Naspram ustaljene interpretacije platoničke umjetnosti, kako je ona ontološki i spoznajno irelevantna jer je bitno određena mimetičkim konceptom kao pukom kopijom materijalne stvarnosti, te je stoga izgnana iz Države, ovdje podastiremo neke interpretacije koje tumače sasvim suprotno. Naime, moguće je pokazati da mimetički princip nije razlog Platonove osude umjetnosti, te daje zapravo pojam umjetničkog mimesisa utemeljen u metafizičkom pojmu mimesisa kao aproksimacije ili postupnog nalikovanja paradigmi. U tom slučaju umjetnički mimesis postiže višu ontološku vjerodostojnost i oponaša idealno posredstvom osjetilnoga. “Argument (...) sličnosti” u Parmenidu može predstavljati ozbiljnu prepreku u prihvaćanju, s jedne strane, teze o odnosu sličnosti između ideja i pojedinačnosti, tj. između paradigme i njene slike, te s druge strane može učiniti upitnom i tezu o aproksimaciji gdje mimetički koncept ima metafizičko utemeljenje. Međutim, ideja shvaćena kao sintetičko objedinjavanje množnog predstavlja ispravno stajalište za objašnjenje fenomena, a postaje upitna kada se stavi u istu razinu sa svojim egzemplarima. Ukoliko je odnos sličnosti između paradigme i njene slike određen “dinamičkom”, a ne “simetričnom sličnošću” u kojoj oba relata imaju isti stupanj ontološke autentičnosti, tada teza o filozofskom mimesisu kao aproksimaciji na kojemu počiva i umjetnički mimetički koncept ima svoj legitimitet.Contrary to the common interpretation of Platonic art that supports the view that it is ontologically and gnoseologically irrelevant because it is mainly defined by mimetic concept as a mere imitation of the material world, and is thereforebanished from the Republic, we will offer some different interpretations. Namely, it is possible to show that mimetic principle is not the reason why Plato condemns art, and that the notion of artistic mimesis in fact stems from the metaphysical notion of mimesis as approximation or gradual resemblance to the paradigm. In this case artistic mimesis achieves higher ontological authenticity and imitates the ideal by means of the sensory. Parmenides’ “resemblance argument” may constitute a serious obstacle for the acceptance of, on the one hand, the idea of the relation of resemblance between Forms and particulars, that is between the paradigm and its image, and on the other hand it may question the idea of approximation in which mimetic principle has metaphysical foundation. However, when Form is seen as a synthetic unity of many things , it then represents the right standpoint for the explanation of the phenomena, and it becomes questionable when it is placed on the same level with its exemplars. If the relation of resemblance between the paradigm and its image is determined by the “dynamic”, and not by “symmetric resemblance” in which both parts are on the same level of ontological authenticity, then the view of philosophical mimesis as approximation on which relies artistic mimetic concept is legitimate. (shrink)

Contrary to the common interpretation of Platonic art that supports the view that it is ontologically and gnoseologically irrelevant because it is mainly defined by mimetic concept as a mere imitation of the material world, and is therefore banished from the Republic, we will offer some different interpretations. Namely, it is possible to show that mimetic principle is not the reason why Plato condemns art, and that the notion of artistic mimesis in fact stems from the metaphysical notion of mimesis (...) as approximation or gradual resemblance to the paradigm. In this case artistic mimesis achieves higher ontological authenticity and imitates the ideal by means of the sensory. Parmenides’ “resemblance argument” may constitute a serious obstacle for the acceptance of, on the one hand, the idea of the relation of resemblance between Forms and particulars, that is between the paradigm and its image, and on the other hand it may question the idea of approximation in which mimetic principle has metaphysical foundation. However, when Form is seen as a synthetic unity of many things, it then represents the right standpoint for the explanation of the phenomena, and it becomes questionable when it is placed on the same level with its exemplars. If the relation of resemblance between the paradigm and its image is determined by the “dynamic”, and not by “symmetric resemblance” in which both parts are on the same level of ontological authenticity, then the view of philosophical mimesis as approximation on which relies artistic mimetic concept is legitimate. (shrink)