When does mimesis become art?

I guess the definition of 'art' is an issue in this question. Sorry

for being so messy. I kind of mean that conventional 'high art' was

mainly about masculinist ownership and possession - or so I find

myself reading it. You know, the imperialist representation of the

world on canvas. And one of the reasons I love photography is that it

has such a history, used by the Impressionists to challenge this

complacence in the art world...

 

But somehow it seems to have evolved from that in a way I can't wrap

my head around. I know a couple of pretty established photographers

who regard a 'perfect photo' as one which captures 'perfectly' a

really traditional visual interpretation of a given object. And,

sadly, mainstream society still seems to think of a photo as a passive

reconstruction of a frozen moment.

 

I've just started getting seriously into photography - I'm 15, and

perpetually confused about it... I don't get where the photographer

fits into the meaning-making process required of art. Is it enough to

represent something in such a way that people respond to it?

>I know a couple of pretty established photographers who regard a 'perfect photo' as one which captures 'perfectly' a really traditional visual interpretation of a given object.<

 

It sounds like you may have misunderstood or possibly ammended their assertions. Especially with regard to the word "traditional" as used above. Either that or they aren't artists, but merely documentationists.

 

Personally I start with this definition of art----

 

That which communicates meaning, truth, or beauty, via one or more of the senses, and whose constituent parts are arranged through a refined skill or talent, into a product that is more meaningful than the sum of its parts.

 

Now with that in mind, I believe it's easy to imagine a photographer rising above the mere craft of exposure to communicate more than physical representation of a subject or scene. I'm sure you can as well.

 

Got anymore questions or thoughts?

 

C Painter

"I kind of mean that conventional 'high art' was mainly about masculinist ownership and possession - or so I find myself reading it. You know, the imperialist representation of the world on canvas."

 

You need to familiarize yourself with art (and it's history) other than Western European art from the Renaissance to Modern. Art and art history are more than European and American art. Try Chinese art history. Thousands of years of art in painting, calligraphy, watercolor, sculpture, bronze, pottery, etc. - really doesn't fit your "imperialist" representation of the world, or masculinist (sic) ownership and possesion assertion.

 

Likewise, with photographic art history. You need to look at a world history of photography. It's so much more broad than what you've described.

 

"But somehow it seems to have evolved from that in a way I can't wrap my head around."

 

I'm not sure what "that" is. Can you explain what photography has evolved from; and especially where you think it has evolved to a little more clearly?

 

"And, sadly, mainstream society still seems to think of a photo as a passive reconstruction of a frozen moment."

 

I fail to see what main stream society thinks has to do with making photographs - it has no bearing upon what a photograph can be. Or, what type of photographs to make if you're doing purely self expressive work.

 

"I don't get where the photographer fits into the meaning-making process required of art."

 

That's up to the photographer. I'd suggest you look at historical and contemporary photography. I'm also not sure what "meaning-making" is, or how that applies to self expressive art.

 

Some art is about color, shape, forms, etc. with no meaning past that point - it's meaning has no social context. Perhaps you can tell me the meaning making behind Jackson Pollock's Painting "Number 1, 1950 (Lavender Mist)? His paintings are about chance, rhythms, color, paint control, and intuition combined with physical interaction with the canvas during the painting process.

 

Or, look at Walter DeMaria's "The Lightning Field," and tell me the meaning making behind that piece. It's certainly NOT about meanings other than the visual interplay of the objects and their surroundings.

 

"Is it enough to represent something in such a way that people respond to it?"

 

If you're getting a response, then you're communicating with people at some level - is there more that's needed?

Don't feel too badly -- at 15, most of us were perpetually confused about most things that eventually sorted themselves out.

 

If you think of photographers as artists who happen to use cameras instead of brushes, then what's true of one is largely true of the other. Whereas there's no single "perfect" painting, photographs of all kinds have their respective merits, according to the intent of their creator. I may seek to present a landscape as something purely decorative, while someone else might prefer to evoke certain emotions about the place. Both photographs might be effective, but in different ways.

