Imitation as ‘Mimesis’ was first introduced by Plato in his ‘Republic,” in his opinion the

world as we perceive is simply a reflection of the divine perfect world of essence. The
world as it exists around us is just a shadow. Thus, when an artist tries to create a work of
art on the basis of ‘nature,’ what he actually does is to copy something that is already a
copy. Consequently, his work of art becomes ‘a copy of a copy,’ i.e. twice removed from
reality. Such, a contention reduces all art to worthless imitation. Plato was, thus, against
poetry as he considered it based on falsehoods, steeped in illusion and immorality. Plato’s
views were attributed authority and artists and critics quoted him as the ultimate judge.
However, his own student, Aristotle, changed the concept of ‘mimesis’ when he revealed
new truths about mimesis that revoked the old beliefs of Plato. Aristotle, in a clear lucid
manner put forward his views on mimesis in his seminal work ‘Poetics’ and cleared the
charges levelled against poetry by Plato. In his ‘Poetics’ Aristotle put art back into the
position of respectability and reverence.

The main drawback with Plato’s surmises about poetry is that he had ‘painting’ in mind
when he theorized about poetry. Painting as perceived by him was nothing but imitating
physical things. All that a painter did was to ‘copy’ nature. Thus, for Plato, painting as
well as all art was simply a servile process of just copying. Transferring the qualities he
found in painting to poetry, Plato argued that poetry, too, is merely imitating. However,
Aristotle recognized Plato’s fallacious conjectures and attempted to set the record straight
by pointing out that poetry was completely unlike painting and all art cannot be dumped
together in the same basket.

Taking an independent stance Aristotle proposes that Poetry is more similar to music than
painting. In the first chapter of the Poetics he states:

“Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the
flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their general conception modes of
imitation. They differ, however, from one another in three respects the medium, the
objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.”

Aristotle bluntly refuses to draw analogies between poetry and painting. In his opinion,
poetry is simply similar to other forms of ‘rhythmic’ arts like tragedy, comedy and
dithyrambic poetry. All of them focus on the musical aspects of rhyme and rhythm. As a
result it would be completely incorrect to draw analogies between poetry and painting. In
the same lines we can observe that Aristotle has mentioned the ‘medium,’ ‘object’ and
‘manner/mode’ of imitation. The three important aspects of imitation are the medium, the
object and the mode. The medium of imitation of both poetry and other musical arts are
same: rhyme and rhythm whereas painting’s medium of imitation is colours. Thus Plato’s
comparison of painting and poetry is unjustified.

Aristotle focuses on the next aspect of his argument i.e. ‘object’ of imitation. The object
of poetic imagination is ‘Man in action.’ All poetry tries to imitate men in action.
Aristotle points out the different ways in which the actions of men are copied. He brings
to light how different poetic forms imitate men. He begins the second chapter of Poetics
with the lines:
“Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a
higher or a lower type…”

In Aristotle’s opinion, the poet tries to present men greater or worse than they are. In
different forms of poetry men are presented differently. The action of men as imitated by
a poet can either be glorifying or demeaning. Plato’s notion of ‘mimesis’ takes a severe
beating by Aristotle’s proposal. Plato had reduced the poet simply to a copying machine
– a machine that is actually copying a copy and not something original. However,
Aristotle’s proposal overturns such a pathetic image of the poet. According to Aristotle, a
poet assumes the status of an imaginative creator. It is he who adds dimensions to men –
the dimensions that do not really exist. If the poet is adding such imaginative dimensions
to men then he is not merely a copier, who is mindlessly copying nature. Poetry differs
from history in the sense that history simply reports what happened while poetry reveals
‘what could have happened.’ The poetic imaginativeness of the poet helps him to portray
things that do not really exist. His imagination is not limited to just reality or the world he
observes around him. His imagination exists on a higher level. The difference between
history and philosophy is that history gives a limited version of truth while philosophy is
concerned with universal truth. Poetry is thus like philosophy as it dwells not upon
temporal truth while poetry is concerned with the universal truth. Such an approach of
poetry immortalizes the ‘greater truths’ and establishes them as principles of life.

Taking up the third aspect of his argument, Aristotle shifts to the modes of imitation.
Poetry indeed imitates men. However, the imitation differs in different poetry. He shows
that Epic and Tragedy represent men greater than they actually are. The tragic protagonist
is a highly idealized man who is greater than the common man. He possesses the qualities
everyone wishes to possesses, he has an enviable personality and he impresses the
audiences with his greatness. Though, he meets a tragic catastrophe it cannot be denied
that he has qualities that make his terrible death insignificant. On the other hand, comedy
represents man worse than he actually is. The qualities usually abhorred or considered
low form the character of comedy. The comic protagonist possesses all sort of repugnant
and loathsome qualities. Aristotle states:

“… Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life.”

Though all poetry is aimed at imitating the actions of men all assume different modes to
do so. Poets do not, as Plato contends, blindly copy a copy. Poets add their imaginative
dimensions to what they see in nature and create something that is in fact larger than life.
Aristotle is able to successfully refute Plato’s charge against poetry by raising the level of
poetry and poets.

Summing up it can be concluded that Aristotle is able to disprove all the allegations
levelled against poetry. In Plato’s opinion; poetry is an imitation of an imitation, it is
immoral and it indulges in lies. However Aristotle is able to point out that all the
allegations are baseless as what the poet ‘creates’ is quite unique apart from what exists
in the world. His creation has its individual identity separate from the physical things of
the world. Thus the poet is neither lying nor blindly imitating anything.
Aristotle has been considered the first art critic who has focused art as an individual
independent entity. Though Plato is considered the first critic to lay down critical theories
systematically it is Aristotle who gives Art its due. Plato’s criticism of art is prejudiced as
he was basically concerned with ‘an ideal republic.’ Being a politician he was concerned
with the effect of art on the citizens of the republic, consequently, his criticism is biased
and anti-art. On the other hand Aristotle is concerned with the intrinsic elements of art
and its function of pleasure. Thus Aristotle’s focus on art is aesthetic and favourable for
art unlike Plato who tries to subjugate art to morality and reduce it to its servant.