If I was Aristotle and I had to write this blogpost about the subject of Sarah Ruhl’s Passion Play being imitation (mimesis) then this would probably be a very straightforward thing to do, for two reasons. Firstly, Aristotle did not know about anything other than art that was about imitation, so arriving to the conclusion that Ruhl’s Passion Play is about something else or even considering that option would have been highly unlikely. Secondly, Aristotle, assuming that he somehow is still in his prime time while writing this, had an unprecedented Ethos, and thus anything he said was likely to be taken seriously as long as it followed some sort of logic, so I wouldn’t have to deal with not being confident about what I say being received properly. However, since we aren’t Aristotle, this is what I will be doing here: talking about why Passion Play is indeed mimesis and trying to justify it well so I have credibility.
Arguably, Aristotle’s view that all art is about imitation, is correct. Whenever an art piece is made, regardless of it being Aristotelian or not, some imitation has to occur in order to evoke specific ideas in the audience’s mind. In Passion Play imitation becomes the subject of the play, as the narrative itself is an imitation. It is an imitation of what would be a medieval Passion Play being staged, with some internal/external conflict occurring around those involved with the play. One might therefore say that Passion Play is, indeed, a play about a play, where the play has a big social and even political influence (as can be seen by the fact that people of high political influence such as the Queen and Hitler, in their respective acts, are compelled to react publicly to the Passion Play). Passion Play is, then, really about the power that this play has. A play that is, in fact, much more strongly based around the idea of imitation, since its sole goal is to imitate the story of Jesus Christ’s death. Sarah Ruhl’s Passion Play is more about providing commentary on the power of mimesis and how it can influence an audience and a whole community, as is seen by her entire narrative, where the characters and the communities are changed due to things that happen because they are staging the Passion Play.
It is interesting to see that Ruhl may also be speaking of how dangerous mimesis can be as well, which can be related to Plato’s view that the arts should be banned in the ideal State. For example, in act 2, we learn about how Eric finds it tough to become fully involved with his role of playing the “Christus,” often leading to Mary 2 asking what is wrong with him. This causes him to become depressed and not be able to partake in his other daily activities as effectively. In act 1, the fact that Pontius is a person of lower class than John is clearly emphasized by their roles in the town’s Passion Play, where the latter plays Jesus and the former plays Satan. This causes the people in the town to have skewed perceptions of these two individuals and what they are like, which must have had some effect on Pontius’s suicide at the end of the act, since he was being perceived as a “lower” human being, not just for being the fish gutter, but for playing Satan as well. These are examples that Ruhl demonstrates in her play of how engaging in the arts can be detrimental to a society. It may be possible to then say that Passion Play to an extent is supporting Plato’s claim that arts should not exist in the ideal state, as they prevent the individuals from accomplishing their full potential in society.
Hi Carlos,
ReplyDeleteThe conceit of your opening paragraph is great - that you could channel Aristotle. But these conceits should not be mere gimmicks to easily introduce the subject -- they should be utilized to convey to me, your reader, that you understand Aristotle's idea of mimesis -- and so you should use the opportunity to tell me what that is. Then, as you are not Aristotle, and so things are not self-evident to you, you have to work through it yourself using Ruhl's text as the case study. A topic sentence like "Arguably, Aristotle’s view that all art is about imitation, is correct" doesn't tell me anything. Arguably, means you are equivocating, and you haven't shown me any evidence yet to justify that very broad conclusion. You also write "Whenever an art piece is made, regardless of it being Aristotelian or not, some imitation has to occur in order to evoke specific ideas in the audience’s mind." Why does an imitation have to occur? Here it would have been good to go back to the Poetics and show how imitation is poesis - creation that makes culture from nature, that expresses the spirit of an idea or an action. Use the theoretical texts and either paraphrase, summarize or cite what the theorist observes - reference the thinker in your text and cite her or him, (like.. as Aristotle discusses in the section about character from the Poetics...) and stay close to the idea and how it may be expressed in the case study - in this case, Ruhl's Passion Play. Break down your paragraphs so they only work through one idea and make sure that the next paragraph then elaborates on that idea or that there is a transition sentence that connects what you said earlier to what comes next. Use the topic sentence to frame the big idea in the paragraph and then give us the details. So for instance use one paragraph to show us dramaturgically that Passion Play is not just one "play within a play" but all the kinds of instances where that occurs (the three acts are three plays, there are three passions within the three plays, etc - this is the quantitative mimetic argument). This could be fleshed out in great detail - but then you skip to the way in which mimesis is taken up as a political tool of propaganda. You have so much packed into this essay. Take one big observation and drill down with excellent examples rather than trying to write everything with a sentence or two that doesn't work through the mechanism thoroughly. If you end with Plato, then link it to the conceit you set up in the beginning, and use the same writerly technique to conclude. Stick with the framework -- don't drop it.