Sinha Amresh Adorno on Mimesis in Aesthetic Theory

8/12/2019 Sinha Amresh Adorno on Mimesis in Aesthetic Theory

1/12

Back to the Walter Benjamin Research SyndicateHomepage

Adorno on Mimesis inAesthetic Theory

Amresh Sinha

[email protected]

In Briel, Holger and Andreas Kramer, eds.,In Practice: Adorno,

Critical Theory and Cultural Studies. Bern: Lang, 2000, pp. 145

15!.

Art is imitation onl" to the e#tent to $hich it is o%&ecti'e e#pression, (ar remo'ed (rom

ps"cholog". )here ma" ha'e %een a time long ago $hen this e#pressi'e *+alit" o( the

o%&ecti'e $orld generall" $as percei'ed %" the h+man sensor" apparat+s. It no longer is.#pression no$ada"s li'es on onl" in art. )hro+gh e#pression art can keep at a distance

the moment o( %eing(orother $hich is al$a"s threatening to eng+l( it. Art is th+s a%le tospeak in itsel(. )his is the reali-ation thro+gh mimesis. Arts e#pression is the antithesis

o( e#pressing something. /imesis is the ideal o( art, not some practical method ors+%&ecti'e attit+de aimed at e#pressi'e 'al+es. hat the artist contri%+tes to e#pression is

his a%ilit" to mimic, $hich sets (ree in him the e#pressed s+%stance. !"

Adornos criti*+e o( mimesis proposes a method o( dialectical re(lection $hich goes

against the grain o( the positi'istic tendenc" o( modern conscio+sness, $hich has atendenc" to s+%stit+te means (or ends. Arts e#pression is the antithesis o( e#pressing

something, (or Adorno, implies that it remains nonidentical to a tendenc" that is related

to the e#igenc" o( commodit" e#change. It resists the (+nctional aspect o( %eing(orother

$hich threatens3 to eng+l( its e#istence. Artistic e#pression cannot %e s+%stit+ted (orsomething else. It cannot %e a%sor%ed into the identit" o( something that can %e

s+%stit+ted (or itsel(. Artistic e#pression resists a%sorption into a method. According toAdorno, %oth HegelsPhenomenology of Spiritand /ar#s Capital, the great dialectical

te#ts o( modern dialectics, +se the methodolog" o( re(lection, %+t it is a method $hich

per(orms a 'er" di((erent p+rpose. )he method to $hich the o%&ect is no$ %eings+%&ected is deri'ed (rom the positi'istic s"mptoms o( modern methodolog", $hose aim

is to s+%stit+te means (or ends. Instead o( rel"ing +pon the (+nctional aspect o(

description as a method p+rported %" positi'istic scientism, Adorno adheres to the

Hegelian mode o( dialectical re(lection comprising %oth description and +nderstanding,%+t onl" to the e#tent that the latter $o+ld soon take precedence o'er the (ormer in almost

e'er" sense o( the $ord. 2")he +nderstanding o( mimesis, (or Adorno, lies in the (actthat as a sel(identical entit", the art$ork is not prod+ced in relation to the identit" o( a$orld or a method, %+t it is sel(identical to its mimetic moment, that is, it is identical to

itsel( and not to the other. )his helps him to theori-e the a%sence o( the notion o(

s+%&ecti'it" in relation to the mimetic moment $hich $ithdra$s or at least remains at adistance (rom the moment o( %eing(oranother. Art does not re(lect the mood o( the

artist, is not a replica or a (+--" photograph o( the ps"chic content, it is a

contri%+tion to e#pression, an a%ilit" that is transmitted thro+gh mimesis. +rthermore,
http://www.wbenjamin.org/walterbenjamin.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn1%23fn1http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn2%23fn2http://www.wbenjamin.org/walterbenjamin.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn1%23fn1http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn2%23fn2


2/12

the artistic contri%+tion also %rings to e#pression the immanent categor" o( the tr+th

content $hich is the o%&ect o( +nderstanding. /imesis, there(ore, is not a%o+t replicating

the content rather it is a (orm o( e#pression. )he mimetic moment in art is not (o+nd inthe artistic intention, it o+tlines the (eat+res o( e#pression, in other $ords, it e#presses

e#pression itsel( and nothing else. or Adorno the resignation o( 6ch+%erts m+sic cannot

%e located in the socalled p+rported mood o( its composer, (or that is not $hat his arte#presses. hat it e#presses is rather the post+re o( sl+mping itsel( that mimics the

resignation o( his m+sic.