 

I'd suggest creating art that has meaning for you and that expresses what you want it to convey to your viewers. Study how they react and you'll doubtless be surprised to find that what they see may be quite different from what you intended. That doesn't necessarily mean that you failed, but that people react from their own perceptual context, not yours. The very fact that you've gotten a reaction should be encouraging.

 

Good luck! It seems you're getting off to a fine start!

"...most of us were perpetually confused about most things that eventually sorted themselves out."

 

Sure...okay... except I'm far more confused now than I ever was at age 15.

What the heck is "masculinist ownership and possession"? Is that different from "feminine ownership and possession" or just plain ol' "ownership and possession"?

I often say that there is art based on symbolisms and art based on affinites and that there is not a fine line between the two...

 

High art is something like rich people holding art ? Very good because the artist has no reason to be favored as an individual in upper class societies (where membership and participation in a network is more important than talent) and yet the artist might develop a following.

 

High art is a imperialist representation of the world ? I doubt it but each holder of art can give the work a meaning of their own or I don't doubt it because an artist can be supported for reasons tangent to a goal or viewpoint...

 

But an artist has an opinion of how something should look or how something should be produced or why something should be produced. Then the body of work proves it to be true. Finally, those curious as to the direction are the following...

Cienwen, "masculinist ownership and possession...imperialist". Broaden your reading to include more traditional critiques of art rather than standard, left-wing reactionary, ideologically derived texts. They're old hat, tedious and stifling.

 

"Is it enough to represent something in such a way that people respond to it?" What more do you want? However, you need to respond first.

 

Grant (an ex left-wing reactionary. Yes, they are as bad as reformed smokers).

CEINWEN: "[...] I'm 15, and perpetually confused about it... I don't get where the photographer fits into the meaning-making process required of art. "

 

I have been fifteen four times. But I was so much old then; I'm younger than that now.

 

Photography can possibly become part of the meaning-making process when it concerns itself with art itself. It is a heady game. There are probably uncountable lower instances where a photograph can 'say' something about an _element_ of art, for example composition. So you see, there is the general of speaking to the art or craft, or to specifics of the language of photograpy and art.

<i>I kind of mean that conventional 'high art' was mainly about masculinist ownership and possession - or so I find myself reading it. You know, the imperialist representation of the world on canvas.</i><p>

 

No offense meant here, but I'd suggest moving beyond the Marxist rhetoric. It's fine to read; and it can open your mind to some ideas, but it's incredibly limiting in other ways, and it particularly wants to limit art to serve its polemic. I've seen too many creative minds uselessly constrained by becoming tied to this type of thinking.<p>

 

As many others have posted, study the total history of art, and view the Marxist theory as just one way of interpreting art, not the only way or the "best" way.

Maybe you're in a stage where doing some abstract photography would do you some

good. Try abstracting various photographic genres such as nudes, architecture, and

landscape. Shoot from the heart and hip. Have fun.

 

Will all those who had to look up mimesis please raise your hands? (I did).

ceinwen rose, you have it all to do at 15 and all the time to do it, so enjoy that.

 

The photographer fits into the process simply by doing it. You will make different photos than me, that's what makes the meaning different. You can represent something with art, and what you represent is you, and so it is enough, because it has new meaning, and is different.

 

That sound possible?

 

Cheers.

Mike, I asked my Mom and she had to look it up in the old dictionary.... We have both forgotten the exact meaning now, unfortunately. I seem to remeber something to do with mimicking.

 

Well, I googled and came up with this:

 

Mimesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Mimesis (μίμησις from μιμε963;θαι) in its simplest context means imitation or representation in Greek.

 

Contents [hide]

1 History

2 Mimesis in contrast to diegesis

3 What it does

4 Some examples how mimesis works in the arts

5 References

6 External links

 

 

 

[edit]

History

Both Plato and Aristotle saw, in mimesis (Greek μίμησις), the representation of nature. However, Plato thought all creation was imitation, and so God's creation was an imitation of the truth and essence of nature, and an artist's re-presentation of this God-created reality therefore was twice-removed imitation.

 

Aristotle thought of drama as being "an imitation of an action", that of tragedy as of "falling from a higher to a lower estate", and so being removed to a less ideal situation in more tragic circumstances than before. He posited the characters in tragedy as being better than the average human being, and those of comedy as being worse.

