Mimesis in Contemporary Art

Jennifer Robyn Andrews

GCertVA, ADFA, BEdu, GDipTeach.

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of

Master of Visual Art

Queensland College of Art,
Griffith University
South Brisbane, Queensland

Date of Submission

  i  
Statement of Originality  

This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the exegesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the
exegesis itself.  
 
 
…………………………………………… ….....................  
Jennifer Robyn Andrews

  ii  
Acknowledgements  
 
I wish to acknowledge the ongoing, consistent encouragement and support of
my primary supervisor, Professor Ross Woodrow. I also wish to acknowledge the
insights, especially at critical times, of my associate supervisor, Dr George Petelin and
his informative lectures and notes throughout my candidature.
I acknowledge the enthusiastic assistance of Dr Bill Metcalf (Research
Methodologist, Griffith Graduate Research School, Griffith University), at a crucial
early stage of my candidature. I am grateful for the patient and attentive editorial input
of Eva Franzidis (Editor, Queensland College of Art).
To my post-graduate colleagues, thank you for you collegiality and your
insights.
To my husband, Ian Dearden and daughter Natasha Dearden, thank you for your
patience and your unswerving support.

  iii  
Abstract  

This exegesis considers how a contemporary artist can use mimesis to connect
viewers to the natural environment in a time when photographic mimesis is ubiquitous,
but often stage-managed and commodified. Mimesis—often defined as mimicry or
imitation—has been a contentious term since the days of the ancient Greeks In the
visual arts, debates about mimesis have largely focused on the power of mimesis to hold
the attention and even the mind of the beholder. Recent neurological research indicates
that seeing and perceiving are complex processes, and that mimesis, although a basic
human activity, is also a complex and subtle neurological process of perception and
interpretation. Consequently, the “innocent eye” understanding of seeing is, in
neurological terms, incorrect. Mindful of this knowledge, my research questions the
validity of schemas, or blueprints, for the visual artists’ representation of the world that
were established in the Renaissance and echoed in photographic mimesis.
Contemporary neurological research also indicates that mimesis is able to engage the
viewer with an image because of perceptual activity in the viewer’s mind, and the role
of mirror neurons is paramount to these findings. Drawing on research and writings by
Barbara Maria Stafford and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, my own research has
identified and explored perceptual pathways that viewers use.

Freed from traditional approaches to mimesis, my art work embraces the role of
perception in the mimetic process. Visual data was collected from two sites: the iconic
site of Australia’s first major environmental confrontation at Terania Creek, in the lush
rainforest of northern New South Wales, and the man-made rainforest of the inner city
arcadia of Mt Coot-tha Botanical Gardens. The final series of drawings Uncharted
Terrains brings together the use of the photograph as a source of mimetic data, the use
of the photograph to trigger memory of experience and information, the use of digital
technology as an extension of the mind, the mimetic action of the artist’s creation of the
work through physical movement and the direction of water. These works also explore
the neurological insights, regarding perception, into the mimetic impulse and apply the
understanding of mimesis as being an interpretative process. In so doing, mimesis
becomes part of an active process, one that embraces representation as re-presentation
and invites the viewer to embrace a perceptual dialogue with the image.

  iv  
  

  v  


Table of Contents

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ..............................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... III
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. IV

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 2

1.1 SETTING THE SCENE................................................................................................ 2
1.2 THE RENAISSANCE COUPLING OF MIMESIS AND PERSPECTIVE, PHOTOGRAPHIC
MIMESIS, AND COUNTER-DEBATES ............................................................................... 5
1.3 THE QUESTION OF MIMETIC AGENCY ..................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 CHANGING NUANCES OF MIMESIS..................................... 11
2.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 11
2.2 NEUROSCIENCE PROPOSES NEW UNDERSTANDINGS OF MIMESIS ......................... 11
2.2 REVISITING THE MIMETIC THEORIES OF THE ANCIENT GREEKS............................ 15
CHAPTER 3 MIMESIS AND THE RAINFOREST............................................. 17
3.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 17
3.2 ADDING THE DIGITAL TO PHOTOGRAPHIC MIMESIS .............................................. 18
3.3 SELECTED ARTISTS WHOSE WORK INFORMED MY RESEARCH ................................ 19
3.4 EXPLORING MIMETIC AGENCY ............................................................................. 20
3.5 DECODING THE FOREST ........................................................................................ 22
3.6 UNCHARTED TERRAINS ........................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION............................................................................... 29
ILLUSTRATIONS LIST ............................................................................................ 30
ILLUSTRATIONS ...................................................................................................... 34
Illustrations for Chapter 1 ..................................................................................... 34
Illustrations for Chapter 2 ..................................................................................... 35
Illustrations for Chapter 3.3 Selected Artists ........................................................ 38
Illustrations for Chapter 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 Studio Work ............................................... 39
Illustrations for Chapter 3.6 Uncharted Terrains ................................................ 46
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 59



Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Setting the Scene

In the twenty-first century, many people are becoming acutely aware of the need
to examine ways of co-existing with the natural world (Hatfield 2008). Central to such
eco-theory is the critical importance of art as a means of facilitating change (Orenstein
1990 cited in Blandy & Hoffman 1993, p.25). Douglas Blandy and Elizabeth Hoffman
(1993, p.28) believe that a broadened awareness of environment issues through visual
images will stimulate greater critical thinking. In turn, they believe, this will contribute
to ongoing environmental debate and policy development.

Concurrently, the new millennium sees the developed world functioning as an

ocular-centric society (Rose 2007) aided by a historically unprecedented access to
multiple images that result from the highly developed mimetic machinery of cameras
and digital technology (Taussig, 1993, p.20). According to Barbara Maria Stafford,
“Mimesis is back with a vengeance. Everywhere we turn, advertisements and branding
create the impression of having a clear message to communicate” (2007, p.101).
Although mimetic, mass-produced depictions of nature are all too often commodified
to benefit the growing eco-tourism market (Dorsey 2004), as evidenced in
Illustration1.1. The impact on consumers is described by Graeme Chesters and Ian
Welsh (2005, p.190) as “over-coding the binary model of producer/consumer”. The
unprecedented availability of images and the lack of control over their dissemination in
our technological age has instilled a distrust of the image (Stafford 1996). Therefore,
they are arguably ineffective in creating a genuine connection between viewers and the
natural environment.

As an artist working mainly in drawing, mixed media and digital media, I find
myself challenged as to how to contribute to this ongoing critical conversation between
the viewer and nature. This led to my research question: in an era when photographic
mimesis is ubiquitous, and often contrived and commodified, how can a contemporary
artist use mimesis to connect viewers to the natural environment?