Adorno, ho$e'er, esta%lishes a di((erence %et$een the ling+istic medi+m o( art and

lang+age as s+ch. )he ling+istic aspect o( lang+age is mani(ested thro+gh mimetice#pression $hich itsel( is repressed in the medi+m o( lang+age inso(ar as this repression

o( mimesis is e#pressed %" the lang+age, $hich has disgraced itsel( %" (alling into the

pit(alls o( e#change lang+age that determines the separation o( s+%&ect and o%&ect. )heling+istic medi+m o( art is delineated in the (eat+res o( the artistic e#pression, in its

a%ilit" to mimic e#pression, or to lend a gest+re or post+re to a (eat+re $hich is %ro+ght

a%o+t to e#press itsel(, or to speak in itsel( on the other hand, lang+age as a medi+m o(art does not e#press its mimetic a%ilit" %+t merel" replicates the meaning, the content o(

the art$ork. )he ling+istic is a medi+minitsel( lang+age is a medi+m(oranother. In an

attempt to recall Ben&amins doctrine o( mimesis, Adorno in'okes 7ames 7o"ce, and his

ling+istic e#periments $hich go %e"ond the scope o( lang+age, in order to stress thedi((erence %et$een comm+nicati'e and mimetic lang+age. Art has a d+al or do+%le

character. #"It is %oth constit+ti'e and constit+ted. Art, as a ling+istic e#pression o(

(orm, as in 7o"ces prose, sets aside the disc+rsi'e model o( lang+age it constit+tes itso$n essence. 8n the other hand, art as a medi+m o( lang+age is no longer an e#pression

o( itsel(, %+t loses its character and is s+%ordinated to meaning $hich poses a threat to its

identit". And here $e are at the cr+# o( the pro%lem. I( the meaning o( lang+age is

e#pressed thro+gh comm+nicati'e lang+age then it in(licts danger to itsel(.

Be(ore going into the Ben&aminian nat+re o( Adornos disco+rse o( lang+age, it might %e

+se(+l to recall a signi(icant essa" Adorno $rote earl" in his career, )he Act+alit" o(

9hilosoph", in $hich he reiterates the logic o( the Hegelian interpretation o( the riddle o(the 6phin# in theAesthetics, %" descri%ing the process o( ho$ in the presence o( meaning

the riddle disintegrates. 6+ch is the (orm o( the threat that hangs o'er the 'er" e#istence

o( art, and that is the reason $h" the indeciphera%ilit" or incomm+nica%ilit" in art is soprecio+s and 'al+a%le (or him. )he 'er" e#istence o( the art$ork depends on the (act that

it remains +ndeciphera%le, ins+rmo+nta%le, a+tonomo+s, and (ree. An e#pression is

+ndeciphera%le, +nmastera%le it is +nrepresenta%le.

In Adornos theor" o( mimesis the nonsigni(icati'e character o( lang+age is gi'enprecedence o'er the signi(icati'e or comm+nicati'e aspect o( lang+age. )his is so

%eca+se in Adornos consideration the tr+e lang+age o( art is speechless A), 143.

)his, incidentall", also makes +s re(lect on his pre'io+s statement that art is...a%le to

speak in itsel( A), 143. It might $ell %e a matter o( contention $hether speechlessnesscoincides $ith an inner speech, or $hether to speak in itsel( is merel" a logical

categor" o( %einginitsel( $hich resists the s+%lation o( %eing(oranother. )he (act that
http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn3%23fn3http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn3%23fn3


3/12

art does not speak o+t as a method does point to an important di((erence in that $e can

o%ser'e that the lang+age o( art is %oth sel(contained and m+te. B+t, ne'ertheless, %"

standing on its o$n, art proclaims a sel(hood that e#presses thro+gh its ga-e the %einginitsel( inso(ar as it does not relin*+ish its sel(identit" %" %ecoming a part o( the totalit"

o( an identi("ing tho+ght process. )he ga-e allo$s the $ork o( art to e#press itsel(

thro+gh mimesis. /imesis presents the idea o( the primar" s+%&ect. Adornos 'ersion o(mimesis as the archaic holdo'er o( lang+age is an echo o( the Ben&aminian moti(. In his

essa", 8n Lang+age as s+ch and the Lang+age o( /an, Ben&amin spec+lates on the

Adamic lang+age %e(ore and a(ter the all. Ho$e'er a slight di((erence can %e percei'edin their +se o( lang+age. Ben&amin sho$s a marked pre(erence (or the theological and

messianic implications o( the lang+age, $hereas Adorno $orks (rom a more

anthropological and phenomenological perspecti'e. )he phenomenological aspect o(

Adornos thinking is %ro+ght to light %" his e((ort to (orm+late the disco+rse o( art in the(rame$ork o( the disco+rse o( %eing. or instance, he $rites, it is as i( art $orks $ere re

enacting the process thro+gh $hich the s+%&ect comes pain(+ll" into %eing A), 143.

or as long as the memor" o( the primal histor" re'er%erates thro+gh the s+%&ect, the$ork o( art $ill %ear a((init" $ith it in its e#pression. $")he point is not to integrate this

e#pression into the identit" o( the s+%&ect, the ego, %eca+se despite the similarit" and

resem%lance o( this e#pression $ith the s+%&ecti'e content, it sho+ld not %e (orgotten that

the s+%&ecti'e element in the $ork o( art at the same time contin+es to %e an impersonaland nons+%&ecti'e e#pression. )he closest the $ork o( art comes to e#pressing is the

nons+%&ecti'e impression o( the s+%&ect. Adorno $rites:

