As a reminder, I am reading several books on mimesis for my upcoming thesis work. This is not a review or a reflection, but an internal dialogue to which you are a party too. Further, it helps for me to summarize my work for later use. Feel free to drop suggestions, but remember that this is not the final book that I’m going to read on the subject and that my thoughts on all things are left to better facts if there are any.
I was correct – there wasn’t much in this chapter which pertains to my thesis work. What was interesting was the fact that our theater seems built upon mimesis, although it turns it on it’s head. Also, there are some psychological issues of connected between relationships which are interesting…
But, there are few things:
“Much like Plato, Augustine associates theatre with violence and irrational emotions, with the victory of ‘savage passion’ over reason and orderly thought.” (71)
So, mimesis is an appeal to emotion and later, it is an appeal to emotions use normal conventions which are recognizable to the audience, “Whereas imitatio is based on the conscious use of conventions.” (73)
Aristotle ‘saves’ mimesis from Plato by taking it out of the theatre. (72)
I found this interesting because of the idea that Aristotle uses orality, but not as theatre.
On 73, Potolsky notes that imitatio is “reconceived of the distinction between copy and original as a relationship between model and imitator, idealized past and belated present.” Okay, so that works for me.
The rest, however, is about theatre past and present, but not so ancient past.