I arrived at this research question by acknowledging the recent research on the

mimetic image’s ability to inform, challenge and shape a view of the world in the

observer’s mind. Recent developments in neuroscience suggest that mimesis is a far

more subtle and complex process than mere photographic resemblance and can be
instrumental in creating a connection with the natural environment (Stafford 2007).
Mindful of this, I approached my artistic project by using mimetic data collected from
two specific sites. The first site was “Protester Falls” at Terania Creek, which is in
Nightcap National Park, NSW. Terania Creek was the site of an extended
demonstration in 1979 that resulted in a dramatic re-negotiation of the relationship
between government, business and the wilderness in Australia (Turvey 2006). The
site’s history of humanity reconnecting with nature is a relevant starting point for this
project. The second site is the mimetic arcadia of the ‘inner city rainforest’ at the
Brisbane Botanic Gardens, Mt Coot-tha.

My overall aim was to produce artworks that connect viewers with nature while
avoiding the stereotypical eco-tourist images so readily available in our society.
“Nature” is defined as “the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and
existing independently of their activities” (Butler 2009, p.835).

Fundamental to my approach is understanding mimesis as part of an active

process that embraces representation as re-presentation, rather than as a process that
passively copies in an attempt to reproduce reality. Research into mirror neuron activity
(Ramachrandron 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2007, 2009; Stafford 2007) validates this

approach. Consequently, I feel that my work transcends the contrived processes often
associated with mimesis, as it is cognisant of the inextricably intertwined relationship
between the mimetic process and perception.

Adopting Donald Schön’s Reflective Practice methodology (Schön 1995), I have

applied theory-informing practice and practice-informing theory to my studio work and
its theoretical and visual context. The series of drawings, Uncharted Terrains, is the
final result of this process for this project.

The optical blueprint of mimesis that originated in the Renaissance is inherent

within the widely accessible photographic mimetic image (Hulick 1990). Thus, in the
following sections of Chapter 1, I discuss the spatial schema of linear perspective and
the search for agency; this discussion creates a context for the claim regarding
perception and mimesis. The next chapter, Chapter 2 “Changing Nuances in Mimesis”,

gives a brief overview of some philosophical and scientific insights into mimesis. It
addresses the issue that, although mimesis is a basic human activity, it is also a
complex and subtle neurological process of perceiving and interpreting. Drawing on
this knowledge, Chapter 3 gives an overview of my studio project’s development, and
explores further knowledge I gained along the way. An essential component of my
approach to my studio work is Hulick’s (1990) belief that digital photography and co-
existing computer technologies should be treated as an extension of the mind. My final
chapter, the conclusion, confirms that mimesis becomes part of an active process, one
that involves the artist, the act of creating, and the viewer.

1.2 The Renaissance Coupling of Mimesis and Perspective, Photographic

Mimesis, and Counter-debates

Photographic mimesis echoes the Renaissance single-point perspective theory

(Hulick 1990). Thus, in order to fully understand the dominance of photographic
mimesis, one needs to understand the principles of Renaissance mimesis. In their
attempt to faithfully capture reality, Renaissance artists coupled perspective and
mimesis, thus developing the blueprint for Western representation. The fifteenth-
century artist and author Leon Battista Alberti likened the paintings produced in this
style to “a window to a world that the artist chooses to recreate” (Blinder 1986). In this
window, the viewer’s eye was given a particular place or viewpoint (Coppel 1982),
which specified the viewer’s fixed place in the world. (Blinder 1986).

According to Georges Coppel (1982), the early-fifteenth-century Renaissance

audience had some difficulty understanding the distortion inherent in linear
perspective. One example is Andrea Mantegna’s Dead Christ (c.1500) [Illustration
1.2], where the feet are enormous in relation to the length of the body. However, the
use of linear perspective was scientifically validated in the sixteenth century with the
invention of the camera obscura (Coppel 1982). The camera obscura process is
explained as follows:
When light enters a hole in a darkened room or box, an image of the things
outside is projected on the wall opposite the hole in a darkened room or box. To
ensure the perfect realism, a sixteenth-century treatise on perspective therefore
recommends the artist place a sheet of paper on the wall of a camera obscura
where the image is cast… (Blinder 1986, p.21)
The linear-perspective approach to mimesis suggested a theory of vision, referred
to as the “innocent eye”, which likens the eye to a mirror. The concept of images as
mini-copies recorded on a flat surface was believed to represent the process of vision.
Current scientific knowledge informs us that this is incorrect and that the process of
vision involves a process of visual perception, one in which the “signals sent to the
brain via the optic nerves are … judged by the mind to have been caused by objects in
the world” (Blinder 1986, p.21).

Neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (2003b) explains that, neurologically,

vision is a complex process of processing messages, which are sent from the eyeball to

the optic nerve and then to two main centres, which can be referred to as the old
pathway and the new pathway. Ramachandran (2003b, n.p )

(T)he old pathway.. (is) in the brain stem and it is called the superior colliculus.
The second pathway goes to the cortex, the visual cortex in the back of the brain
and it's called the new pathway. The new pathway in the cortex is doing most of
what we usually think of as vision, like recognizing objects, consciously. The old
pathway, on the other hand, is involved in locating objects in the visual field, so
that you can orient to it, swivel your eyeballs towards it, rotate your head towards
it.

Whereas the early Renaissance observer experienced some difficulties seeing the
foreshortening distortions as realistic, contemporary viewers of photographic mimetic
images experience no such difficulties. Centuries’ worth of accepting the Renaissance
perspective model, and the current inundation of the mimetic image, equips today’s
viewer with both experience and knowledge about how to read a photograph without
having to stand in the position of actual viewpoint (Coppel 1982, p.270). Contemporary
society is accustomed to viewing and visually processing multitudes of mimetic
photographs taken from different angles and viewpoints; “As soon as they are shown
the picture of a man, they reconstitute the viewing points in their minds, based on the
knowledge of body proportion which is stored in their memory” (Coppel 1982, p.271).
This process also applies to the reconstruction of the original form when size is altered.
Coppel gives the example of when birds in the distance appear smaller, our minds
know that they are not in fact shrinking. Similarly, the mind reconstructs the enlarged
images of figures on the cinema screen so as to perceptually comply with normal
proportions. By giving such examples, Coppel (1982) demonstrates that the mind
learns to read Renaissance mimesis as realistic.

Coppel (1982 p.273) characterises the camera as “one-eyed and ‘paralysed’” and
therefore incapable of performing multiple tasks that seeing and perceiving requires.
While in the process of vision, the human observer “reconstructs a scene from many
perceptions” (Coppel 1982, p.273) and would normally look and move around the
environment (Blinder 1986), whereas the contemporary viewer has developed the
inherent ability to accept the fixity of the photographic mimetic image (Coppel 1982).