/ore speci(icall" it is in arts apparitional *+alit" or phenomenalit" das Erscheinende3

that the collecti'e essence %reaks (orth %eca+se apparition goes (ar %e"ond the meres+%&ect. )he memory trace of mimesis+nearthed %" e'er" art $ork, among other things,

anticipates a condition o( reconciliation %et$een the indi'id+al and the collecti'it". Andthis collecti'e remem%rance is not di'orced (rom the s+%&ect %+t act+ali-es itsel( thro+ghit. )he latters imp+lsi'e a'ersions are an indicator o( collecti'e modes o( response. )hat

is $h" the philosophical interpretation o( tr+th content has to proceed thro+gh the

partic+lar as $ell. )he s+%&ecti'el" mimeticand e#pressi'e moment o( $orks o( artterminates in o%&ecti'it". )he" are neitherp+re imp+lse norp+re (orm, %+t the

congealment o( the process o( o%taining %et$een imp+lse and (orm. )his process is a

social one. mphasis mine3 A), 1!03

As the primal histor" o( s+%&ecti'it", the mimetic imp+lses are themsel'es integrated andtransposed thro+gh a process o( reenactment into the $orks o( art, and the" retain their

*+alit" as plenipotentiaries o( e#traaesthetic nat+re in the midst o( art, e#cept that the"

cease to %e nat+re p+re and simple, %ecoming an a(terimage o( nat+re instead A),153. )he mimetic imp+lse, as plenipotentiaries o( e#traaesthetic nat+re, is s+%lated in

the $ork o( art and, conse*+entl", also preser'ed in its a(terimage as the

o%&ecti(ication o( the artistic e#pression. In that sense the mimetic lang+age, the non

comm+nicati'e aspect o( the lang+age, is no longer e#pressed in the lang+age o( nat+re,$hose speechlessness indicates the ca+se o( its o$n s+((ering, %+t is %eing no$

e#pressed as a lang+age that trans(orms the lang+age o( s+((ering into a lang+age o(


4/12

e#pression. )he $ork o( art, thro+gh its integrati'e machiner", manages to trans(orm

and modi(" the original (orm o( mimesis into the constit+ti'e act o( spirit+ali-ation, a

moment $hich comes prior to the re(lection o( spirit. )he e#pression o( mimetic lang+agein the $ork o( art is preser'ed and conser'ed in the artistic e#pression that speaks

immanentl" (rom $ithin the art$ork itsel(. B+t it is no$ as a modi(ied, mediated 'ersion

o( spirit+ali-ation that the mimetic imp+lse s+r'i'es in the o%&ecti(ication o( the artistice#pression. In Adorno, the historici-ation o( mimesis remains in(ormed %" his rel+ctance

to pro'ide a descripti'e or de(initi'e model o( mimesis $hich, incidentl", also ser'es as a

criti*+e o( the Ben&aminian notion o( nonsens+o+s similarit".

/ichael ;ahn, in 6+%'ersi'e /imesis, arg+es that (or Adorno the relationship%et$een $ord and thing, as a negati'e dialectic $hich is not content $ith a simple

similarit", has to a'oid the deadlock o( s"nthesis $hich Ben&amins nonsens+al

similarit" seems to impl".5" It is c+rio+s to (ind ;ahns insin+ation that there is asimplicit" or na


5/12

Imitation is relegated to %ad or secondar" mimesis. ?et, (or Adorno, the concept o(

mimetic ta%ooBilder verbotta%oo on gra'en imagescan also %e seen as an e#ample

o( mimesis itsel(. ;ahn arg+es that Adornos criti*+e o( mimesis as a categor" o( artm+st not %e red+ced to imaging representation, not %eca+se he is primaril" interested in

m+sic and other nonrepresentational arts, %+t rather (or him mimesis is a %eha'ior

$hich reaches to$ards the o%&ect, stands in a re(lected immediac" to it, and th+s itimplies the archaic a((init" %et$een s+%&ect and o%&ect.'"6imilarl", inLate Marxism,

7ameson makes the arg+ment that the introd+ction o( the concept o( mimetic ta%oo also

represents a moment o( dialectical possi%ilit" %et$een mimesis and rationalit". !("8nl"no$, according to him, the t+rn o( socalled estern science $ill...%e seen as a res+lt o(

the antimimetic ta%oo and o( antimimetic regressionthat is to sa", the passage (rom a

percept+al science %ased on the senses and on *+alit" to notations and anal"sis %ased on

geometr" and on mathematics.!!" Both the antimimetic ta%oo and antimimeticregression ha'e preser'ed the memor" o( a science, the mimetic prehistor" o(

rationalit". !2"Historicall" one can percei'e in the enlightened repression o( mimesis a

contin+ation o( the same imp+lse.

