7/11/12

mimesis

TheUniversityofChicago::TheoriesofMedia::KeywordsGlossary::mimesis

mimesis
Nature creates similarities. One need only think of mimicry. The highest capacity for producingsimilarities,however,ismans.Hisgiftofseeingresemblancesisnothingother than a rudiment of the powerful compulsion in former times to become and behave like somethingelse.Perhapsthereisnoneofhishigherfunctionsinwhichhismimeticfaculty doesnotplayadecisiverole. WalterBenjamin,"OntheMimeticFaculty"1933 ThetermmimesisisderivedfromtheGreekmimesis,meaning to imitate [1]. The OED defines mimesis as "a figure of speech, whereby the words or actions of another are imitated"and"thedeliberateimitationofthebehaviorofonegroupofpeoplebyanother as a factor in social change" [2]. Mimicry is defined as "the action, practice, or art of mimicking or closely imitating ... the manner, gesture, speech, or mode of actions and persons,orthesuperficialcharacteristicsofathing"[3].Bothterms are generally used to denote the imitation or representation of nature, especially in aesthetics (primarily literaryandartisticmedia). Within Western traditions of aesthetic thought, the concepts of imitation and mimesis have been central to attempts to theorize the essence of artistic expression, the characteristics that distinguish works of art from other phenomena, and the myriad of ways in which we experience and respond to works of art. In most cases, mimesis is defined as having two primary meanings that of imitation (more specifically, the imitationofnatureasobject,phenomena,orprocess)andthatofartisticrepresentation. Mimesisisanextremelybroadandtheoreticallyelusivetermthatencompassesa range of possibilities for how the selfsufficient and symbolically generated world created by people can relate to any given "real", fundamental, exemplary, or significant world [4] (seekeywordsessaysonsimulation/simulacra,(2), and reciprocity). Mimesis is integral to the relationship between art and nature, and to the relation governing works of art themselves. Michael Taussig describes the mimetic faculty as "the nature that culture uses to create second nature, the faculty to copy, imitate, make models, explore difference,yieldintoandbecomeOther.Thewonderofmimesisliesinthecopydrawing onthecharacterandpoweroftheoriginal,tothepointwherebytherepresentationmay evenassumethatcharacterandthatpower."[5] PrePlatonic thought tends to emphasize the representational aspects of mimesis and its denotation of imitation, representation, portrayal, and/or the person who imitates or represents. Mimetic behavior was viewed as the representation of "something animate and concrete with characteristics that are similar to the characteristics to other phenomena" [6]. Plato believed that mimesis was manifested in 'particulars' which resembleorimitatetheformsfromwhichtheyarederivedthus,themimeticworld(the world of representation and the phenomenological world) is inherently inferior in that it consistsofimitationswhichwillalwaysbesubordinateorsubsidiarytotheir original [7]. In addition to imitation, representation, and expression, mimetic activity produces appearancesandillusionsthataffecttheperceptionandbehaviorofpeople.InRepublic, Plato views art as a mimetic imitation of an imitation (art mimes the phenomenological worldwhichmimesanoriginal,"real"world)artisticrepresentationishighlysuspect and corrupt in that it is thrice removed from its essence. Mimesis is positioned within the

keywordscrossreferences

WorksCited

Auerbach,Erich.Mimesis:The RepresentationofRealityinWestern Literature.Princeton:PrincetonUP, 1953. Benjamin,Walter."OntheMimetic Faculty,"Reflections.NewYork: SchockenBooks,1986. Bhabha,Homi."OfMimicryandMan: TheAmbivalenceofColonialDiscourse," October,28:(Spring,1984). Caillois,Roger."Mimicryand LegendaryPsychoasthenia,"Trans. JohnShepley.October,31:(Winter, 1984). Gebauer,GunterandChristophWulf. Mimesis:CultureArtSociety.Trans. DonReneau.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1992. Hansen,Miriam."Benjaminand Cinema:NotaOneWayStreet,"Critical Inquiry25.2(Winter1998). Jay,Martin."UnsympatheticMagic," VisualAnthropologyReview9.2(Fall 1993). Koch,Gertrud."Mimesisand Bilderverbot,"Screen34:3:(Autumn 1993). Taussig,Michael.MimesisandAlterity. NewYork:Routeledge,1993. Sorbom,Goran.MimesisandArt. Bonniers:ScandanavianUniversity Books,1966. Spariosu,Mihai,ed.Mimesisin ContemporaryTheory.Philadelphia: JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany, 1984.

