Cory's Paper: Music Isn't Mimesis

Cory is going to write a paper on how music is not a form of mimetic art. He argues that other forms of representational art are props that represent something. Meanwhile, music is not a representation of anything. While it is true music generates emotion, these emotions are not inherent to music. In other words, music can't represent emotion. Therefore, they are not a form of mimetic art.

This is Cory's initial thoughts, and he is still formulating other supporting premises.

Thoughts on the Four Questions: An Addition to Shkurkin's Post

If anyone didn't notice Shkurkin has a pretty good post about what the authors have said about the first three questions. Just want to add to that by adding my thoughts about question 4

Audience coordinate imaginatively with the author/ each other on that content [CONTENT]?


Aristotle: Certain plot elements generate universal emotions. For example, tragedy arouse pity/fear

Walton: Use of props assist in collective imagination (Collectively agreeing upon what is to be imagined in a certain scenario)

Walton: Experiencing a mimetic artwork with someone else is different than watching it alone.

Gerrig: Certain fictional truths are generated by a majority of the audience, while some are logically apparent but ignored (ex. Mona Lisa has a liver).

Clarke/Gerrig: Audience recognizes the difference between aspects of demonstration (Decoupling principle).



In addition, I wanted to give some insights on what Quotations as Demonstrations has to say about the other three questions:

[Imagination]/[Play] Direct quotes are better than indirect quotes because we can re-experience more vividly in our imagination the scenario when the quote is direct.

[Mimesis] Four aspects of demonstration involved in mimesis (Depictive, Supportive, Annotative, and Incidental Aspects).



This is just my rough sketch of the four questions, and I hope others can expand on it.

The Collective Mimetic Experience

In class today we briefly talked about how watching a movie with someone else is a different experience from watching alone. I’d like to add that there is a bigger difference when watching a movie at home than when at a movie theatre. In the theatre, watching a movie is predominately a solitary experience. The only genre of movies for which this isn’t true is comedies, where the usual silence from the audience is broken by laughter. By contrast, watching a movie at home is a more intimate setting. There is usually more talking during the movie, and it is easier to watch the reactions of your fellow audience members. Furthermore, I believe that our mimetic experience is changed by the fact that we are so aware of others’ reactions. A couple days ago I watched Last Night, a movie about a married couple led to temptation while apart from each other one night. A majority of the movie is comprised of suspense over whether or not the two individuals will give into their temptations. While watching, I found my own anxiety augmented when I noticed that my roommate had the same feelings.

            

According to Wikipedia, mass hysteria is the sociopsychological phenomenon involving the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms by more than one person. In a high-stress environment, it is so powerful that people can develop life-threatening physical conditions simply by watching someone else exhibit the same symptoms. Given that we can nearly kill ourselves by modeling others, it seems natural to think that something as small as our mimetic experience can be influenced by modeling the emotional experiences of our peers.