 

Aristotle's most well known work on this subject is his Poetics.

 

Walter Kaufmann in Tragedy and Philosophy Ch.II suggests that we translate mim곩s in Aristotle�s Poetics as �make-believe�.

 

Michael Davis, a translator and commentator of Aristotle writes:

 

"At first glance, mim곩s seems to be a stylizing of reality in which the ordinary features of our world are brought into focus by a certain exaggeration, the relationship of the imitation to the object it imitates being something like the relationship of dancing to walking. Imitation always involves selecting something from the continuum of experience, thus giving boundaries to what really has no beginning or end. Mim곩s involves a framing of reality that announces that what is contained within the frame is not simply real. Thus the more �real� the imitation the more fraudulent it becomes." (The Poetry of Philosophy p.3)

 

More recently Erich Auerbach, Merlin Donald, and Ren頇irard have written about mimesis.

 

[edit]

Mimesis in contrast to diegesis

It was also Plato and Aristotle who contrasted mimesis with diegesis. In diegesis it is not the form in which a work of art represents reality but that in which the author is the speaker who is describing events in the narrative he presents to the audience.

It is in diegesis that the author addresses the audience or the readership directly to express his freely creative art of the imagination, of fantasies and dreams in contrast to mimesis. Diegesis was thought of as telling, the author narrating action indirectly and describing what is in the character's mind and emotions, while mimesis is seen in terms of showing what is going on in characters' inner thoughts and emotions through his external actions.

 

[edit]

What it does

In the arts, mimesis is considered to be re-presenting the human emotions in new ways and so re-presenting to the onlooker, listener or reader the inherent nature of the emotions and the psychological truth of the work of art.

 

Mimesis is thus thought of as a means of perceiving the emotions of the characters on stage or in the book; or the truth of the figures as they appear in sculpture or in painting; or the emotions as they are being configured in music, and of their being recognised by the onlooker as part of their human condition.

 

[edit]

Some examples how mimesis works in the arts

In sculpture, mimesis mirrors the plasticity of an image an onlooker has with which he can empathize within a given situation. In Rodin's The Kiss, for example, the protective arms of the male and seeming trustfulness of the female figure enclosed within her partner's limbs, down to the stance of their feet, is a position all humans would recognize immediately in that the trust and truth that permeates the erotic element of the statue is that which is entailed in the relationship of any man and woman in a similar situation.

 

In Picasso's Guernica, the artist re-presents the destruction of life and the terror it causes in a way this kind of cubistic image lends itself to most dramatically. The fractured details of the composition, the tortured faces, the screams that may be almost audibly imagined, the terrified horse, the bull, the dismembered limbs: all these things help making the picture most memorable for the truth it brings to the observer. However, the face of the woman holding a light may be seen either as a face of stoic resignation throwing light on the devastation, or a face of luciferous evil swooping in malevolent satisfaction.

 

In Beethoven's 6th Symphony (the Pastoral), music re-presents the various stages of a stay in the country, of a person's emotions and moods that are metamorphosed into movements of music most faithfully corresponding to these emotions. Thus, the pleasurable anticipation on arrival in the country; the various happy scenes of their associating with countryfolk; a shepherd's song; birdsongs; a storm and the thankfulness after it is over; all will be observed and recognised readily by the audience.

 

 

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:OTb6XosD_zUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis+mimesis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

***raises hand, but was quietly pleased that the dictionary kind of confirmed the ball park of

my educated guess***

 

I think that, if you took it, unless *you* consider it a perfect photo, it isn't. Mainstream

society will bring you nothing but mediocrity. The photographer fits in because it is she who

presses the shutter. Press it when and how you want.

Ben,

 

As always, a gentlemanly and scholarly couple of posts.

 

I might have argued, had I spoken before thinking, as is often the case, that mimesis

couldn't become art, because it is outright imitation...the equivalent of Saglieri and

Mozart.

 

Life and philosophy are complicated and have shades of gray. And you can learn someting

new everyday.

Robert X , I agree with your post and would add that just because people copy each other in ways, it dosen't mean thay make the same things. One nueron may act like another but it will do something different. So, by using the camera as a tool of intentionality we are doing something apparently new each time, as far as art goes.

