Mimesis in the Relationship between Art and Reality

Abstract:The relationship between art and reality is broadly categorized according to mimesis. This paper attempts to examine the relationship among mimesis, art and reality in discussing criticisms of several representative classical literature theorists. Their concepts of mimesis lead them to take an important position regarding artistic creation.

Key Words:mimesis art reality

1 Introduction

The relationship between art and reality has been an everlasting topic of both artists and theorists. If there is any aesthetic concept that has been constantly restated and repudiated on this relationship, it is mimesis. Mimesis is a critical and philosophical term carries different meanings that vary between literal imitation and representation. This paper tries to explore the issue of the relationship among mimesis, art and reality by examining the critical theories of Plato, Aristotle and Horace.

2 General Analysis of the Western Literature Criticism

2.1 Plato

At the beginning of Book Ⅹ in Republic, Plato says that Socrates claims his refusal to admit imitative poetry and insists that all poetic imitations are ruinous for knowledge. His definitions of imitation and of the artists' activity seem to a rejection of art. Following in his new definition of the mimesis, he uses three beds as metaphors to convey his idea: there are many beds in the world but there is only a single idea of a bed; the craftsman produces this object according to an idea but it is not the idea itself which is produced; there is another kind of artisan who seems to reproduce the objects of the craftsmen as if he passed a mirror before them. The objects reflected in the mirror would be mere appearances. The production by this artisan is false because it is not an idea or an object but only a simulacrum. Therefore, Plato concludes his definition in a metaphoric way that there are three beds: one bed exists in nature as an idea made by God; one is made by the carpenter by imitating God's idea; one is made by the artist by imitating the carpenter's. According to these three activities, there are three artists: God, the craftsman, and the painter. But unlike the other two, the painter is not a real creator but a simple imitator of imitators.

The notion of the mimesis which characterizes the painter's work can be extended to the tragic poet. If he is an imitator, he is thrice removed from the truth. So are the other imitators. When the painter and the poet try to imitate what already existed in reality, they only touch on a small part of things because a bed may appear differently from various view points. Their creations are limited to the production of skills. The better painters or poets they are, the more faithfully their works of art imitate the reality of the carpenter's making, but the imitators will still not get the truth of God's ideal.

2.2 Aristotle

Aristotle's Poetics is often referred to as the counterpart to Platonic idea of poetry, but he gives a new orientation to the meaning of mimesis. For Aristotle the object of art is not to imitate transitory situations but to present universal inherent nature. He holds that the language of poetry is different from ordinary language and sees the characters presented in drama as representatives of certain types of human beings but not as imitations of particular individuals. He gives two origins of poetry: the natural tendency in humans for imitation and the inherent pleasure of imitation. Aristotle thinks it is important that there is a certain distance between the work of art and reality.

Contrasting history with poetry, Aristotle made it clear that history focuses on facts, but poetry describes what is possible. History relates what has happened, but poetry relates what may happen. So poetry is more philosophical than history because it tends to express the universal history. The poet imitates actions to show how a certain kind of individual is likely to act. Thus the individual is not imitated but each imitated action is representative of a type of actions. Aristotle makes it clear that actions in poetic drama have a strict unity which is not necessarily present in real life. He refers to three unities of space, time and action. Among them the unity of action is the most important and the unities of space and time are designed according to it. Aristotle's emphasis on the unities in plot and the necessity of contriving probable situations rather than simply reporting actual happenings that is done in history, which shows that he looks on mimesis as representation rather than as pure imitation.

2.3 Horace

From the Middle Ages to Renaissance, The Art Of Poetry is regarded as the commentary on Aristotle's Poetics. Based on Aristotle's concept of art imitates reality, Horace puts forward that art imitates classicality. In The Art of Poetry, Horace not only offers him specific advice on procedure, but also demonstrates that natural ability must be supplemented by careful study and guided by discipline, that literary success depends on a combination of reality and art. Horace encourages poets use materials from Rome directly rather than indicting a new story by themselves and he pays attention to imitate the great writers of the classical period of Greek literature. Horace was the first critic to advocate the imitation of ancient models to Poetry.

To some extent, Horace agreed with Aristotle's concept to see reality as a great inspiration for artists, but he didn't agree the art imitates reality purely. He stressed that as long as the choice of appropriate subject matter adapt to the chosen genre, the characterization, the form, the expression, the diction and meter, the style and the tone, then art can be invented. The poet must avoid the mixing of genres, the creation of characters that lacks reality, the excessive or improper use of the Deus ex machine. It shouldn't enact anything disgusting or unnatural on the stage. For Horace, writing well means uniting reality with long study and a solid knowledge of literary genres.

3 Conclusion

Both in ancient Achaean and Roman classicism, mimesis is the subject of debate which last for a long time. In general terms, it can be said that Plato is against it, Aristotle is defining it, and Horace is defending it. Mimesis in literature can and does illuminate the human condition since it is linked close to the environment and actions of human beings. It gives an insight into the nature of artistic creativity. The more veritably mimetic art work is, the more we see our human nature.

References:

[1]Selden,Raman,ed. The Theory of Criticism: From Plato to the Present; a Reader. London and New York:Longman,1988.

[2]Stephen Halliwell. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2002.

[3]马新国.西方文论史.北京:高等教育出版社,2002.