Art is a re(+ge o( mimetic %eha'ior. In art the s+%&ect, depending on ho$ m+ch a+tonom"

it has, takes +p 'ar"ing positions vis--visits o%&ecti'e other (rom $hich it is al$a"s

di((erent %+t ne'er entirel" separate. Arts disa'o$al o( the magical practicesarts o$n

antecedentssigni(ies that art shares in rationalit". Its a%ilit" to hold its o$n !"amimesisin the midst o( rationalit", e'en $hile +sing the means o( that rationalit", is a response to

the e'ils and irrationalit" o( the rational %+rea+cratic $orld. A), @!3

)he critical potential o( art maintains itsel( !"amimesis in the midst o( the irrationalit"

o( the $orld and is still rele'ant, despite the loss o( the s+%&ect, to the priorit" o( theo%&ect. Art s+r'i'es (irst o( all %" adapting to the rational %eha'ior o( the mimetic

imp+lse, and secondl" %" remaining distinct (rom the allem%racing identit" o(rationalit". )o p+t it slightl" di((erentl", the mimetic imp+lse in art s+r'i'es d+e to itscorrelati'e, adapti'e %eha'ior. Art takes re(+ge in mimesis in order to escape (rom the

irrationalit" o( the deathlike intensit" o( the rei(ied $orld this leads to Adornos m+sings

on the posth+mo+s character o( art inAesthetic Theory.

/imesis, in Adorno, mediates %et$een t$o elements: li(e and death. In s+ch a dialecticalconte#t, i( $e ass+me that arts s+r'i'al in the midst o( its potential annihilation %" the

%+rea+cratic irrationalit" o( the $orld depends on the (act that it m+st partake in the

process o( rationalit", $hich itsel( is the reason (or its irrationalit", then its relation todeath is $hat is mani(ested as its relation to li(e. espite the historical (act that art

emerged grad+all" (rom the (etters o( magical principles, it cannot simpl" go %ack to its

nat+ral origin, $hen (aced $ith the rational composition o( the irrational, rei(ied,%o+rgeois $orld. It is alread" a part o( it. Arts emergence (rom the shackles o( the magic

$orld testi(ies to its rational principle. B+t it does not (+ll" indicate the separation o(

s+%&ect (rom the o%&ect. or Adorno, the 'ar"ing positions o( art signi(ies t$o distinct

(eat+res. In the (irst place, the $ork o( art is endo$ed $ith the principle o( rationalit",$hich indicates its separation (rom the dominance o( the magicom"thical realm

secondl", art also stands in opposition to the rationalit", the real domination. In %oth
http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn9%23fn9http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn9%23fn9http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn10%23fn10http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn10%23fn10http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn11%23fn11http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn12%23fn12http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn12%23fn12http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn9%23fn9http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn10%23fn10http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn11%23fn11http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn12%23fn12


6/12

instances the act+al process o( art is ine#trica%l" intert$ined $ith rationalit" A), 03.

?et, the traditional aesthetic reception tends to %e s+rprised at the mo%ili-ation o(

technological, rational element o( artistic prod+ction that $orks in a di((erent directionthan domination does. Both art and rationalit" mo%ili-e technolog": one emplo"s it (or

the sake o( the s+r'i'al o( its magical heritage, the other pa"s no attention to it. )he

di((erence lies in the direction o( mo%ili-ation itsel(.

)he dialectic o( mimesis, Adorno claims, is a%sol+tel" intrinsic to art, a propositionmostl" mis+nderstood %" the na#vet$ o( modern aesthetic tho+ght. or it (ails to

appreciate the progressi'e disenchantment o( the $orld in the $ork o( art as a means (or

sec+ring, ho$e'er thro+gh technolog", the li(e o( magical heritage o( art. )he dialectic o(mimesis and rationalit" re'eals the compati%le %+t irreconcila%le tendenc" o( one to the

other. Arts mimetic character is re'ealed in its disenchantment (rom and sec+lari-ation o(

magic (rom the archaic period. It th+s con'e"s the rational side o( art, as $ell as itsre(+sal to allo$ the domination o( rationalit" to t+rn it into a technological per(ect %eing.

In art the resistance is (elt in %oth directions as nothing %+t the m+te s+((ering o( its

e#pression. or neither does its mimetic rationalit" permit it to regress to the magicalrealm, in order to separate itsel( (rom that t"pe o( cognition $hich aims at a sing+lar

concept+al grasp o( the $orld, nor the kno$ledge o( the magical essence let it slide

to$ards the destr+ction o( its sel(identit".

Arts sec+lari-ation (rom magic is sec+red $ithin the antinom" o( li(e and death. )heart$orks s+r'i'al depends on its adhering to the mimetic imp+lse, $hich is (oremost a

-oological or %iological imp+lse, designed a(ter the perse'erance o( the species, a

nat+ral, anthropological imp+lse that s+r'i'es in the (ace o( death %" (eigning death itsel(.

