My name is Susan. Until today, I had no idea that I've ever engaged in what's called mimetic exploration. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm still confused about the concepts of mimesis and mimetic exploration. From what I picked up in lecture, mimetic exploration is something like my activity, as a spectator, in engaging in mimetic art. (??) And by mimetic art, I think we are considering it in the sense that the advocate does -- not necessarily as representing reality as we know it, but as revealing a micro-world with its own laws, etc. -- so that video games that obviously could not represent reality, could still be considered mimetic art.
During lecture, Prof. Cumming brought up that some psychologists believe that what makes a movie suspenseful is the puzzle-solving activity in which the audience partakes. I'm not sure if I agree with that entirely. Suppose I'm watching some suspenseful movie and the protagonist is trying to escape from the enemy's building (or something suspenseful like that). Even if I solve the puzzle and figure out a good way for the protagonist to escape, I think I'd still feel pretty nervous for the protagonist and kind of root for him in my head: "Go back to the fire escape! There's nobody guarding it there...!!" So I'm not really sure if engaging in puzzle-solving plays that big of a role in the suspense of a movie.
I would really appreciate feedback, especially about the concepts and what is considered mimetic art. Thanks!
I’m also unsure about the concept of mimetic exploration. I do think it goes beyond merely being a participant in, a spectator of art. When I see (say) a performance of Hamlet, I can engage in it without embarking on a mimetic exploration. I can learn about the characters, the philosophical themes, I can find aesthetic pleasure in the language and its rhythms. But I can fail to mimetically explore. What then’s mimetic exploration? I think maybe something like: entering the artwork at its representational level, and experiencing/learning about something familiar in a new way via the unfamiliar representation.
ReplyDeleteI like your example of suspense without puzzle solving. Is it an example of dramatic ironical puzzle solving, one in which we know something the protagonist does not, or something else? If it is, I see your point: we watch a horror movie and the “Look over your shoulder!” aspect never gets tiring. I thought that Sam might have been talking about scenarios in which the audience has just as much information as the protagonist. In those situations, the protagonist’s failure to solve the puzzle is frustrating (“Why aren’t you trying this?” etc.) Partly I think that’s because we then fail to sympathize with the protagonist.
ReplyDeleteI experienced such frustration when I watched the movie Frozen. Three people are stranded on a chairlift at a ski resort for a weekend. It’s a big drop to the bottom. They jump through a whole lot of harrowing hoops attempting to get to the ground. But the solution was simple: take off articles of clothing, tie them together, create a “rope,” let one person climb to the ground, then undo the “rope” and put your clothes back on. The characters never went this route. I quickly lost interest in the film: it wasn’t any fun after I realized the solution.
ReplyDeleteJust my two cents. Thanks for sharing your blog with us. (Sorry for the multiple posts: Blogger blew up when I tried to post the whole thing.) -Matt K.
I would have to agree that when, in a suspenseful film, you figure out the solution to the "puzzle" the film is no longer appealing. Does that in turn mean that the mimetic exploration ends there? How about in the case of suspenseful films I enjoy watching over and over again? I know what is going to happen but I still enjoy the film as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts Susan & Matthew, they peeked my curiosity.