Keeping in mind the complex process of seeing, Coppel (1982) mathematically

analysed various formulae for depicting reality, including linear perspective and

Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity”. His concludes that “[a]ll legitimate perspectives are
equally valid because each one exhaust its own reality” (Coppel 1982, p.275).

Paradoxically, although validating perspective, this comment sheds light on

W.J.T. Mitchell’s (1984, p.524) observation: “The best index to the hegemony of
artificial perspective is the way it denies its own artificiality and lays claims to being a
“natural” representation of ‘the way things look,’ ‘the way we see,’ or … ‘the way
things really are.’”

My interpretation of these two statements is that no one schema can fully

capture the precision and magnitude of the process of seeing and perceiving. Blinder’s
statement that we “see through windows … and we see “into pictures” (Blinder 1986,
p.26, original emphasis) suggests the limitations of the Renaissance mimetic schema.
An explanation of this is that seeing and perceiving incorporates not just the eye, but
also the mind (Ramachandran 2009).

This incorporation of the mind and the eye in the act of perception is discussed
in Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s (1945) analysis on Paul Cézanne’s works. Cézanne
advocated looking beyond the perspective of the camera and developed a method of
working with a “lived perspective, that which we actually perceive, [which] is not a
geometric or a photographic one” (Merleau-Ponty 1945, p.278). Cézanne aimed to
represent objects as he experienced them and believed that to achieve this he needed to
avoid the painting formulas of the classical artists. Emile Bernard (cited in Merleau-
Ponty 1945, p.276.) explains “that for the classical artists, painting demanded outline,
composition, and distribution of light”. Cezanne wanted to avoid painting a
photographically mimetic image of the scene. His method was to study the structure of
a landscape he was to paint, and to meditate on the landscape.

The task before him was, first, to forget all he had ever learned from science and,
second through these sciences to recapture the structure of the landscape as an
emerging organism. To do this, all the partial views one catches sight of must be
welded together; all that the eye's versatility disperses must be reunited…
(Merleau-Ponty 1945, p.281 original emphasis)

Avoiding traditional solutions and schemas, Cézanne became open to the “chaos of
sensation” (Merleau-Ponty 1945, p. 276) that often resulted in distorted ellipses and
forms. Merleau-Ponty (1945) believed this approach more accurately reflected our true

perception of an object as our eye and our head move in the process of seeing. By
abandoning traditionally accepted techniques, Cézanne did not want to abandon
intelligence. Instead, he wished to paint nature and “confront the sciences with the
nature ‘from which they came’” (Merleau-Ponty 1945, p.277.). Through this approach,
Cezanne aimed, in his landscapes, to capture the essential purity of nature. Merleau-
Ponty (1945, p.277) notes “photographs of the same landscapes suggest man's works,
conveniences, and imminent presence.”

1.3 The Question of Mimetic Agency

In Alberti’s fifteenth-century treatise on painting, he attributes the discovery of

painting to the myth of Narcissus; Narcissus was a beautiful youth who, “beholding his
own image in a pool, fell in love with his own effigy” (Barolsky 1995, p.255). The
myth alludes to the power of mimesis to capture not only the viewer’s eye but also their
mind, a power that has instilled both distrust of and intrigue with this facility over the
centuries. This power mimesis holds is one that I have explored as a means to establish
a sense of connectivity between the viewer and the image, while also making the link
between connectivity and perception.

In his discussion of Hans Holbein’s The Ambassadors (1533) [Illustration 1.3],

Keith Moxey (2009) discusses the power that mimesis holds, noting that this image
demands a reciprocal response from the viewer. Indeed, the ambassadors’ gazes require
our returned gaze and “triggers an involuntary impulse to animate what we see—to
treat the represented beings as if they possessed the powers of agency that we ourselves
enjoy” (Moxey 2009, p.80). Moxey identifies the force with which Holbein’s mimesis
can both hold the imagination of the viewer and suggest an intimacy or relationship
with the sitters. The gaze in Holbein’s work draws the viewer in, creating a sense of
connection. In Screamadelica (2005) [Illustration 1.4], contemporary artist Jim
Lambie also utilises the mimetic image of the eye to engage the viewer’s attention.

The mirror is another device that can be used to create a sense of mimetic
agency. This is most famously demonstrated in Las Meninas (1656), painted by
seventeenth-century artist, Diego Velázquez [Illustration1.5]. In the painting,

Velázquez is depicted looking at the sitters and the viewers. The other participants in
the painting also look out at the sitters who are only visible through the reflection in the
mirror, hung in the far back of the depicted interior. As viewers we become one with
the sitters; “The mirror provides a metathesis of visibility that affects both the space
represented in the picture and its nature as representation: it allows us to see, the centre
of the canvas, what in the painting is of necessity doubly invisible” (Foucault 1982.
p.8).

This tendency to assign agency and to animate the inanimate is described by

Benjamin as the “aura” of the image (Moxey 2009, p.8). Moxey (2009, p.12) defines
Benjamin’s “aura” as such: “in terms of experience, a point where collective and
personal perception coincide, where involuntary memory is triggered by an object so as
to ensure a strange weave of space and time”. Moxey (2009, p.2) ponders on this
weaving of space and time further when he poses the question:

Where does the agency of the mimetic image lie: in its representational capacity
to record and thus interpret experience in such a way as to trigger involuntary
memory; in its presentational power to create an entirely new experience—a
substance for the real thing; or in its ability to do both simultaneously? (original
emphasis)

Benjamin’s (1936 ch3) reference to the experience of nature‘s aura is also very relevant
to this project.

The concept of aura which was proposed above with reference to historical
objects may usefully be illustrated with reference to the aura of natural ones. We
define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however
close it may be. If, while resting on a summer afternoon, you follow with your
eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which casts its shadow over
you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that branch.

The search for alternatives to formal linear perspective is not new. Likewise, the
awareness that the mimetic agency of the image to hold the focus of not only a viewer’s
eye, but also their mind, is not new. What is new is neurological sciences’ validation of
the activity involved in the mind’s process of seeing and perceiving the world around
us. Although my art works portray nature, my aim was to explore the concept of
mimetic agency in capturing the viewer’s attention, allowing insights from recent
neurological studies to inform my work.