In the (ace o( death, man" animals ha'e %een (o+nd to imitate death, their enem". )heirs+r'i'al res+lts (rom the assimilation to the other. B" pla"ing dead in the presence o(

e#treme danger, %" gi'ing +p the characteristic o( li(e, %" pla"ing dead, in the presence o(e#treme danger, the animal gi'es itsel(, assimilates itsel( to death. In other $ords, thepresenceo( death mimeticall" marks the absenceo( %oth li(e and death. )his rit+al, or, i(

"o+ pre(er, the dialectic, o( li(e and death points to a moment in the histor" o( art that is

indisting+isha%le (rom the dichotom" o( the rational and the irrational. Art is $itho+tdo+%t irrational, or at least, its origin cannot %e e#tricated (rom the horror that al$a"s

disting+ishes it (rom the other, %+t it is also, at the same time, rational, to the e#tent that it

m+st not deteriorate to the s+perstitio+s m"thological le'el. hat mimetic %eha'iorresponds to, sa"s Adorno, is the teloso( cognition, $hich is to sa" that the tendenc" o(

modern scientism to red+ce all means (or its o$n ends $ill not do &+stice to the mimetic

re*+irements. )he teloso( cognition, ho$e'er, signi(ies the e#pansion o( this concept

into the none#istent, nonconcept+al areathe domain o( mimesis. )his %rings +s to thatmoment in Adornos doctrine o( mimesis that per(orms the task o( criti*+e. )he critical

mimesis responds, more or less, in a manner o( a criti*+e o( criti*+e.!#"According to

Adorno, art is rationalit" critici-ing itsel( $itho+t %eing a%le to o'ercome itsel( A),13. Art is critical o( rationalit", "et cannot %e identi(ied $ith it, despite the (act that

rationalit", too, is a critical (actor. )he complimentar" nat+re o( this dialectical tension is

%est o%ser'ed in the cases $here the ideological concerns o( positi'istic thinking are most%latantl" e'ident. )ho+gh Adorno himsel( does not hesitate to incorporate materials (rom


7/12

other academic (ields, he nonetheless o%&ects to that t"pe o( the rationalist criti*+e that,

in order to make a point a%o+t art, applies the criteria o( e#tra artisticlogic and

ca+salit" A), 13. Caming it an ideological mis+se o( criti*+e, he pro'ides ane#ample: hen a latecomer in the tradition o( the realistic no'el o%&ects to ichendor((s

'erse, $hich sa"s that clo+ds are (loating like hea'" dreams, pointing o+t that one ma"

$ell compare dreams to clo+ds %+t not clo+ds to dreams, then poetr", (aced $ith thehomel" pers+asi'eness o( this o%&ection, &+stl" retreats into its o$n realm A), 13. It is

almost +n%eara%le to lea'e the poetic and mimetic con(ig+rations and constellationsin

$hich the e#ternal nat+re resem%les the inner state o( almost sentimental longingin thehands o( rationalist criticism.

Dationalit" is immanent to art, and this rationalit" is in man" $a"ssimilarto the

rationalit" o( the o+tside $orld, %+t it is also, at the same time, di((erent (rom the

rationalit" o( the concept+al order. Co artistic $ork can e#ist in complete isolation (romthe rationalit" go'erning the $orld o+tside, "et it ma" not reprod+ce or imitate the

strict+res o( the go'erning logic that condemns it (or ha'ing irrational (eat+res. hat

appears as irrational e#pression in art in the e"es o( the concept+al ordering is act+all"the e#pression o( the (orgotten e#periences that themsel'es cannot %e +nderstood %"

rationali-ing them. )he de(ense o( irrationalism, in Adorno, is prompted %" a desire to

de(end e#pressionism and s+rrealism (rom the attacks o( the propagandist apparatchiks

like Ehdano' and his (ollo$ers. Adorno maintains that to mani(est irrationalit"theirrationalit" o( the ps"che and o( the o%&ecti'e orderin art thro+gh a (ormati'e process,

th+s making it rational in a sense, is one thing: to preach irrationalit", $hich more o(ten

than not goes hand in hand $ith a s+per(icial rationalism in the +se o( artistic means, is*+ite another A), 23. )his leads to a criti*+e o( alter Ben&amin: alter Ben&amin

pro%a%l" did not take cogni-ance o( this in his theor" a%o+t the $ork o( art in the age o(

mechanical reprod+ction. or one thing, Ben&amins dichotom" %et$een a+ratic and

massprod+ced art, (or simplicit"s sake, neglects the dialectical relation o( these t$ot"pes. or another, he %ecomes the 'ictim o( a perspecti'e on art that h"postati-es

photograph" as a model, $hich is &+st as atrocio+s as the 'ie$, sa", o( the artist as

creator A), 23.