Notes [1]Edwards,Paul,ed."Mimesis,"The EncyclopediaofPhilosophy,vol.5&6. (NewYork:Macmillian,1967)335. [2]OxfordEnglishDictionaryOnline "Mimesis"

csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm

1/3

7/11/12

mimesis
sphere of aesthetics, and the illusion produced by mimetic representation in art, literature,andmusicisviewedasalienating,inauthentic,deceptive,andinferior[8]. The relationship between art and imitation has always been a primary concern in examinations of the creative process, and in Aristotle's Poesis , the "natural" human inclination to imitate is described as "inherent in man from his earliest days he differs from other animals in that he is the most imitative of all creatures, and he learns his earliest lessons by imitation. Also inborn in all of us is the instinct to enjoy works of imitation"[9].Mimesisisconceivedassomethingthatisnaturaltoman,andtheartsand media are natural expressions of human faculties. In contradiction to Plato (whose skeptical and hostile perception of mimesis and representation as mediations that we mustgetbeyondinordertoexperienceorattainthe"real"),Aristotleviewsmimesisand mediation as fundamental expressions of our human experience within the world as means of learning about nature that, through the perceptual experience, allow us to get closer to the "real". [see reality/hyperreality, (2)] Works of art are encoded in such a waythathumansarenotdupedintobelievingthattheyare"reality",butratherrecognize features from their own experience of the world within the work of art that cause the representation to seem valid and acceptable. Mimesis not only functions to recreate existing objects or elements of nature, but also beautifies, improves upon, and universalizesthem. Mimesis creates a fictional world of representation in which there is no capacity for a nonmediated relationship to reality [10]. Aristotle views mimesis as something that nature and humans have in common that is not only embedded in the creativeprocess,butalsointheconstitutionofthehumanspecies. In 17th and early 18th century conceptions of aesthetics, mimesis is bound to the imitation of (empirical and idealized) nature. Aesthetic theory emphasized the relationship of mimesis to artistic expression and began to embrace interior, emotive, and subjective images and representations. In the writings of Lessing and Rousseau, thereisaturnawayfromtheAristotelianconceptionofmimesisasboundtotheimitation of nature, and a move towards an assertion of individual creativity in which the productiverelationshipofonemimeticworldtoanotherisrenounced[11]. In 20th century approaches to mimesis, authors such as Walter Benjamin, Adorno, Girard, and Derrida have defined mimetic activity as it relates to social practice and interpersonal relations rather than as just a rational process of making and producing modelsthatemphasizethebody,emotions,thesenses,andtemporality[12]. The return to a conception of mimesis as a fundamental human property is most evident in the writings of Walter Benjamin [13] , who postulates that the mimetic faculty of humans is definedbyrepresentationandexpression.Therepressionofthemimeticrelationtothe world, to the individual, and to others leads to a loss of "sensuous similarity" [14]. "In this way language may be seen as the highest level of mimetic behavior and the most complete archive of nonsensuous similarity: a medium into which the earlier powers of mimetic production and comprehension have passed without residue, to the point where theyhaveliquidatedthoseofmagic."[15] MichaelTaussig'sdiscussionofmimesisinMimesisandAlterityiscentered around Walter BenjaminandTheodorAdorno'sbiologicallydeterminedmodel [16], in which mimesis is posited as an adaptive behavior (prior to language) that allows humans to make themselves similar to their surrounding environments through assimilation and play. Through physical and bodily acts of mimesis (i.e. the chameleon blending in with its environment,achildimitatingawindmill,etc.),thedistinctionbetweentheselfandother becomesporousandflexible.Ratherthandominatingnature,mimesisasmimicryopens up a tactile experience of the world in which the Cartesian categories of subject and objectarenotfirm,butrathermalleableparadoxically, difference is created by making oneself similar to something else by mimetic "imitation". Observing subjects thus assimilate themselves to the objective world rather than anthropomorphizing it in their ownimage[17]. Adorno's discussion of mimesis originates within a biological context in which mimicry (whichmediatesbetweenthetwostatesoflifeanddeath)isazoologicalpredecessorto mimesis. Animals are seen as genealogically perfecting mimicry (adaptation to their surroundings with the intent to deceive or delude their pursuer) as a means of survival. Survival, the attempt to guarantee life, is thus dependant upon the identification with [3]OxfordEnglishDictionaryOnline "Mimicry" [4]Kelly,Michael,ed."Mimesis,"The EncyclopediaofAesthetics,vol.3. (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1998)233. [5]Taussig,Michael.Mimesisand Alterity.(NewYork:Routeledge,1993) xiii. [6]Kelly,233. [7]Edwards,335. [8]Kelly,234. [9]Durix,JeanPierre.Mimesis,Genres andPostColonialDiscourse: DeconstructingMagicRealism.(New York:Macmillian,1998)45. [10]Kelly,234. [11]Kelly,236. [12]Kelly,234. [13]InBenjamin'sOntheMimetic Faculty,hepostulatesthatthemimetic facultyisevidentinallofman's"higher functions"andthatitshistorycanbe definedbothphylogeneticallyand ontogenetically.Children'sbehavioris aprimeexampleofthemannerin whichmimeticbehaviorisnotrestricted tomanimitatingmaninwhichthe "childplaysatbeingnotonlya shopkeeperorteacherbutalsoa windmillandatrain"(WalterBenjamin, Reflections,p.333) [14]Kelly,236. [15]WalterBenjamin,Reflections.(New York:SchockenBooks,1986)336. [16]Asopposedtotheaestheticized versionofmimesisfoundinAristotle and,morerecently,Auerbach(see ErichAuerbach'sMimesis:The RepresentationofRealityinWestern Literature(Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1953). [17]Taussig'stheoryofmimesisis critiquedbyMartinJayinhisreview article,"UnsympatheticMagic". [18]Spariosu,Mihai,ed.Mimesisin ContemporaryTheory.(Philadelphia: JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany, 1984)33. [19]Forafurtherexplicationof"magic mimesis"(DialecticofEnlightenment andAestheticTheory)seeMichael Cahn's"SubversiveMimesis:Theodor AdornoandtheModernImpasseof Critique"inSpariosu'sMimesisin ContemporaryTheory. [20]Spariosu,34. [21]Spariosu,34. [22]Kelly,236. [23]Kelly,236. [24]Kelly,236. [25]Kelly,236. [26]Kelly,237. [27]Kelly,237.

csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm

2/3

7/11/12

mimesis
something external and other, with "dead, lifeless material" [18]. Magic constitutes a "prehistorical" or anthropological mimetic model in which the identification with an aggressor (i.e. the witch doctor's identification with the wild animal) results in an immunization an elimination of danger and the possibility of annihilation [19]. Such a modelofmimeticbehaviorisambiguousinthat"imitationmightdesignatethe production ofathinglikecopy,butontheotherhand,itmightalsorefertotheactivityofasubject whichmodelsitselfaccordingtoagivenprototype"[20].Themannerinwhichmimesisis viewedasacorrelativebehaviorinwhichasubjectactivelyengages in "making oneself similartoanOther"dissociatesmimesisfromitsdefinitionasmerelyimitation[21]. In Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, mimesis (once a dominant practice)becomesarepressedpresenceinWesternhistoryinwhichoneyieldstonature (asopposedtotheimpulseofEnlightenmentsciencewhichseekstodominatenature)to the extent that the subject loses itself and sinks into the surrounding world. They argue that,inWesternhistory,mimesishasbeentransformedbyEnlightenmentsciencefrom a dominantpresenceintoadistorted,repressed,andhiddenforce.Artworkscan "provide modernitywithapossibilitytoreviseorneutralizethedominationofnature"[22]. Socialization and rationality suppress the "natural" behavior of man, and art provides a "refuge for mimetic behavior" [23]. Aesthetic mimesis assimilates social reality without the subordination of nature such that the subject disappears in the work of art and the artworkallowsforareconciliationwithnature[24]. Derrida uses the concept of mimesis in relation to texts which are nondisposable doubles that always stand in relation to what has preceded them. Texts are deemed "nondisposable" and "double" in that they always refer to something that has preceded them and are thus "never the origin, never inner, never outer, but always doubled" [25].Themimetictext(whichalwaysbeginsasadouble)lacksanoriginalmodeland its inherentintertextualitydemandsdeconstruction."Differnceistheprincipleofmimesis,a productive freedom, not the elimination of ambiguity mimesis contributes to the profusion of images, words, thoughts, theories, and action, without itself becoming tangible" [26]. Mimesis thus resists theory and constructs a world of illusion, appearances,aesthetics,andimagesinwhichexistingworldsareappropriated,changed, and reinterpreted. Images are a part of our material existence, but also mimetically bindourexperienceofrealitytosubjectivityandconnotea"sensuousexperiencethatis beyondreferencetoreality"[27]. MichellePuetz Winter2002

TheUniversityofChicago::TheoriesofMedia::KeywordsGlossary::mimesis

csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm

3/3