10


Chapter 2 Changing Nuances of Mimesis

2.1 Overview

A term that spans across the arts, mimesis is as much a theory of art as it “is an
integral part of human nature” (Potolsky 2006, p.136). In “Doctrine of the Similar”
(1933), Walter Benjamin writes “there may not be a single one of the higher human
functions which is not decisively co-determined by the mimetic faculty” (Benjamin &
Tarnowski 1979, p.65). Imitation informs memory and habit as well as social behaviour
(Tarde 1962, cited in Potolsky 2006). It shapes both our sense of identity (Sigmund
Freud cited in Potolsky 2006, p.9) and our culture (Stafford 2007, p.83). With reference
to the visual arts, mimesis is described by Moxey (2009, p.1) as “… that unending
record of our continuing beguilement with the appearance of the world around us”.
Current neurological research into the activity of mirror neurons validates the
debate over mimetic techniques employed by both Renaissance and photographic
mimesis (Stafford 2007). My art works, which I describe in length in Chapter 3, were
informed by a multi-pronged research process that involved learning about the several
neurological activities relevant to mimesis that have been identified, and which are
detailed in section 2.2. I then philosophically contextualized this information by
revisiting selected ancient Greek mimetic theories, which are discussed in section 2.3.

2.2 Neuroscience Proposes New Understandings of Mimesis

Irving Massey (2009, p.6) believes that the impact of recent knowledge gained
as a result of ongoing neurological studies may be “comparable to the introduction of
treatises on perspective during the Renaissance”. These discoveries confirm Ernst
Gombrich’s (1959, p.148) understanding that perception is an active process and that
representation was always “a two way affair. It creates links by teaching us how to
switch from one reading to another”. Based on this new scientifically proven
knowledge, Stafford (2007, p.4) asserts that the person is both “a boundary for the
mind… [and] a distributed agent entangled in the world”.
As a result of significant developments made in the neurosciences, the 1990s
have been described as the “decade of the mind” (Onians 2007, p.2). By attaching
scanners to high-performance computers, neuroscientists developed brain-imaging

11


techniques (Massey 2009, p.ix) that provide insights into how the brain/mind interacts
with the visual image. This information elucidates how the brain/mind can create a
sense of experience from and engagement with visual, mimetic images.
Perception and imitation are important aspects of mimesis. Recent neurological
discoveries on mirror neurons’ activities indicate that the human mind is hard-wired for
mimetic activity. This suggests that there are some basic human neurological activities
that are triggered by mimetic images (Ramachandran, 2009).
Mirror neurons and emotional states are closely linked. Stafford (2007) posits
that within the human brain/mind are “plural images of our own body functions” and
“the maintenance of a stable inner equilibrium is achieved via ongoing adaptations to
the environmental stimulus” (Stafford 2007, p.167). Furthermore, “Mimesis orientates
beings… and is a central feature of our cognitive archaeology” (Stafford 2007, p.77).
Because of its relevance to my project, one of the neurological activities I focus
on is the ability to empathise. It is through empathy that we come to understand and
relate to our world (Massey 2009) and through empathy the viewer becomes engaged
in the active process of perception. Stafford (2007, p.177) links mimesis to our need to
organize our “inscape” with “the self organizing external world” (Stafford 2007,
p.177); one that is in a constant state of change. Charles Darwin (cited in Stafford 2007,
p.98) explains that “we continually oscillate between absorbing a changing outside
world and struggling to maintain a balanced sense of sameness of self”. Sameness or
imitation requires our brains to adopt the point of view of another (Ramachandran
2009).
Stafford (2007, p.75) describes the mirror-neuron activity as “‘wireless’ visual
communication”. Linking neurons are a series of synapses along which a “chemical
signal neurotransmitter” is released (Stafford 2007, p.49). Ramachandran (2009)
identifies firing mirror neurons as the means through which humans acquire and
disseminate knowledge. Simplistically, the process can be described as: we see, we do
(Ramachandran 2007). For example, mirror neurons will fire when we perform a task,
such as reaching out for food. Watching another person reach out for the same food
will also trigger the same mirror-neuron activity (Stafford 2007).
Experiments reveal that the process of touch is important to the process of
empathy. When our arms are touched, neurons are fired in our minds. If we see
someone else’s arm is touched, similar neural activity takes place in our minds. Further

12


experiments indicate that it is only the nerve receptors in the arm’s skin that sends
feedback to the brain that the touch is to our body. Of this, Ramachandran (2009)
states:
…there is a feedback signal that vetos the signal of the mirror neuron preventing
you from consciously experiencing that touch. But if you remove the arm, you
simply anesthetize my arm, so you put an injection into my arm, anesthetize the
brachial plexus, so the arm is numb, and there is no sensations coming in, if I
now watch you being touched, I literally feel it in my hand. In other words, you
have dissolved the barrier between you and other human beings. So, I call them
Gandhi neurons, or empathy.

Such neurological discoveries led Ramchandran (2009) to conclude that barriers

between the self and others are only skin deep. We are, he says, linked by neuron
activity. It is these activities that allow us to empathise.
Stafford (2007, p.90) identifies the neural activities of associating and inferring
as components of the ability to empathise. The process of association “makes us
sensitive to the co-occurrence of the thinking self with the items presented in
experience” (Stafford 2007, p.96). Associating relates to repetition and mimicry; it is
through associating that humans create the ability to recall memories and create a sense
of a “unified self” Stafford 2007, p.96). Inferring, she states, is “closely aligned with
the imagination” (Stafford 2007, p.81). The ability to learn through imitation also leads
to a copy, or a memory, being planted in the mind. Hence, when are confronted with
similar mimetic images of emotion, the mind is able to infer, or anticipate, the
perceived state almost as if mind-reading (Stafford 2007, p.81).
Co-existing with the association process is the concept of “sympathies”
(Stafford 2007, p.90). Our “cognitive apparatus … [is] a dynamic representational
structure comprising the nervous system, our body and the environment” (Stafford
2007, p.93). One outcome is that the mind is constantly searching for facial recognition
and for facial features, known as “facialization” (Stafford 2007, p.77), within
landscapes, buildings and still-lifes (Stafford 2007, p.90). In other words, the onlooker
is striving to indentify some sense of self in the mimetic view. Of significance to my
project is Stafford’s (2007, p.85) claim that emotional responses can be triggered by
geometric cues of facial features. From this it can be concluded that only the essential
details are needed to trigger associations to form a sense of empathy.