8ne o( Adornos main criticisms o( Ben&amin hinges on his di((erence (rom Ben&amins

endorsement o( massreprod+ction, $hich has (or him a negati'e connotation. Adornos

(orm+lation o( mimesis disa'o$s an" a((init" to imitation, since imitation or cop"realism cannot acco+nt (or the critical moment in art. )he concept o( the mimetic ta%oo

is introd+ced, in e((ect, to pre'ent mimesis (rom regressing to its archaic mode. Adorno

traces the origin o( the mimetic ta%oo to the ps"choanal"tical phenomenon o( the ret+rn

o( the repressed. He ret+rns in the%ialectic of Enlightenmentto con(ront the *+estion o(the ret+rn o( the repressed in the chapter on anti6emitism. !$")h+s, in one sense, he

manages to demonstrate the contin+it" o( the (orms o( domination %et$een the mimetic

imp+lse and the process o( enlightenment, $hich also signals the displacement o( thedisco+rse o( the speci(icit" o( science ontoits representation and its lang+age. As a

post+late o( an archaic mode o( %eha'ior the mimetic capacit" re(ers to a state prior to the

distinction %et$een s+%&ect and o%&ect it lacks the instr+mentalit" o( e#pression $hich iscon'e"ed thro+gh the means o( representational lang+ages and, there(ore, remains


8/12

imm+ne to the representations o( the instr+mental reason to en(orce a concept+al

opposition to it. )he capacit" o( representation, according to Adorno and Horkheimer,

is the meas+re o( domination, and domination is the most po$er(+l thing that can %erepresented in most per(ormances, so the capacit" o( representation is the 'ehicle o(

progress and regression at the same time.!5")he process o( enlightenmentas (orms

o( dominationis itsel( nothing %+t a contin+ation o( science and rit+al. )he enigmaticstat+s o( mimesis is e#pressed in the dialectical possi%ilit" o( %oth regression and

progression. !%" )his also re(lects the progress o( narrati'e in its historical (orm as a

repression o( mimesis.

I( the str+ct+re o( narrati'e, o( the instr+mental reason, ca+ses the domination o( mimesis,i( mimesis is repressed, dominated and tamed %" instr+mental reason, then, it also,

ironicall", s+r'i'es thro+gh the e#istence o( the m"th o( enlightenment itsel(. )h+s

mimesiss aggression is p+rel" %o+nd +p in its e((orts (or s+r'i'al. /imesis andnarrati'e are the (orces o( dialectical possi%ilit", %+t onl" in so m+ch as the" remain in

opposition to each other. At one point Adorno speaks o( the distinction %et$een the

ling+istic and the lang+age o( mimesis. or Adorno the latter does not e#ist. /imesis isnot a lang+age, a s"stem o( representation. I( one m+st speak o( the mimetic lang+age, it

sho+ld onl" %e an e#pression o( the +topia o( lang+age !7"%et$een the relation o(

$ord and thing. ;ahn interprets this shi(t in Adorno %" s+ggesting that Adorno separates

mimesis (rom the crisis o( representation and instead %rings it to %ear on the crisis o(criti*+e.!&"/imesis is ne'er mimesis o( this or that. /imesis is not constit+ted in

relation to the s+%&ecto%&ect d+alism, since it is nothing %+t the expression o( that

d+alism. )his d+alism re(ers to a state $hich originates prior to the di'ision o( s+%&ectand o%&ect, and historicall" one can locate it as an attit+de to$ards realit" prior to the

(i#ed fixen3 opposition o( s+%&ect and o%&ect. !'"hat is not (i#ed in art seems to %e

closer to the mimetic imp+lse, sa"s Adorno A), 14@3.

)he distance %et$een s+%&ect and o%&ect pres+pposes a clear line o( demarcation, ana%straction that mostl" ser'es the interest o( enlightenment rationalit", $hich, in other

$ords, li*+idates its o%&ect. #pression in art is mimetic, &+st as the e#pression o(

li'ing creat+res is the e#pression o( s+((ering. )he lines o( e#pression that are engra'edin a $ork, ass+ming the" are clear and sharp, sim+ltaneo+sl" ser'e as lines o(

demarcation to keep o+t ill+sion. 'en so, $orks o( art contin+e to %e ill+sor". )here(ore

the con(lict %et$een ill+sion(orm in the most general senseand e#pression remains+nresol'ed, raging %ack and (orth in the co+rse o( histor". Depresenting a stance to$ard

realit" that is di((erent (rom the rigid &+#taposition o( s+%&ect and o%&ect, the mimetic

mode o( %eha'ior in art has %een progressi'el" in(iltrated %" ill+sionthe organ o(

mimesis since the archaic ta%oo on mimesis, &+st as (orm has %ecome the 'ehicle o(a+tonom" A), 123. 8nce again mimetic %eha'ior is contrasted $ith the notion o(

imitation and de'eloped more along the lines o( e#pression. )he $orks o( art do not

imitate the imp+lse o( an indi'id+al in the medi+m o( e#pression, m+ch less those o( theartist himsel( the mimetic imp+lse, on the other hand, constit+tes e#pression that is

rei(ied to the e#tent that in it the nonaesthetic e#perience o( the real is e#pressed thro+gh

the (ictitio+s *+alit" in art. Art no longer e#presses the 'al+e o( a li'ing s+%stance.Aesthetic e#pression aims at the o%&ecti(ication o( the nono%&ecti'e A), 1F3. And
http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn15%23fn15http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn15%23fn15http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn16%23fn16http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn17%23fn17http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn19%23fn19http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn19%23fn19http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn19%23fn19http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn19%23fn19http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn15%23fn15http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn16%23fn16http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn17%23fn17http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn19%23fn19http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#fn19%23fn19