Appart from art though, one could argue that there are indeed millions of bald eagle shots, and other over popularized genres.

 

Mike, the effects of a good day at the spa with a new woman can work wonders! Not sure if I qualify for your compliments though.

Yes, Mozart had a great creative mind, but didn't he learn the basics from others? If mimesis is imitation then when does it become art? I'm not sure. If photography is mimesis, can it be art? James Joyce reckoned not.

 

Cheers.

RML: "There's no solid definition of what 'art' (or 'Art') constitutes. Every person will differ in his/her opinion and even when given the same examples, people from different cultures will most likely have differing opinions."

 

Of course, RML is right within the global view, however I think the OP really wants to understand Art within the academic scope of his culture, and in that regard there are definitely differences between Art and art, and specifically within the various fields of Art. His question concerning the photographer's place, and his objection to the "frozen moment" are good places to start. More on that later; in a few minutes I will be in the Horse Latitudes of a complex video editing project. Day job stuff. :(

I just ignored the word mimesis.

 

Nice post. Geez. 15. That's pretty young to be racking your brain about such things, perhaps, but none-the-less, I think yours is an interesting observation. "Masculine Ownership and Imperialist..."notions. Yeah, I can buy that. But I understand that you are discribing 16th,17th, 18th Century art, for example. That's reasonable. And a poster suggested you look at Asian art, especially Chinese art, but I'm afraid you'll find (from the looks of it you probably already have) that Asian art is even more from a male viewpoint and also about conquering and so on. From Japanese erotic art to Chinese Emperial art, bronze, ceramics,etc. much of it is as you described.

 

I think the most interesting point you raise is "I don't get where the photographer fits into the meaning-making process required of art. Is it enough to represent something in such a way that people respond to it? "

 

My brother is in film school in SF and he's really pushing the envelope in terms of what film is, should be, can be, while trying to get away from what it has been. Maybe this is the kind of thing you're thinking about. I think in many cases photography is about "capturing a moment in time" and this is what most people accept. The question is, can it become something else? For example, recently I showed some short experimental films to several classes of Chinese students, and to get them to accept these films I had to tell them that they were not films. They were moving paintings. After I told them this, they stopped saying things like "this is non-sense" or "I don't get it". Instead they started giving my emotional reactions and even suggesting meaning. Before anyone says that they're closed minded, think about the average citizen from your modern, developed country, and I think you'll find that most reactions are similar. The problem is getting out of the box, being truly creative in one's approach to anything, including photography.

 

I think something that threw a lot of people off (or maybe I'm totally, totally confused by your post) is that you seem to be commenting on "high arts" from, I'm guessing, what we call Ancient Art (pre-impressionist era), and then you jump to modern photography, and there's a lot that has happened between the two. So I think that confused some people.

 

If you have been reading Marxist philosophy about art, then I think its important to recognize that most people from traditional photographers to art photographers to progressive experimental photographers are not at all concerned with these ideas, and even in so-called Marxist countries such as China, there is very little belief that anything that Marx wrote concerning creative, artistic work needs to be recognized, except by the government, and most officials aren't making art of looking at art. So, I agree that when you've gotten through that material, you might weigh it against other more relevant ideas. That is, assuming that your ideas are from Marxist material...I don't know. I'm just going off what another poster suggested.

 

Lastly, I might be confused. I don't know. I read your post and I think you're on to something that is going to have an impact on your artistic expression, and that's great. Its better, in my mind to be thinking and working off of your thoughts than to just be tripping through life with notions of happiness, joy and contentment. That my friend is a very very American idea that we hope does not get exported to the rest of the world. Life ain't happiness and joy all the time, and we are thinkers by nature, so Bravo for you for putting such an interesting topic on this discussion forum. On the other hand, you shouldn't stop enjoying the creative process because your confused. Just keep pushing right on through. I'm going to go look at your gallery space on this site. There better be something there or I'll be mad. :)

Matt, when you say "Life ain't happiness and joy all the time" I take it that you mean that as a statement of observation rather than as a goal or ideal. I'm all for youngsters spending their youth in the golden sunlight, having myself suffered a seriously traumatic adolescence. Ceinwen, my advice is: don't sweat it. Rather, enjoy the discovery of new horizons while you can. If you're that way inclined, delve into the ways in which things evolve and interact but try not to look for absolutes where none exist.