13


The mind is in a constant process of deciphering codes from the external

world. In our ongoing struggle to make sense of the visual world, our minds also
perform a task called “grouping”. Ramachandran (2003c) uses Richard Gregory’s
Dalmatian [Illustration 2.1A] to explain this process. In this case, the mind searches
for a solution to the marks and squiggles presented, and finally experiences a sense of
satisfaction when the puzzle is solved and the Dalmatian appears. He explains this as
being essential to survival. For example, hunters in the jungle might see patches of
yellow; the mirror neurons start firing and associating by grouping these codes and
identifying the yellow patches as being a lion (Ramachandran 2003c). Stafford (2007)
describes this task as “pattern seeking” and considers it part of the ongoing process of
aligning ourselves with the world. Before the evidence provided by brain-imaging
techniques Gombrich (1956, p. 241) had observed this process and succinctly states:
“The mind will test for consistencies and look for an answer based on consistencies and
“transform the ambiguous stimulus pattern into the image of ‘something out there’.”
Ramachandran (2003c n.p) explains this constant searching as perceptual
problem solving, which he explains as follows: “The putting together of the wiring of
your visual centres to your emotional centres ensures that the very act of searching for
the solution is pleasing, just as struggling with a jigsaw puzzle is pleasing long before
the final ‘Aha’. Once again it’s about generating as many ‘Ahas’ as possible in your
brain.” I would suggest that Ramachandran’s ‘Ahas’ contribute to the power of
mimetic agency, the aura and the sense of experience referred to in section 1.2.
Contemporary American artist Claire Watkins uses the recent knowledge of the
workings of the brain, the triggering of neural synapses and the resonances established
between the brain and the outer world though associations. She is “fascinated by
systems found within the body and the parallel structures located outside of it; the
human brain and circuit boards, nerve systems and trees”. She asks “how is the brain a
computer and how is it an electrical storm?” (Watkins ) Her installations, Flock of
Needles (2009), Lungs (2010) and Thinking Three Thoughts at Once (2009)
(Illustrations 2.2A, 2.2B and 2.2C), involve movement created through electrical
currents. The twig-like shapes simultaneously suggest both neurons and branches, like
those illustrated in Illustration 2.1B. Her work employs ambiguity, which in itself
engages perceptual participation.

14


2.2 Revisiting the Mimetic Theories of the Ancient Greeks

As demonstrated by neurological studies, the process of imitation is a complex

one (Ramachandran 2009, Stafford 2007), which involves the active process of
interpretation (Blinder 1986).

Before the invention of linear perspective, photographic mimesis and brain-

imaging machines, the ancient Greek philosophers, Democritus, Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle developed theories of mimesis, which, although different in their overall
concepts, all accepted that mimesis entailed imitation (Tatarkiewicz 1968).

“For Democritus mimesis was an imitation of the way nature functions”

(Tatarkiewicz 1968, p.226 original emphasis) a concept that today is applied in
sciences, for example, in the form of biomimicry (Hatfield 2008).

Building on Socrates’ distrust of the artistic image as mere “shadows of the

things they imitate” (Potolsky 2006, p.22), Plato believed that this process of imitating
created “‘phantoms’, not real things” (Potolsky 2006, p.23). This was demonstrated by
Plato’s famous allegory of the cave, in which human prisoners in a cave believed that
shadows on the wall are reality (Potolsky 2006). Plato believed that the one universal
truth is the idea and that all art is nothing but an “imperfect copy of the idea”
(Gombrich 1959, p.133). Therefore, art lost its validity because it was a mere phantom
of the original idea (Potolsky, 2006, p.23), and the artist becomes the creator of
shadows.

Thomas Demand’s Window (1998), Illustration 2.3, is a contemporary example

of Plato’s shadowy illustrations. In this photograph, the viewer is encouraged to
perceive that they are looking at a window with curtains drawn, whereas in fact the
work is a simulation using paper and cardboard. Martin Heidegger (1947, cited
Potolsky 2006, p.22) claimed that Plato’s concerns about mimesis were instrumental in
challenging concepts of truth in the Western world, in particular in relationship to the
role of the artistic image, as Plato’s theory renders the world as nothing more than an
imitation.

Aristotle was more liberal in his interpretation of the role of imitation in the arts.
He “preserved the thesis that art imitates reality but imitation meant to him not faithful
copying but a free and easy approach to reality; the artist who imitates can present

15


reality in his own way” (Tatarkiewicz 1968, p.226). A pivotal difference in the status
given to mimesis by Plato and Aristotle is that while Plato was wary of mimesis
because of its potential to misdirect and remove humanity from the truth, Aristotle
believed that “mimesis was important for human development in that it served to
ensure successful socialization by placing the ‘pleasure’ of imitation in the service of
‘knowledge’” (Poiana 2007, p34). Aristotle’s mimesis is more complex than a
photographic mimesis, moving beyond resemblance to “relations between things”
(Hagberg 1989, p.366).
Aristotle’s view of mimesis (cited by Hagberg 1984, p.366) moves away from
the physical resemblance of things to the “relations between things or the mechanism
between things” (cited by Hagberg 1984). Aristotle refers to metaphor as a method for
creating connections in a manner that “Illuminate[s] facts” (Hagberg 1984, p.368)
while also allowing for aesthetic interpretation over historical narrative accuracy.
Harberg identifies in Artistotle’s theories three stages of mimetic representation which
map a move from a simplistic to a complex understanding of mimesis. These stages
involve the literal, the interpretive and the anticipatory. Hagberg (1984, p.368) explains
the interpretive stage “as clearly not what we usually think of as imitation; the measure
of the mime's skill is the extent to which he precisely captures, say, the way someone
walks.” So mimesis does not dictate that the original be imitated in its entirely.
As I have previously established, the debate over the value of mimetic
techniques employed by both Renaissance and photographic mimesis is validated by
the current neurological research into the activity of mirror neurons (Stafford 2007).
Building on this knowledge as my “licence” to explore the role of mimesis in my
representation of nature, the Ancient Greek understanding of mimesis as imitation
provides a philosophical springboard to my practice. In this context, imitation is
differentiated from copying. It suggests a deeper response to the true character of the
form than mechanical copying and, importantly, implies a degree of interpretation
(Golden 1975).

16


Chapter 3 Mimesis and the Rainforest

3.1 Methodology

As outlined in the previous chapters, advances in neuroscience replaced the

“innocent eye” concept of seeing (Blinder 1986), as new knowledge has emerged
regarding the complex processes of seeing and perceiving. This complexity includes
the activity of mirror neurons and indicates that mimesis is a complex neurological
activity, which incorporates acquiring and dispersing knowledge (Ramachandran
2009). As noted in section 2.2, Hagberg’s (1984) interpretation of Aristotle’s theories
as a looking beyond the mere resemblance to the actual abstract relations between
things, allows for a philosophical approach that encompasses the complexity of the
seeing and perceiving process. Embracing this, the emphasis of my studio research is
based on mimesis as being part of a process that is symbiotic with perception. In doing
so, I have identified and explored perceptual pathways including creating empathy,
which includes associating, sympathising and inferring (Stafford 2007), and
“perception problem solving” (Ramachandran 2003c, n.p.), which includes looking for
order and chaos, similarity and diversity. Through exploring these pathways, the
project becomes inextricably enmeshed in exploring the function of perception in
mimesis’s power to engage with the viewer.