9/12

since the o%&ecti(ication o( the nono%&ecti'e alread" re*+ires a (orm o( e#pressionthat

no longer e#presses the 'al+e o( a li'ing s+%stancein the o%&ecti'e s+%stance o( the

arte(act that raises its 'oice to speak: sadness, strength, "earning A), 1F3.

or Adorno mimetic %eha'ior does not imitate something %+t assimilates itsel( to that

something A), 1F3. /imesis and its relation to the other, its assimilation to the other,is also indicati'e o( a relation %ased on similarit" and a((init". /oreo'er, the dialectical

relation %et$een mimesis and rationalit" can also %e e#tended to ho$ e#pression isdiametricall" opposed to concept+ali-ation. In mimesis the relation to the other, $hich

e#ceeds the limit o( histor", is one o( similarit" and a((init". 2(" As an e#pression

mimesis is related to the other as a sel(identical concept and there(ore resists the po$ero( o%&ecti(ication thro+gh concept+ali-ation. In other $ords, the regression o( mimesis

$hich, %eing a part o( that histor" $hich itsel( is anterior to the polarit" o( s+%&ect and

o%&ect, is ne'er act+all" a regression, constit+tes its opposition thro+gh $hich it escapesthe po$er o( concept+ali-ation in the process o( identi("ing $ith something. Art %ecomes

conscio+s o( the other $hen it recogni-es its o$n non%eing. As long as art identi(ies

itsel( $ith the image o( nat+re, and that is e#actl" $hat instr+mental reason red+ces it to,it remains nonidentical $ith the tr+thcontent, $hich is immanentl" e#pressed thro+gh

the historical de'elopment o( the arte(act. And since Adorno most emphaticall" declares

that tr+th content cannot %e an arte(act, there(ore, tr+th, in its immediac", is necessaril"

posited %" its presence as ill+sion, as the ill+sion o( tr+th A), 1!13.

)he mark o( a+thenticit" o( $orks o( art is the (act that their ill+sion shines (orth in s+ch

a $a" that it cannot possi%l" %e pre'aricated, and "et disc+rsi'e &+dgement is +na%le to

spell o+t its tr+th. )r+th cancels the art$ork along $ith its ill+sion. )he de(inition o( art

in terms o( ill+sion is onl" hal( correct: art is tr+e to the degree to $hich it is ill+sion o(the nonill+sor" Schein des Scheinlosen3 A), 1!13. )he nonill+sor" is not the (+nction

o( criti*+e (or art, %eca+se as itsel( it is nothing %+t the ill+sion o( the other, the non%eing, $hose longing is translated in the (orm o( image in relation to nat+re. or nothingthan this sheer longing o( art to assimilate itsel( to the other, nat+re, %oth $ithdra$s it

(rom the rationalit" o( the identi("ing thinking, the po$er o( concept+ali-ation, and

a((irms its mimetic capacit" (or sel(identit". In its relation to tr+th art (+nctions as theprinciple o( nonidentit", $hich in(orms its separation (rom an all em%racing identi("ing

tho+ght, and releases its mimetic a%ilit" to (+nction as a criti*+e $hich does not imitate

the characteristics o( instr+mental rationalit" thro+gh $hich domination isinstit+tionali-ed. Aesthetic tho+ght, Adorno maintains, +nlike Kant, is +na%le to (+l(ill

the re*+irement o( tr+th, $hich can onl" %e e#perienced i( it passes thro+gh philosoph".

)he art$orks posit $hat is manmade, the act+alit" o( the none#istent, and its o$n

realit" testi(ies to the (easi%ilit" o( the +nreal A), 1!23. )h+s thro+gh contradictorinessand negati'it" the art$ork s+ggests a %o+ndar" %e"ond $hich its claim to tr+th is

normall" ascri%ed in the (alse claim that it can transcend these limits.

Artistic tr+th represents onl" hal(tr+th as (ar as it is presented as a criti*+e o( reason, the

other hal( is s+pplemented %" the mimetic imp+lse that seeks identit" $ith itsel( A),15F3. I( it is presented merel" as an e#pression that is critical to$ards reason then its o$n

o%&ecti'e ideal is 'irt+all" (orgotten. As something other than itsel(, as a criti*+e o(


10/12

realit", art itsel( cannot attain its o$n tr+th content $hich is mani(ested %" the la$ that

it resem%les, here in the sense o( similarit" to itsel(, rather than imitation o( an other, its

o$n o%&ecti'e ideal. 2!"Art carries the principle o( contradiction to its e#treme. orinstance, as a manmade s+%stance it is not p+rel" o%&ecti'e, and its ideal in its %eing is

to become $hate'er it aspires to. Adorno capt+res the real tension %et$een the o%&ecti'e

and the ideal in the process o( the artist making the art$ork. or the artist to capt+re theessence o( the o%&ecti'e ideal, he or she m+st acco+nt (or an o%&ecti'it" that is not

posited %" him or her, and an ideal that is reminiscent o( the mimetic trace that e'er"

art $ork seeks to resem%le. Adornos dialectic o( mimetic identit" and instr+mentalrationalit" incorporates a sense o( "earning and longing (or the none#istent. B" their

presence, sa"s Adorno, art $orks signal the possi%ilit" o( the none#istent their realit"

testi(ies to the (easi%ilit" o( the +nreal, the possi%le. /ore speci(icall", in art longing,

