Mimetic Journey

I had a chance to visit the Getty Center. There was a new exhibit called "The Gods of Angkor". It was a collection of bronze statuary from northwest CCambodia depicting Buddha and Pre and Post Vedic gods. To see these carefully crafted images wrought in bronze was immensely moving and in the austere environment it was deeply cathartic. These images dripped of mimesis but of a peculiar kind, they were not mirrors of objects we encounter in reality but of something more grandiose. This could not be more evident than in the forms of the multi armed dancing Shiva or the elephant headed Ganesha. These figures are lasting impressions left in the mind of talented sculptors who brought their vision to fruition to share the awe and splendor of majestic gods. The puzzling part of this type of memesis is how is there a way to represent a non-physical beings. The term mimiesis is embedded in my mind as a sort of symmetrical relation between an actual object and its representation. Without a true physical form to replicate what type of relation is there? Can a statue be mimetic if that is the definition or is there something more and if so what type of representation is it? Ganesh is a combination of man (with four arms) and an elephant, this seems like an act of imagination coupled with a great deal of anthropomorphism that stirs the power of majesty and is so powerful that it demands respect. though I am certain no such object/person exists why then is there such a deeply held connection that inspires awe. Though I am not sure quite how the pieces (if any) of mimetic forms fit together I openly admit it is wholly inspirational. I am sure though that I am not the first person to fell this way less there would not be a plethora of artists musing over the same concepts. In the end of my second mimetic inquiry I am again left with more questions than answers.

What is memesis?

I wanted to begin my philosophical journey on mimetic contemplation with  a accurate sense of the word memesis so began by looking for working definitions. This in itself proves to be a bit of an issue as it seems to be wrapped in a semantic problem. Memesis refers to both imitation and to representation and that is a large canyon to bridge. An imitation to me connotes a form of mimicry while representation denotes a more ambiguous connection. A word or glyph can be a representation of  a concept like the term shoe. A shoe conjures up an image of a foot covering but the word "shoe" by its appearance does not imitate the foot covering. This seems puzzling on how to to use memesis in literature or print. When applying the term memesis to visual arts it seem it can bridge the gap by applying to in either meaning of the word. A pictograph can imitate an object and be a representation. My favorite though provoking instance is the painting called The Treachery of Images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images) This piece is almost paradoxical with its mysterious quote "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".  In the end of my short journey it seems i am no closer to a working definition of what Memesis is but at least I have a rough idea of what cases it applies to.