The studio component is documented in three sections: 3.4 “Exploring Mimetic

Agency”, which gives an overview of the initial art works I made that explored
connectivity and mimetic agency with a particular emphasis on empathy and
association. Section 3.5 “Decoding the Forest”, puts mimesis into the context of
perceptual problem-solving and again looks at association and organisation. In 3.6
“Uncharted Terrains”, I use innovative drawing techniques to evoke glimpses of
metaphoric worlds in the waterfalls at Protester Falls and the rock pools of Terania
Creek.

As stated in Chapter 1, I came into this project without any preconceived

concepts or outcomes. Adopting Donald Schön’s Reflective Practice methodology
(Schön 1995), I have applied theory-informing practice and practice-informing theory

17


to my studio work and its theoretical and visual context. Schön (1995 p.56) refers to the
process of “reflection-in-practice [as hinging] on the experience of surprise”. This
process of openness to the unexpected or the divergent (Schön 1995) underpins my
approach to both perception and technique throughout this project. An inherent part of
this methodology is reflection-on-action (Schön 1995, p.278). I constantly evaluated
both the outcomes of finished works and works in progress so as to gain a critical
overview, as well as to plan the next stage of the work.

As outlined in Chapter 1, so readily available in our society. To collect data, I

made a number of site visits. As outlined in section 1.1, the sites were “Protester Falls”
at Terania Creek, in Nightcap National Park, NSW and the mimetic arcadia of the
‘inner city rainforest’ at the Brisbane Botanic Gardens, Mt Coot-tha. Between 2009 and
2010 I visited Protestor Falls four times, and Mt Coot-tha twice; on these site visits, I
took hundreds of photographs and completed some en plein air work (some examples
include Illustrations 3.4 and 3.5). This visual data became the mimetic starting points
for my studio work.

An essential component of my research, especially the final project, “Uncharted

Terrains”, was to “experience” the sites. By walking the forest paths, slipping on mossy
rocks, tripping over gnarled tree roots, side stepping the red belly black snake,
experiencing the unexpected drenching of a downpour, feeling the spray of the
waterfall and generally breathing in the ambience, the forest’s aura (recalling
Benjamin’s term) became imprinted in my mind.

3.2 Adding the Digital to Photographic Mimesis

Photography became a fundamental medium of this research, so the role of the

photograph mimetic record needs to be addressed. As noted in chapter 1.2, the camera
shoots from a fixed, one-eyed viewpoint (Coppel 1982). The photograph’s ability to
selectively frame the world (Hulick 1990, p.419) recalls Alberti’s mimetic concept of
the picture being a window to the world (Blinder 1986). However, Hulick (1990) gives
credit to the photograph’s ability to capture structure and detail so much so that it
“changes our knowledge of the subject…[and] permits us to enter the picture as if
entering another world” (Hulick 1990, p.419).

18


The nineteenth-century belief in the “objectivity of the machine” gave a false

sense of faith in the truthfulness of the photograph (Hulick 1990). In Chapter 1, I hinted
at how digital photography and the inundation of the digital mimetic images in the
market place has led to a distrust of the image. Putting the “digital” into photography
opened up new possibilities for artists. I concur with Hulick’s (1990) belief that digital
photography and the co-existing computer technologies should be treated as an
extension of the mind. As already discussed in Chapter 2, I similarly embrace the
notion that imitation is differentiated from copying in that imitation implies a degree of
interpretation (Golden 1975).

3.3 Selected artists whose work informed my research

During the studio component of this research, I found the following artists’ work
to be relevant: Paul Cézanne, Claire Watkins, Jim Lambie, Giuseppe Penone, Susan
Pickering and Julie Mehrutu.

I have already made brief mention of Cézanne, Watkins and Lambie (whose
spider web-like construction of line and mass suggests the sprawling network of
connections seen in the neuron network, Illustration 2.2). While Mehrutu’s work will
be referred to later in the later discussion of “Uncharted Terrains”, I will now briefly
introduce selected relevant works by the other remaining artists.

Contemporary Italian artist Giuseppe Penone believes that the distinction

between mankind and nature should be bridged. He often leaves some indication or
trace of human beings on objects depicted in his work (Gooding 2002). In Penone’s
Skin of Thorns (2009), (Illustration 3.1A), fingerprints are printed onto clear tape
placed in the centre of the work. Penone often uses the hand motif in his work, as seen
in I Feel the Respiration of the Forest (1968), Illustration 3.2C. Pelle di Marmo au
Spine d'Acacia (2001) Illustration 3.1B, is a large wall piece made of a “skin of
marble and acacia thorns,” has vein-like markings (Marian Goodman Gallery, 2003).

19


Susan Pickering is a contemporary Australian printmaker whose works such as

Disappearing voices—Elegy (2008), Illustration 3.2, reflect a sense of seeking pattern
in an ever-changing, natural world, as referred to by Stafford (2007).

3.4 Exploring Mimetic Agency

Simon Schama (1995) observes that forests are more than their parts, as
they are also made up of memories and history. However, I decided to look closely at
the “parts”—the rocks, wood and water—which are the basic building-blocks of the
forest, and to focus on the “hidden landscapes” inherent within these elements.

The search for agency—for a sense of connection—is essential to my research.

The sprawling, tentacle-like shapes of the neuron network, as evidenced in Illustration
2.1B, are reflected in Watkins’s aforementioned installations, Lambie’s Screamadelica,
and the whispy, vaporous shapes reaching down to the ocean in Pickering’s
Disappearing voices—Elegy. All of these structures suggest connections or pathways.
Such structures are also seen in my en plein air studies (Illustrations 3.4 and 3.5), the
twigs in my Bejewelled series (Illustrations 3.6A and 3.6B), which hold the delicate
bubble, and in the many of drawings in Uncharted Terrain (e.g. Illustration 3.16).
However, I was searching for perceptual connections that would engage the viewer’s
mind, more than just connecting sections of the composition.