$hich posits the act+alit" o( the none#istent, takes the (orm o( remem%rance A), 1!23.)hat $hich does not e#ist, i.e., the past, no$ e#ists in o+r memor". )hro+gh

remem%rance the present is &oined $ith the past. )he notion o( +topia in art is, there(ore,

preser'ed in the act o( recollection, in the spec+larit" o( anamnesis, in the potential o( the

"ettocome. )hat $hich thro+gh remem%rance remains potentiall" possi%le in the realmo( the art$ork does not necessaril" mean a %etra"al o( the realit" o( the empirical $orld.

Dather the imager" o( art, thro+gh m$moire involontaire, %rings to li(e the e#istence o(empirical $orld. And precisel" along this line that $e m+st ackno$ledge the importance

o( Adornos criti*+e o( cop" theor", o( mimesis as imitation o( realit". Adorno re'erses

the adage o( art imitating realit" instead he proposes that realit" o+ght to imitate artA), 1!23.

)he art$orks reach the highest stage o( their '+lnera%ilit" at the moment $hen the" seek

to transcend the limit set %" their o$n principle o( negati'it", a %o+ndar" that e#presses

the negation that each and e'er" $ork...seems to sa": non conf"ndar A), 1!23.

Adorno claims that the tr+th content o( art $orks, as a negation o( their %eing, ismediated thro+gh them, %+t the" do not comm+nicate it an" $a" $hatsoe'er A), 1!F3.

)hat the strength o( art$orks lies in the (act that the" can transcend the limit also makes

them, at that point, the most '+lnera%le to their o$n deception and (ictitio+sness. or theart$orks tr+th content lies not in comm+nicating something other than itsel( rather it is a

mediation, a participation, in histor". )he great $orks o( art do not transcend the

%o+ndar" o( their o$n ill+sion, %eca+se their ill+sion represents their tr+th, an ill+sion o(tr+th, i.e., their (alsit". Aesthetic tr+th transcends ill+sion, %+t the art$orks themsel'es are

ill+sor". )his is the parado#: the" cannot lie, and "et the" remain (alse.

)*+,S

!" )heodor . Adorno,Aesthetic Theory, trans. ;. Lenhardt London: Do+tledge G

Kegan 9a+l, 1!43, 14. All s+%se*+ent re(erences $ill %e gi'en $ith page n+m%ers in

the te#t as A).


11/12

2" 6ee H. ). ilsons criti*+e o( scientism and positi'ism, ;ritical )heor"s ;riti*+e o(

6ocial 6cience: pisodes in a ;hanging 9ro%lematic (rom Adorno to Ha%ermas, 9art I G

II, in&istory of E"ropean 'deas, ol. @, Cos. 2 G F, 1!.

#"L+cian oldman, C"lt"ral Creation in Modern Society8#(ord: Basil Black$ell,

1!@@3, 1FF.

$" Art possesses e#pression not $hen it con'e"s s+%&ecti'it", %+t $hen it re'er%erates

$ith primal histor" o( s+%&ecti'it" and enso+lment A), 153.

5" /ichael ;ahn, 6+%'ersi'e /imesis: )heodore . Adorno and the modern impasseo( criti*+e,Mimesis in Contemporary Theory( An 'nterdisciplinary Approach, ed. /ihai

6parios+, ol. I 9hiladelphia: 7ohn Ben&amins 9+%lishing ;ompan", 1!43, F.

%" ;ahn, F4.

7" ;ahn, F4.

&" ;ahn, F4.

'" ;ahn, 45.

!(" redric 7ameson,Late MarxismLondon: erso, 1!!03, 105.

!!" 7ameson,Late Marxism, 105.

!2" ;ahn, 45.

!#" ;ahn, 50.

!$" Horkheimer and Adorno,%ialectic of Enlightenment, 120. 6ee also /artin 7a",The %ialectical 'maginationBoston: Little, Bro$n and ;ompan", 1!@F3, 2!2@0.

!5" Adorno G Horkheimer,%ialectic of Enlightenment, F4F5.

!%" 7ameson,Late Marxism, 104.

!7" ;ahn, F!

!&" ;ahn, F2.

!'" ;ahn, F5.

2(" ;ahn, F5.


12/12

2!" 6ee Lam%ert E+ider'aart,Adorno)s Aesthetic Theory( The *edemption of 'll"sion

;am%ridge: /I) 9ress, 1!!13, 111F.

return to the top o- the page
http://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#top%23tophttp://www.wbenjamin.org/mimesis.html#top%23top

Documents

Sinha Amresh Adorno on Mimesis in Aesthetic Theory