Mimesis – Rasa – Representation – Expression – Thinking
Classical Antiquity
For decades I have been trying to recognize and avoid the pitfalls of Western art theory. I then spent many years roaming the realms of media theory, thinking there about all kinds of forms of representation, about the character of information and possibilities of interaction. It took a long time before I approached the sublime, before I finally arrived in India.
In classical antiquity there are two important concepts that can be related to art: Mimesis and Aisthesis. Mimesis is the principle of imitation. Plato said that if we imitate something that is already a lie in any case—for the shadows on the wall of the cave are mere semblance—then imitation is merely a lie of a lie, and thus dangerous. Aristotle was more ‘modern’ here. For him, Mimesis is the living-through of dramas: in sharing the suspense and experiencing the resolution of conflicts, catharsis is possible. In this way we can learn, even heal and grow.
The second concept, Aisthesis, engages somewhat more deeply with perception itself. How do our senses perceive? What pleases our senses? What feelings are evoked by them? When is something sublime? Here it is about the structure of our perception; it is therefore more theoretical.
Both concepts, Mimesis and Aisthesis, usually lead to theories of representation: what is represented how, and how do we receive it? It is generally based on a subject–object relation in which the subject tries to understand the world as something opposite it, something outside my Self that can be understood through perception and Mimesis. Language as a medium is helpful in this process, but so are other forms of artistic media.
My basic problem, then, was that of representation, that is, the representation of the world for the subject, expressed by an(other) subject. Since the Renaissance, the subject then moved more into the foreground; the expression of the Self, that is, art as self-expression, determined the modern concept of art. Art bore witness to the representation of an artistic ‘genius’ who gives prominence to an individual viewpoint. It is a somewhat more complex form of representation, but essentially the art viewer’s question has remained the same: what does the work represent?
The Fifth Veda
14-15. He then thought: “I shall make a fifth Veda on the Nāṭya with the Semi-historical Tales (itihāsa), which will conduce to duty (dharma), wealth (artha) as well as fame, will contain good counsel and collection [of traditional maxims], will give guidance to people of the future as well, in all their actions, will be enriched by the teaching of all authoritative works (śāstra) and will give a review of all arts and crafts.” https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-natyashastra/d/doc202329.html#note-e-79660
In the span of several centuries before and after the Common Era, central texts of Indian culture emerged: the āgama (the book that describes the rules of the temples in Tamil Nadu), Vāstu śāstra (principles of architecture), the Kāma-sūtra (which describes the art of a good life), Chitrasūtra (theory of paintings and sculptures), and the Nāṭya śāstra (stage arts), Viswakarma vastusästram (urban planning), which describes the foundation of art as a theory of Rasa, and many others… A precise dating of all the texts has not been achieved to this day.
Finding one’s way through this web is even more complicated than finding one’s bearings in classical antiquity. I mean only the broad outlines, not the specialist debates. All these texts refer to the tradition of the Vedas, and thus to the teaching of Hinduism that the texts of the Vedas are divine.
The core thought is that Brahma, the creator of the universe, created it in order to experience himself. The Self in the form of Atman and, as a conscious Self, in the form of Purusha is part of Brahma; everything is Brahma, Brahma is everything. Brahma’s becoming conscious in the human being through Purusha makes a connection of our Self with Brahma possible. This connection is possible in meditation, among other ways. Here consciousness can experience itself and receive Brahma’s truth. The Rishis achieved this and passed on the truth they received in the Vedas. That this knowledge is divine is later rejected by Buddhism.
Central to this system of knowledge is that all consciousness is vibration, which does not contradict modern science either. Vibration is resonance, concordances, interminglings; in its purest form this vibration is the syllable OM. Everything refers to this experience.
Of course, here too there are discussions of dualism (Dvaita) and monism (Advaita). But Advaita is the classical teaching. For me, it makes the most sense to equate Advaita with the concept of immanence.
When I try, then, to immerse myself in the world of art theory from the time of the Vedas, the concepts Advaita (monism/immanence) and vibration (consciousness) are central for me. Rasa (taste, essence, mood) is a vibration that springs from this edifice of thought.
Like everything in the ancient scriptures of the world of the Vedas, the whole thing is hypercomplex. Aesthetics is generally highly codified: everything has a meaning, every movement (32 Aṅgahāras), every hand position (24 Mudras), every bodily posture (108 Karaṇas), color, proportion, relation, and so on… All this has precisely defined meanings. It is the language of the gods; the laws are divine; there is little room for interpretation. What is visible in the work of art is a realization of these principles. Only when they are carried out with the utmost striving for perfection, with devotion and humility, only then do they have Rasa—essence, taste, mood. For the gods wanted an object of diversion that would be audible and visible to everyone, and they asked Brahmā to create a Veda that would belong to all color groups. Brahmā created Nāṭyaveda by combining elements from the four existing Vedas. After his creation, Brahmā asked Indra to have the gods perform the Nāṭyaveda, but Indra said that only sages who knew the secret of the Vedas and had fulfilled their vows were capable of cultivating and practicing it.
‘Traditional’ Indian art, then, is not about representing the world. Nor is it about an artist expressing themselves. In the pure teaching, it is solely about the realization of the divine principle. The descriptions of this principle are absurdly precise to Western senses. If one believes these are divine principles, discussion of why it has precisely this complexity ends here. Otherwise the question arises of why everything was recorded so meticulously 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, and why this tradition has continued almost unbroken to the present day.
The Source of Art
Viewed on the surface, the countless ways art is expressed today—that is, in its media, techniques, cultural spheres, forms of expression, discourses—are bewilderingly colorful. Art is art because it moves us to perceive the world differently. That is perhaps the lowest common denominator. But that is already where it ends, for the worldviews associated with different art forms could hardly be more different.
The question, then, is: what is it that moves us? In Mimesis it is a simulation that is either a pure lie or can become a productive space of simulation. As part of a philosophical discourse, art can lead us to discover something new and learn something about our own nature. As Rasa, art claims to express divine truths and thus to help us develop further. It is neither testimony to a beyond nor a history of salvation, but a manifestation of what makes us human; that is, it is a manifestation of consciousness.
In a secular but rich sense, this means that the human mind can expand its consciousness, cultivate, train, and sharpen it. This development of consciousness—in the individual, in a culture, in an epoch—manifests itself. It is already a little absurd that all the materialists and capitalists rush to the opera to celebrate there the refinement of spirit they so emphatically deny in everyday business.
In a spiritual sense, one might think that it is unlikely that my level of consciousness represents the culmination of cosmic development. It would therefore be conceivable that consciousness is greater than what we generally associate with our brain on a neural level.