If you want to "wrap your head around" something as complex and open-ended as "art" ... then find a new line of fun. :-) You're in the wrong site. Try the engineer site ... or the accountant site. But, then again, with all of the tech-talk that goes down around here ... and the joy that so many of our "artists" find in nit-picking minute details of imperfection in images ... hey, maybe you've come to the perfect place. Yes, why not ... why not read one or two more books and become our new resident expert on all-things-photography ... then come back and compose expertly-neatly-craftly-detailed posts about every topic under the sun?

 

Boy, this is rich. And all you guys are encouraging it! A pox on your houses! (And no, Marx is not dead ... and no not all artists don't read him, and yes art has sucked up until now, because it has been manly and completely determined by mankind's historical straight-jacketing by scarce resources and the drama that is staying alive, but no more! Now is the time to leap forward, but not by writing in stone the old boundaries, the old obsessive need to anal-ly box everyting under the sun into neat ergo "wrap-our-heads-around-able" definitions)

 

Go out and pop wheelies instead. :-)

I'd love to see you reframe this post when you're about 25. And again at 50. :-)

 

- Why use the word "mimesis," and only once, at that, considering its rather complex meaning when it refers to art? (E.g, here's one interpretation of the word: "Mimesis is integral to the relationship between art and nature, and to the relation governing works of art themselves.") If you are going to use a 25 cent word, you should define it for the rest of us.

 

>And, sadly, mainstream society still seems to think of a photo as a passive reconstruction of a frozen moment.<

 

- What's sad about the way (that you perceive) most people think about photography?

 

>used by the Impressionists to challenge this complacence in the art world<

 

I think you mean "complacency," a word which, as an adjective, can be understood in different ways. Can you back up your assertion that an "imperialist representation of the world on canvas" was complacent? Complacent in what sense? Do you mean European artists were (too?) self-satisfied with their work?

 

>it seems to have evolved from that in a way I can't wrap my head around.<

 

I think you need to spend a little more time studying the relationship of photography and some of the Impressionists. In particular, the "candid" nature of photography influenced some Impressionists to capture moments of ordinary life. By the same token, using paints and a canvas allowed other Impressionists to portray the world - with color, for example - in ways that photography at the time did not seem to allow.

 

>I don't get where the photographer fits into the meaning-making process required of art.<

 

That's because "art" doesn't require photographers to fit into anything. It is the other way 'round - it's art that must defer to the process of the photographer and her or his photography.

 

I suggest, if you haven't done so already, checking out a copy of Sontag's On Photography. All, including the mimetic nature of photography, will be illuminated. ;-)

The responses here have been largely disparaging from those who don't understand, wish to remain willfully ignorant, or think their wishfull opinions will define art.

 

Who said: "I suggest, if you haven't done so already, checking out a copy of Sontag's On Photography. All, including the mimetic nature of photography, will be illuminated. ;-)"

 

I appreciate that comment. Sontag's book was the ultimate container of every thought she could make about photography. I have to believe she intentionally included conflicting remarks, knowing that the literature of photography is not photography.

 

Ceinwen - seek out the works of Joel Schneider, University of Chicago. All of them, back to the early seventies. I think you will find some enlightening references and observations.

By the way, Ceinwen, everyone's opinion is equally valid in this context. You can safely disregard anyone who claims that their opinion is the only valid one.

I'd still like to see ceinwen's I.D. card. :-)

H. P.: "By the way, Ceinwen, everyone's opinion is equally valid in this context."

 

In WHAT context? Name the context! You won't, of course because it requires thinking. All opinions are "equally valid" only when NONE ARE. Will you ever friggin get it?

 

This is not a forum to encourage the willfully ignorant. IT IS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY with requires scope, thinking, elaboration, and self-critical insight. You won't find help here for your aimless wishfull thinking.

 

Why you are here is a mystery to me, hi pi, unless you simply want to make it perfectly clear forever that you are the nowhere man.