Mimesis Kavramı: Tarih, Anlam ve Epistemik Bağlam

Öz

Antik Yunan’dan başlayarak on sekizinci yüzyılın sonuna dek sanat anlayışımızı büyük ölçüde belirleyen mimesis kavramı, bu dönemde radikal biçimde baskılanmış, ancak yirminci yüzyılın ortalarında bu kez felsefi estetiğin çerçevesinde değil, sosyal ve kültürel bilimler bağlamında farklı bir odakla yeniden ortaya çıkmıştır. Tarihsel ve sistematik açıdan bakıldığında, mimesis ya da taklit, sanatın hem doğanın gerçekçi bir aynası olma hem de kendi özerk dünyasını kurma yönündeki temel boyutlarını ifade eden, dünyayı yeniden üreten ve dünyayı yaratan iki kutup etrafında yeniden inşa edilebilecek bir kavram olarak belirir. Eylemin taklidi olarak mimesis, nihayetinde esasen pratik ve toplumsal bir yeti olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğanın taklidi
• yaratım
• realizm
• eylem
• felsefi estetik
• sosyal ve kültürel bilimler

The Concept of Mimesis: History, Meaning, and Epistemic Context

Öz

From Ancient Greece the concept of mimesis largely defines our understanding of art right up until the end of the eighteenth century, when it is drastically suppressed, until it re-emerges in the mid-twentieth century with a new focus, characterized not through philosophical aesthetics this time, but through the social and cultural sciences. Viewed historically and systematically, mimesis or imitation can be reconstructed as a concept which revolves around two poles, namely a world-reproducing and a world-creating pole, that fundamental aspect of art as a realistic mirror of nature, and art as its own, autonomous world. As imitation of action mimesis finally proves to be a primarily practical and social capacity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Imitation of nature
• creation
• realism
• action
• philosophical aesthetics
• social and cultural sciences

Kaynakça

1. Aristoteles. Poetik. Edited and translated by Manfred Fuhrmann. Reclam, 1982.
2. Blumenberg, Hans. “‘Nachahmung der Natur.’ Zur Vorgeschichte der Idee des schöpferischen Menschen” (1957). In Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede, 55–103. Reclam, 1981.
3. Danto, Arthur C. “The End of Art.” In The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, 81–115. Columbia University Press, 1986.
4. Derrida, Jacques. “Economimesis.” Diacritics 11, no. 2 (1981): 2–25.
5. Früchtl, Josef. “Adorno and Mimesis.” In Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, edited by Michael Kelly, vol. 1, 23–25. Oxford University Press, 1998.
6. ———. Mimesis – Konstellation eines Zentralbegriffs bei Adorno. Meiner, 2024.
7. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Platons dialektische Ethik und andere Studien zur Platonischen Philosophie. Meiner, 1968.
8. ———. Truth and Method. 2nd, rev. ed. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. Continuum, 1989.

9. Gebauer, Gunter and Wulf, Christoph, eds. Spiel-Ritual-Geste. Mimetisches Handeln in der sozialen Welt. Rowohlt, 1998.
10. Girard, René. Violence and the Sacred. Translated by Patrick Gregory. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.
11. Gombrich, Ernst. Art and Illusion. 5th ed. Phaidon, 1977.
12. Grassi, Ernesto. Die Theorie des Schönen in der Antike. Dumont, 1980.
13. Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Twelve Lectures. Translated by Frederick G. Lawrence. MIT Press, 1987.
14. Halliwell, Stephen. The Aesthetics of Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton University Press, 2002.
15. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Hackett Publishing Company, 1987.
16. Koller, Heinz. Die Mimesis in der Antike. Nachahmung, Darstellung, Ausdruck. Francke, 1954. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. “Laokoon oder über die Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie.” In Lessings Werke. Dritter Band, edited by Kurt Wölfel, 7–171. Insel, 1967.
17. Luhmann, Niklas. Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, 1995.
18. Menke, Christoph. Kraft. Ein Grundbegriff ästhetischer Anthropologie. Suhrkamp, 2008.
19. Moritz, Karl Philipp. “Über die bildende Nachahmung des Schönen.” In Die Signatur des Schönen und andere Schriften zur Begründung der Autonomieästhetik, edited by Stefan Ripplinger. Philo Fine Arts, 2009.
20. Platon. Phaidon, Politeia. Edited by Walter F. Otto and Ernesto Grassi, translated by Friedrich Schleiermacher. Rowohlt, 1958.
21. Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E.F.J. Payne, vol. I. Dover Publications, 1969.
22. Schulte-Sasse, Jochen. “Einbildungskraft/Imagination.” In Ästhetische Grundbegriffe, edited by Karlheinz Barck et al., bd. 2: Dekadent-Grotesk, 88–120. Metzler, 2001.
23. Strube, Werner. “Illusion.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, edited by Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer, bd. 4: I-K, 204–215. Schwabe & Co, 1976.
24. Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw. Geschichte der sechs Begriffe: Kunst, Schönheit, Form, Kreativität, Mimesis, Ästhetisches Erlebnis. Suhrkamp, 2003.
25. Taussig, Michael. Mimesis and Alterity. A Particular History of the Senses. Routledge, 1993. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press, 1989.
26. Warning, Rainer. “Imagination.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, edited by Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer, bd. 4: I-K, 219–220. Schwabe & Co, 1976.