In Chapter 2, I discussed how both Lambie and Holbein use the mimetic gaze to
engage the viewer. As I wanted to avoid placing actual sitters into the scenes the device
of the mimetic gaze was not available to me. Instead, in the Bejewelled series, I
employed the mirror device: the bubble becomes a mirror. The reflection of the forest
canopy suggests that we are no longer just spectators but also participants, located
between the water and the canopy. As in Las Meninas, the “mirror” includes us in the
scene. Hulick (1990) observes that digital equipment allows for an extension of the
mind’s eye. I used the computer to digitally manipulate the froth around the bubble into
a perfect circle. Perfect circles are machine made, and are a marker for mankind’s
intrusion into the otherwise natural scene depicted.

20


I drew on Stafford’s observations, noted in Chapter 2, that, within the human

brain/mind are “plural images of our own body functions” (Stafford 2007, p.167). I
began to explore the processes of associating and inferring with the aim of engaging the
viewer through empathy. Stafford (2007) informs us that the process of association
relates to repetition and mimicry, and that it is through associating that humans create
the ability to recall memories and create a sense of a “unified self”. Keith Massey
(2009) argues that associating helps to develop a sense of empathy, and it is through
empathy that we come to understand and relate to our world. This influenced my
painting A Matter of Choice (Illustration 3.7). Using the computer, I altered the size
and context of the mimetic images. I was interested in exploring the relation of things,
and casual comments from onlookers revealed that there were different ways to “read”
the painting. Some people “saw” a large set of lungs, created by the enlarged forest
leaves, and others, a lizard with the drop of water being its eye. Although I did not
pursue this artistic direction of combining images, I was inspired to pursue the
perceptual activity of association and the mind’s ability to create sympathies. This was
utilised in The Living Water drawing (Illustration 3.8A).

In a number of my photographs, rocks and water shapes suggested morphed

figures, for which Guiseppe Penone’s practice of combining natural forms with human
traits was an influence. Living Water is a derivative of this illusion, created by the
photographic mimetic image in photograph Illustration 3.8B. Working with a “living
earth” concept and searching for ways of embedding a human trace, as seen in
Penone’s work, I worked with the shapes of the rocks, under the water, and the ripples,
which, themselves, suggested human form. I aimed to explore the “hidden
landscape”—the markings and the forms inherent within each of these components.

Concurrently I set out to challenge my own assumptions, as well as those of

viewers, about what we were seeing, while simultaneously aiming to establish a sense
of connection, through association and empathy, with the suggested human form.
Stafford (2007) identifies inferring and associating as two mental activities that bridge
the gap between the mind/brain and the outer world. However I felt that I was dictating
an interpretation of the scene and limiting the viewer’s participation.

Reflecting on the responses to these works I decided to pursue the concept of

empathy as a means of engaging with the viewer, as seen in the Embrace series

21


(Illustrations 3.9A and 3.9B). Here, empathy is explored further by examining the
relationship of edges. Stafford (2007) states that mimesis and emotions are closely
bound; Stafford also tells us that “enfolding the subject in darkness apparently
encourages our sensory neurons to wander free. The overshooting brain [is] a
hyperactive operating ‘detective device’ obeying its mimetic impulse to find agency”
(Stafford 2007, p.110). Applying this concept to the image, by darkening areas as if in
a cave, invites the viewer to become involved in the active perceptual search for
constancies and relationships, which may suggest associated human experiences of
physical connection or embrace.

3.5 Decoding the Forest

My understanding of the impulse to infer and associate (Stafford 2007) led me

to investigate the seemingly incongruous relationship between order and chaos.
Turning to rock, wood and water as the basic building blocks of the forest, I looked at
concepts of order and chaos while still building on concepts of inferring and
associating. I worked from a range of photographs, such as that seen in Illustration
3.10A, to develop the Ripple series. This photograph was the mimetic starting point for
this series. In the process of creating The Forest Ripple (Illustration 3.10B) and
Rainforest Ripple (Illustration 3.10C) the image was desaturated and tonally inverted.
By deducting the element of colour, I aimed to focus attention on lines, tones and
textures. Although this is a mechanical manipulation in the search for order, the basic
rhythms and patterns are still mimetic of the initial ripple. The ripples were enlarged so
as to be bigger than life and to change the context.

The enlarged ripples ((Illustrations 3.10B, 3.10C) were divided into equal
sections, suggesting that each section is important and demands our specific and
equivalent attention. The sharp geometric division reflects the mechanical process
involved in the production and is reminiscent of the manipulated circle used in the
Bejewelled series (illustrations 3.6A and 3.6B). The concepts of inference, and the
need to find constancies and a sense of order out of chaos, become apparent in works
like Turbulence (Illustration 3.11A). As with the Ripple series, by desaturating the
image and inverting it, the tone directs the viewer’s focus to the shapes and the pattern.

22


This search for order out of chaos can also be seen in my Study of Swirling
Water (Illustration 3.15B), a forerunner of the Uncharted Terrain series. My aim was
to understand the movement of the water, while also exploring the pattern-seeking
aspect of perception, an aspect that links, our inner and outer scapes (Stafford 2007).
Visual clues, other than the water, were excluded, in order to draw the attention to the
inherent patterns.

As indicated above I decided to focus on wood, water and rock and to explore
the inherent potential of these elements without assumptions of what the viewer, or I,
might see. Rather than interpreting the image for the viewer as I did in Living Water, I
aimed to involve the viewer in the search for some constancy or sense of order as the
basis for some form of perceptual connection. The concepts of both “living earth” and
“hidden landscape” became more dominant in my approach.

By enlarging scale and eliminating extra ‘clues’, such as creek banks and colour
details, a sense of ambiguity and the suggestion of “hidden landscapes” began to
emerge. In our search for order, Gombrich observes that the mind will test for
consistencies and look for an answer based on consistencies and “transform the
ambiguous stimulus pattern into the image of ‘something out there’” (Gombrich 1956,
p. 241). In Ripple (Illustration 3.13A), I again explored the ambiguity of the form
when visual clues are minimised. It could be wood, rock or water, or a creature’s eye, a
chimera, staring out from under a heavy lid. Again this triggers a search for association
or empathy, in order to create some form of order and connection. The ambiguity as to
the original form is demonstrated by comparison with the creek bedrock seen in the
photograph (Illustration 3.13B).

Ramachandran (2003c) observes that the mind is constantly looking for

solutions to visual problems and explains that the act of searching is a pleasurable one.
Intarsia (Illustration 3.12) responds to this concept and also to Stafford’s (2007, p.45)
comment that the mind looks for a sense of overall order as well as looking at
individual units. Intarsia aims to challenge the viewer’s perception and to stimulate the
search for order. Compositionally, it is laid out in a grid-like structure similar to a game
of noughts-and-crosses, which progresses from wood to water as the puzzle is “solved”.
For the “water” images used in this series, randomly selected sections of Turbulence
were used. For the “wood” images, I utilised a small section at the base of a forest tree.

