problems with of art as imitation

PROBLEMS WITH ART AS IMITATION
First, imitation as such is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of art. It certainly does not account for the artistic status of music, architecture, imaginative fiction or poetry. Neither does it account for
abstraction – art which does not have any obvious resemblance to the world around us – or with three-dimensional installations. Consider, for example, one of four versions of Kasimir Malevich’s (1878–1935)
Black Square, c.1929 (Figure 13, p. 74). Although this image has been interpreted in various ways, naturalism is not among its concerns.

The theory of mimesis is also unhelpful when exploring art which follows differing assumptions about meaning and value. Potentially, this theory marginalises traditions of image making within Byzantine and Islamic art where transcendent considerations are paramount; or art from Asia and China. For example, art from after the Han Dynasty (c.206 BCE–220 CE) was understood as an expression of the dao – literally meaning the path or way – which derived from Daoism, a religion indigenous to China (Clunas 1997: 101). Daoism offered
personal salvation and the prospect of immortality, beliefs which were conveyed through various ceremonial, ritualistic and alchemical practices. Unlike the Greek and Roman cultural tradition of imitation,
art produced in China at this time was concerned with bringing its maker’s personality into alignment with the dao – the universe and the natural order.
The emphasis on imitation also excludes a wide range of objects and practices which have characterised more recent avant-garde art.
Besides, the idea that imitative art and photography are impartial mirrors of the external world is difficult to justify – we all perceive and experience the world differently. Ultimately, any representation is an interpretation which will not be neutral, but subjective (Foster 1985: 59–64). Lastly, even when we are presented with a naturalistic image, is it really the illusionistic effect that we take to be the ultimate point of interest or value? Whilst we might applaud the painter, or the photographer’s naturalistic technique, is imitation really all we look for in art?