More than Mimesis: Imitation vs. Interpretation

Imitation is a key element of social learning, which is how we develop essential understandings and actions through observing others and replicating the traits and aspects of their behavior that we perceive to be desirable. Whether we choose to imitate a certain action or response is often contingent upon the reaction that action receives (Rymanowicz, 2015). We are more likely to structure our behavior around actions that give us emotional benefits and positive reinforcement. This applies to what we do creatively and why we value certain aesthetic qualities over others. The saying “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” might hold true for certain aspects, but there is an acute misconception between inspiration and imitation in art and art education.

The longstanding tradition of trying to define elements of good art and justifiable aesthetic responses to prior cultural phenomena is well known from philosophical discourse over the course of human history. Ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle both agreed that art is an “imitation of life,” or “mimesis,”meaning that it mirrors the observations and feelings we derive from the natural world. However, they contrasted each other regarding whether art benefited Ancient Greek society. Plato considered the idea or the essence of something as the ultimate reality, and said that imitation minimizes and obscures the reality or truth of natural phenomena. He expands his critique by mentioning that this can have negative consequences on humanity’s moral outcomes and psyche by undermining our stability by toying with our emotions, i.e. making us feel sad or dissatisfied about life itself.

Aristotle disagreed, and considered mimesis to be a worthwhile endeavor. In his treatise Poetics he mentions that the ideas an artist communicates through their artwork is an idealized interpretation of the natural world and life itself. Therefore, while the artist bases their art on events and objects from the world around them, it goes beyond imitation because they are adding their personal expressions of meaning and beauty. Aristotle also responded to Plato’s concerns about artistic mimicry being detrimental to society, countering that the aforementioned social and emotional responses can actually foster experiential learning that helps us to bolster our emotional intelligence and moral fortitude.

Reviewing the philosophical views of Plato and Aristotle in terms of what we currently know about the progression of art and artistic dialog, we can assert that when differentiating between imitation and interpretation it is important to determine the intent of the artist and the content of an artwork. Art is a confluence of ideas and reflections of the natural world. Plato’s assumption that art operates by imagery rather than ideas is outmoded, especially in light of postmodern movements like conceptual art where an artist’s ideas are often more apparent in a work of art than the aesthetics. Appropriation art is an example of how art mimics preexisting imagery, yet alters its original context through conceptual ideology. This example does support Plato’s notion that artistic imagery might cloud the truth rather than clarifying it, however, we live in a non-binary world where there are multiple ways of viewing and understanding both natural and cultural phenomena. The important takeaway from the issue of mimesis and its effect on culture is that successful artists interpret nature rather than directly imitating it. Making art by drawing from inspiration boosts our social, emotional and critical intellect, while imitation is an unfortunate consequence of our desire for perfection and acceptance. Furthermore, imitation art can result in serious consequences such as accusations of plagiarism and intellectual property theft.

A recent United States Supreme Court case ruling against Andy Warhol’s estate is a watershed moment where one of the most renowned and recognizable artists was found liable for infringing on another artist’s work (see: Veltman, 2023). The court decided in favor of photographer Lynn Goldsmith whose portrait of the musician Prince was used by Andy Warhol to make a series of iconic screen prints, because they considered Warhol’s work to be too faithful of a reproduction. This issue in particular opens up a teachable moment regarding “fair use” imagery within creative fields. Fair use is the utilization of pre-existing and copyrighted material for a limited and “transformative” purpose. This means an artist must alter the original image in a manner that is significant enough for it to exist as a separate entity. Generally fair use is applicable for education purposes rather than commercial intent. For example, a teacher recreating or remixing a famous work of contemporary art to hang in their classrooms is fair use and would be exempt from legal ramifications under the fair use clause.

Oftentimes I see art educators travel down a slippery slope by presenting lessons that require students to blatantly copy the work or style of a well known artist. Even when these lessons have beneficial underlying goals, such as developing a student’s aesthetic vocabulary, learning art history or responding to social and cultural issues, the outcomes can be confusing and damaging. Associating personal growth and artistic development with the established canonical works of other artists can be more stifling than empowering in the long run. These lessons run the risk of establishing problematic mindsets and attitudes that have ethical ramifications, such as validating cultural appropriation (see: Taylor, 2020). Imitating the work of other artists as an assignment can also lead to situations where artists are exploited for their work. Contemporary culture is rife with examples, such as a series of photographs taken to promote Kanye West’s fashion line that are apparent rip-offs of original art by Rita Minissi. By conflating Minissi’s imagery with his fashion brand, West’s mimicry obscures the powerful message and expression behind Minissi’s original work. Minissi’s art hones in on reclaiming agency and finding ways to cope with grief after events that caused her to feel disconnected from her corporeal self. By faithfully copying her work as a means to advertise his brand, West threatened to erase her personal narrative and exploited her powerful expression of trauma for his own personal gain. What was initially meant to be a cathartic expression for the artist and others who experience similar emotional and physical disconnect, turned into a new traumatic event.

Without establishing a discourse around interpretation versus imitation we risk being ignorant to the value, power and meaning within works of art. Being inspired by another artist’s work is a good thing, but imitating that artist’s work because you like how it looks is not indicative of forming a meaningful connection with it. Drawing inspiration from another work of art means grasping elements in the work that resonate with you, and interpreting them by synthesizing and expressing these features using your own voice and aesthetic style. Although the use of another artist’s work and/or style as a teaching tool is a common practice, it would behoove educators to include a concise introduction to the topic of fair use in these moments. In a previously published post titled “Genuine Imitations,” I discuss how art teachers can embrace the popular trope of student renderings that imitate the popular culture iconography they are immersed with, in order to show how these influences can be made into original works of art.

We are possibly entering uncharted territory with regards to the Warhol ruling. While the West incident was a clear cut mimesis of Minissi’s intellectual and creative property, Warhol’s work is more subjective with regards to how it re-presented Goldsmith’s photograph. One can soundly make the argument that Goldsmith’s photograph and Warhol’s screen prints are quite distinct in style. Warhol’s interpretation of Goldsmith’s Prince photograph transformed the original black and white image into a work of art that is clearly recognizable in a style that is indicative of Warhol’s own artistic ingenuity. The particular style that Warhol developed is one of the most identifiable in the history of art and has ironically been imitated by a countless number of artists.

Minissi is also a good example to discuss the importance of differentiating between artistic interpretation and imitation because her own artistic philosophy addresses this dichotomy. She notes that: “knowledge is less like seeing and more like interpretation, since things can never be directly or completely present to us. The point of knowledge is not to experience the unknowable uniqueness of a thing, but to obtain some sort of partial grasp of the features of a thing that is already in our midst.”

---

References, Notes, Suggested Reading:

Minissi, Rita. “Thing or Things,” Thingorthings.com. https://thingorthings.com/things

Rymanowicz, Kylie. “Monkey see, monkey do: Model behavior in early childhood.” Michigan State University Extension, 30 March 2015. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/monkey_see_monkey_do_model_behavior_in_early_childhood

Taylor, Janet. “Considering Cultural Appropriation in the Art Classroom,” The Art of Education, 23 October 2020. https://theartofeducation.edu/2020/10/considering-cultural-appropriation-in-the-art-classroom/

Veltman, Chloe. “Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright infringement case,” NPR, 18 May 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176881182/supreme-court-sides-against-andy-warhol-foundation-in-copyright-infringement-cas