موضوع محاکات به مثابه اُبژه هنر (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در بررسی هایی که متوجه تبیین سرشت هنر و ادبیات است، بحث در باب موضوع محاکات همواره اهمیت ویژه ای داشته است. درواقع، ارسطو در بوطیقا با متمایز کردن «موضوع»، «شیوه» و «وسائط محاکات» آغازگر بحث و جدل هایی است که تا دوران معاصر تداوم یافته است. در این میان، موضوع محاکات به مثابه ابژه هنری، پیش از ارسطو در سنت فلسفی افلاطون نیز مطرح شده است. البته، برخلاف ارسطو که با ابتنای بحث بر پایه ایده ال تجربی می کوشد محاکات را به رسمیت بشناسد، افلاطون محاکات را به واسطه توجه به ایده آل استعلایی فاقد شأن معرفتی قلمداد می کند. بااین همه، در سیر تداوم فلسفه هنر عموماً این دیدگاه ارسطویی است که تبیین یا بازتفسیر می شود. براین اساس، عموماً اندیشمندان دوره رنسانس و سپس تر در دوران معاصر امثال لوکاچ یا اوئرباخ موضوع محاکات را از چشم اندازهای متفاوتی تشریح کرده اند. در مجموع، از آرای این اندیشمندان این گونه بر می آید که هنرمند وقتی به آفرینش اثر هنری روی می آورد، موضوع محاکات ممکن است مشتمل بر امرِ ایده آل یا آرمانی، سنّت، طبیعت، وضع امور، اصول عام طبیعت بشری یا صرفاً همان واقعیت بیرونی باشد. پژوهش حاضر، می کوشد ضمن بررسی این پیش نهاده ها در باب موضوع محاکات، قابلیت ها و کاستی های نظری آنان را واکاوی کند. در نهایت، نگارنده با پیشنهاد جهان ممکن به مثابه موضوع محاکات، دریافتی نو در این خصوص به دست می دهد که به نظر می رسد از توان تحلیلی بیشتری برخوردار باشد. به موجب چنین پیش نهادی، رویدادها و پدیدارها در ساحت جهان ممکن ادبی براساس قواعد درونی خاص آن جهان عمل می کنند و بنابراین حتی گونه های غیررئالیستی بازنمایی نیز در نهایت بر پایه اصل حقیقت نمایی قابل فهم و تفسیر هستند.The Object of Mimesis as the Object of Art
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.
تبلیغات
