Μίμηση, φαντασία και συμβολισμός στη βυζαντινή αισθητική

Abstract

The main subject of this study is the reconstruction of the concepts of imitation (mimesis), imagination (phantasia) and symbolism in the works of the protagonists of the iconoclastic controversty, John Damascene (680-750), Nicephorus of Constantinople (758-828) and Theodore of Studite (759-826). These three concepts have a continuous presence in the philosophical thought, as well as in the thought of the Church Fathers. The concept of imitation is one of the main subjects in the platonic philosophy, imagination is a main issue in the Aristotelian tradition and the importance of symbolism is emphasized by the whole philosophical tradition. Therefore, I had to turn to the literary production of the classic and the Byzantine period, in order to show not only the continuity but also the difference between the two philosophical traditions. The basic reasons for choosing the particular subject were initially theoretical and historical-philosophical, provided that the thought of the three thinkers can be considered as the result of fertile dialogue between pagan and Christian thought and also as recapitulation of the previous tradition. However, to the extent that questions are examined related to characteristics that a work of art should have, its function and the aesthetic pleasure that it can offer, one can realize that there are also aesthetic reasons. In this way, philosophical issues will emerge, which basically concern the ontology of the icon, the epistemological dimension of the three concepts, the metaphysical orientation of a mimetic process and also the anthropological dimension of depiction which aims to provoke a specific behaviour towards it. More specifically, the imitation as a process of production of an image is introduced in order to emphasize the hypostatic identification between the image and its archetype, the relative and the causal relation between them, as well as the substantial difference between them. Mainly, the picture as a ‘mimetic production’, mimima, of an archetype maintains its ontological independence because of its material nature. However, the material nature of the image makes it perceptible by the sense of sight and because of this fact an image is recognized as the first sense datum, from which a perceiver can be led to a particular knowledge. The process of sense is followed and completed by the process of the imagination. The Byzantine thinkers following the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, believe that the imagination acts catalytically in the transformation of the sense data into mental images. The imagination delivers to the intellect the sense datum, which has become opinion (doksa) and thus, the perceiver achieves knowledge of the archetype. For the completion of the cognitive procedure towards the archetype, the image, from which the perceptual process began, should be considered as a symbol. According to the previous philosophical tradition, a symbol can be considered every single entity that is created by an individual so as to become a sort of description of (perigraphe) an archetype. The Byzantine image depicting (graphontas) the archetype contributes (symballei) to the relation between the beholder and the prototype, between the created (ktistoy) and the uncreated (aktistoy). Even though we know that the foundation of an aesthetic theory is not the main concern of the Byzantine thinkers, it should not be ignored that in their texts there are issues concerning an aesthetic regard of the Byzantine image and dealing with the way that the created and perceivable beauty (kallos) can depict the uncreated beauty, with the contribution of the talent and the faculties of the artist and the use of the appropriate materials.

Η μελέτη αυτή έχει ως σκοπό να ανασυγκροτήσει την προβληματική των εννοιών της μίμησης, της φαντασίας και του συμβολισμού μέσα από τα κείμενα κυρίως των πρωταγωνιστών της εικονοκλαστικής έριδας, του Ιωάννη Δαμασκηνού, του Νικηφόρου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως και του Θεοδώρου Στουδίτη. Μέσα από την (επι)στροφή στα κείμενα φαίνονται όχι μόνο οι θεολογικές-μεταφυσικές προεκτάσεις των τριών εννοιών αλλά και οι γνωσιολογικές, οντολογικές, ανθρωπολογικές διαστάσεις της απεικόνισης, ως διαδικασίας άμεσα σχετιζόμενης με αυτές τις έννοιες. Ωστόσο, οι διάσπαρτες αλλά σαφείς αναφορές των βυζαντινών στοχαστών σε ζητήματα σχετικά με τον προσδιορισμό των χαρακτηριστικών που πρέπει να έχει ένα έργο τέχνης, τη λειτουργικότητά του αλλά και την αισθητική απόλαυση που μπορεί να προσφέρει καθιστούν σαφές ότι η βυζαντινή εικόνα μπορεί και πρέπει να εξεταστεί και ως αισθητικό αντικείμενο. Με έναν λόγο, η εικόνα και οι τρεις έννοιες που σχετίζονται με αυτήν, αποτελούν τόπο συνάντησης φιλοσοφίας, μεταφυσικής-θεολογίας και αισθητικής, των οποίων τη στενή σχέση και αλληλεξάρτηση επιχειρεί να δείξει η παρούσα μελέτη.