرقانی، مهدی. 1390الف. بوطیقای کلاسیک: بررسی تحلیلی انتقادی نظریه شعر در منابع فلسفی از ترجمه قُنایی تا اثر حازم قرطاجنی، تهران: سخن.
زرقانی، مهدی. 1390ب. «تطور مفهوم محاکات در نوشتارهای فلسفی اسلامی». جستارهای ادبی، (172):  1-28.
طاهری، محمد. 1388. «نگاهی به سیر آرا و عقاید درباره نظریه محاکات». فصل‌نامه ادب‌پژوهی، 3(۱۰):  ۲۰۷ -۲۲۶.
طاهری، محمد. 1391. «بررسی آراءِ افلاطون و ارسطو در نقد محاکات و هنر شاعری». کاوش‌نامه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، (24): 9-42.
طوسی، نصیرالدین. 1355. اساس الاقتباس، تصحیح مدرس رضوی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
کرم‌اللهی، نعمت­الله و حسنی، محمد. 1396. «مبانی نظری مفهوم بازنمایی؛ با تأکید بر ابعاد معرفت‌شناختی». فصل‌نامه معرفت فرهنگی اجتماعی، سال هشتم (۳۲):  ۴۵-68.
لوکاچ، گئورگ. 1397. نظریه رمان، ترجمه حسن مرتضوی. تهران: آشیان.
ولک، رنه. 1377. تاریخ نقد جدید، ترجمه سعید ارباب شیرانی. ج1. تهران: نیلوفر.
هاشم‌نژاد، حسین. 1396. «مبانی ‌فلسفی هنر در ‌آثار ابن‌سینا». جاویدان خرد، 14‌(32):  257-275.
Abrams, Mayer Howard. 1953. The Mirror and the Lamp, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coad, Geoffrey. 2006. A Philosophical Inquiry into the Developmemt of the Notion of Kalos Kagathos from Homer to Aristotle, M.A. Thesis, University of Notre Dame, Australia.
Eco, Umberto. 1992. "Between author and text”. cited in Interpretation and Overinterpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 67-88.
Halliwell, Stephan. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems, Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University press.
Homer, Seam. 2005. Jasques Lacan, London and New York: Routledge.
Melberg, Ann. 1995. Theories of Mimesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, Penelope. 1992. "Inspiration and Mimēsis in Plato". cited in Apeiron, vol. 25, issue 4: 27-46.
Neiva, Eduardo. 1999. "Redefining the image, convention and semiotics". cited in Communication Theory, Seq. 9(1): 75-91.
Potolsky, Mattew. 2016. Mimesis, New York & London: Routledge.
Quinn, Edward. 2006. A Dictionary of Literary and Thematic Terms, New York: Facts on File Library of American Literature.
Riffaterre, Michael. 1978. Semiotics of Poetry, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.