Talk:Mimesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

I would petition for an inclusion of Homi Bhabha's definition of mimesis in his work "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse." This discussion could perhaps dovetail with the addition of Girard's philosophic contribution to mimetic ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.36.244 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the work of René Girard not mentioned in this article? He's provided one of the best analyses of mimesis available.

Well, enter it then. That is what it is all about. We, as Wikipedians complete what is missing in an article. Please feel free to supplement a René Girard section. Many thanks. Dieter Simon 00:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is "represents" consistently typed as "re-presents" in this article? Clayhalliwell 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it means "presents anew" rather than "represents", a perfectly valid spelling of something that isn't quite the same. Dieter Simon 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if it's such a key distinction then it should probably be replaced with less ambiguous, less "cutesy" terminology. Clayhalliwell 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cutesy, eh? Any decent dictionary will point you to its meaning. If you are going to query the word, please enter its correct equivalent, but not "represent", which is not its equivalent. Dieter Simon 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you, but 'represent' is a valid translation of 'mimesis' and the sense of re-presenting something is idiosyncratic to media studies. See, for example, Stephen Halliwell's translation of Aristotle's Poetics (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1986). He argues that ‘Representation’ is closest to the "meanings covered by the mimesis word-group in Greek. Thus a picture can represent a subject, an actor represent a character, a play represent an action, event or story" (71).

Along with Girard (who I'd say is a crucial omission here), sections on the Frankfurt School's development of the term would be useful (Walter Benjamin's 'On the Mimetic Faculty', Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory and Dialectic of Enlightenment); Also contemporary feminist re-workings (Irigaray comes to mind, as does Elin Diamond's Unmaking Mimesis). I know, I know, do it yourself then is an appropriate response, and when I get the time I'd like to contribute what I can, but I thought it worthwhile to flag up some of the crucial omissions in the article as it stands.

DionysosProteus 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, DionysosP., why don't you have a go and fill the gap in the article with the section you feel needs to be in the article? Dieter Simon 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Poets v. philosophers

The following sentence and what follows it is confusing (and could also stand a citiation): "In Book I and II of his Republic Plato argues that poets have no place in the ideal state, and that a philosopher ought to hold the highest role as Philosopher King..." Is this what Plato actually "argues" in The Republic? Where exactly? He is the author of The Republic, true; but if I remember the work correctly, there are two primary interlocutors and Socrates; the entire work is executed in a dialogue with some narration by Socrates. But why should we assume Plato is a mouthpiece for Socrates? There has been much scholarly debate over the assumption that Plato's philosophical position is represented here at all, be it in the words of Socrates or any of the other interlocutors for that matter. Nor can it be assumed that Plato's philosophical "position" can be gleaned from what the dialogues produce: namely, the Ideal Society (which is actually [and ironically] a totalitarian distopia). It ought to be noted that the current summary in the Wiki is only one "reading" (and a sloppy one at that) of The Republic and there is really no evidence to support it, or the thesis that Plato is making an "argument" here at all. I think it's unfortunate that this assumption is so often repeated as fact that few people even bother reading Plato's works with the scrutiny they deserve. I'm writing this here and not on the main page because I'm new to Wikipedia and still need to learn the editing rules and the appropriate way and place to contest that statement. Figured I'd start here. --Maria617 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Maria, I am looking into this as it does need checking. Will come back and possibly re-edit. Dieter Simon 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dieter, I look forward to seeing this page evolve.--Maria617 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi, LtPowers, according to your edit summary, are you intending to enter some kind of template into this? Quote = Disambiguation link repair - You can help = Unquote. Unless you do, this is probably not going to go anywhere. It will disappear out of sight. Won't it? See history of article. Dieter Simon 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Erich Auerbach needs a hyperlink here - he is the expert we seek.

Requesting clarification on the Sculpture example...

...which reads:

"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."

How is "plasticity" being used here, given the instances of plasticity in art (w.r.t. Mondrian, or to the physical characteristic of the medium being used in the work--the only two occurances I've come across here)? I'm wondering about this notion of "mirror[ing] the plasticity of an image an onlooker has... ." Is "plasticity" then a condition or qualtiy imparted to the viewer of a piece?

Rbenari 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)rbenari

What almost certainly is meant here is the three-dimensional plasticity of sculpture, as in the Plastic arts where materials are involved which are moulded in such a way that they call forth the kind of recognition and empathy in the spectator as described. Dieter Simon 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur?

In the Aristotle section this statement reads to me like a non sequitur:

Aristotle argued that literature is more interesting as a means of learning than history, because history deals with specific facts that have happened, and which are contingent, whereas literature, although sometimes based on history, deals with events that could have taken place, or ought to have taken place.

If it's just me not getting it, perhaps someone would be so kind as to attempt an elucidation on this argument? __meco 08:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Proust's "oral" emotion

I have no idea what is meant by "oral emotion" in this context, and the link to a disambiguation page does not bring light on this puzzle either. This isn't central to understanding what is expounded, nevertheless, any examples provided should still be easily comprehensible. __meco 09:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Freud

Mimesis as opposed to catharsis are two basic notions on which Freud relies to explain the psychological intricacy of the relation between the author and his work, the hero and the reader/spectator as the process of literary creation is akin to that of dreaming awake.

Aside from noting the sentence being grammatically erroneous I still cannot comprehend the jumble of objects in this sentence. Also the meaning of catharsis here, in this context seemingly arbitrarily mentioned, eludes my comprehension. __meco 09:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

poetics

you should have goven us a more detailed analysis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The representation of nature

Why is mimesis limited to representation of nature and not, for example, states of soul or something alike? When somebody mimics something then mainly other people and their appearances. At least for Plato. And there is another more ontological meaning where mimesis mimics ideas -- but still not nature. Would this nature be physis in Greek? I think at least Plato never talks about mimesis of physis. Yes, he sais, mimesis can form a second physis or nature for people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.5.245 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What is he meaning of the prompt "this article is in need of attention"

Can someone point to the meaning of "this article is in need of attention" as per prompt in the article. Is it because you can't understand what the text says, or do you think it is unnecessarily complicated and therefore needs simplification? Where does the expert aspect come into it? It has a slightly complex definition but doesn't mean that an expert can make it easier for you to understand. Some concepts are complex and you can't make them less so by leaving certain aspects out, only to make a child understand what is after all a fairly difficult subject. Please clarify the prompt. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the Walter Kaufmann reference for reasons given while editing article

Have removed the following citation re Walter Kaufmann:

"Walter Kaufmann in Tragedy and Philosophy Ch.II suggests that we translate mimêsis in Aristotle’s Poetics as “make-believe”."

Have removed this as it means very little just sitting there as it was. A statement such as this needs further substantiation within the context of the whole article. What in fact did he actually refer to as 'make-believe', what exactly was it in chapter II that made him say so. Please re-enter this with the relevant details that would make the citation clearer. A block-quote might help here. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)