23


Again, this work assisted me in examining the visual possibilities offered by two of the
forest’s basic building blocks, wood and water.

While considering the concept of similarity and differences, I drew inspiration

from the use of “sampling” in music, a technique whereby external sounds are digitally
encoding and reproduced at different pitches. This process of sampling was also
applied to the Bejewelled series and At the Base (Illustration 3.14). Using a digital
camera and a computer, a small section of a tree trunk was magnified and sampled
through multiple re-presentations using Photoshop. This in turn was manipulated both
by reversing the tonal balance and manipulating layers and filters. The essential shape,
forms and textures are still present, but the emphasis changes. There is diversity in
similarity.

3.6 Uncharted Terrains

The process of decoding our environment, of grouping and empathising, as
discussed in chapter 2.2 and again in this section, became a major influence in the
Uncharted Terrains drawings. Works such as Turbulence Illustration 3.11A and
Water and Rock Illustration 3.11B, heightened my awareness of the inherent marks in
“frozen” images of water and rock. The impulse to find visual solutions, and to
empathise also became an important device in these works.

The Uncharted Terrain series is a sequence of drawings in which concepts,

including perceptual problem solving, empathy, associating and inferring, were
explored. In these drawings, I diverged from the Renaissance mimetic schema of linear
perspective. The concept of mimesis as an active process involving imitation as a
process of interpretation, rather than as mere copying, is fundamental to these works.

Each drawing is approximately 95 x 60cm on Arches 300gsm paper and uses a

mixture of black media including charcoal, charcoal pencil, pitt pastel, black pastel, ink
and graphite. Working in monochrome, as with the Ripple series, permitted me to
concentrate on the lines and structures of the forms as well as the inherent dynamics of
the drawn marks.

The art critic Andre Bazin is cited by D.E. Hulick (1990, p.423), as stating that
photography is the “only art form that gains its strength through the absence of human

24


touch”. My sculptural background has instilled in me a delight in being in contact with

surface. In the process of drawing, surface, medium and artist become an integrated
process. Moving from digital product to drawing allowed me to work with the surface
so that photographs, digital work, the action of drawing and the actual surface and
process become intertwined.

As well as selectively framing the world (Hulick 1990, p. 419), the camera can
also records detail beyond the ability of the eye (Hulick 1990, p.419) and photographs
can trigger memory (Moxey 2009). I chose to use photography for its ability to trigger
my memory of the initial experience of the forest. I selected photographs that provided
additional information to the memory. The photograph Illustration 3.15A was the
mimetic starting point for Swirling Waters (Illustration 3.16). I chose this image not
because it was expertly captured, but because it triggered my memory of the sound and
movement of the creek. On the occasion when I attempted to work from a photograph
that had some interesting patterns, but lacked structural information and detail, the
work failed.

Photographs were carefully selected on the computer. In some cases, the

photograph would be cropped and compositionally manipulated on the computer. With
others, such as Swirl [Illustration 3.23] and Illustration 3.24, many preliminary
studies into the movement and structure of the forms were undertaken.

Digital graphics techniques of layers and of manipulating the transparencies

influenced my approach to layering the drawing. Printmaking techniques of multiple
layers of printing and reworking a plate also inspired my working process.
Illustrations 3.15C-F demonstrate the building up of layers and washing back of
images involved in creating Swirling Waters. Wanting to avoid the obvious figurative
image that evolved in Living Water, I washed back the image and scrubbed into the
surface with microfibre cloths so the shadow was left. The drawing was then rotated
and the shadows became memories, along with the original photograph and
photographs of the stages of the drawing. At times, the shadow images themselves
dictated the direction of the drawing. As I worked the second drawing, faces began to
emerge in the patterns. I tried not to draw into the emerging faces by rotating the
drawing board. Wanting to allow the paper to “breathe”, I washed back the drawing
again, this time scrubbing it with microfibre cleaning cloths. Throughout each washing,

25


shadowy layers of the original images were left. As I worked into these drawings I
kept in mind Stafford’s (2007) claim that only essential detail was needed to trigger
associations and empathy and I found this freed me from superficial copying and
allowed the process of to include interpretation. Working from both the original
photograph and photographs of sections of the second drawing, I resolved the work
(refer to Illustration 3.16).

I am aware that I am drawing nature and not creating nature. At times in this
process, the memory of marks left on the surface dictate the next marks to be made, as
if aiding in the decoding process. This is reminiscent of Hagberg’s reference (1984,
p.368) of the mime artist’s capturing the way a person walks without having to create a
complete copy of the person.

This layering of images, inspired by the mimetic triggering of memory, is much

like the actual layering of the forest’s elements. It also echoes Cézanne’s “lived
perspective” discussed in section 1.2, except that Cézanne did not, of course, have
the use of mimetic digital images.

This process of layering is also utilised in the works of Julie Mehretu,

Illustrations 3.3A and B, who constructs imaginary geographies in her
ethnographical search for a connection with her identity (Lewis 2010, p.219). Lewis
(2010) describes her approach looking for rhythm and order in chaos. In my
drawings, I am layering mimesis in my search for connection with the forest and
searching for perceptual order in an ever changing world. The affinity I felt with
Julie Mehretu’s work arose from both her sense of layering and her mark making
approach to the drawings.

Susan Pickering’s work is also relevant to my process. As a printmaker, she

burnishes and etches her plates. In approaching my drawings, I began applying
printmaking techniques of burnishing, or rubbing back and engraving. For the
engraving, I used an electric dremel on areas of the drawing where I wanted to bring
out a white line after layering areas (refer to Illustration 3.25B). I occasionally did
this so as to mimic the actual layered construction of the forest.

Not all of my drawings were washed down or rubbed back. Some, such as
Illustration 3.24, were selectively wiped back, erased back and lightly sanded. I

26


found that this process of layering allowed for more flexibly in my response to the
mimetic image.

I applied masking fluid with toothpicks, paintbrushes, cardboard, balsa wood

and mostly with fingers. I also used ink washes in some works were I wanted the
transparency of the ink to suggested thin sheet like layers of water, as in Illustration
3.20 and charcoal washes where I sought the flexibility to extend or “move” the
marks around, as in Illustration 3.23.

Another observation on this process was that the actual surface had to be
allowed to play a part in the image. Like the marks left in the forest by weathering
and time, the washed back shadows themselves became mimetic images of a stage in
the work. A constant juxtaposition between working from the source photograph,
referring to the images of the second stage drawing, and just working one on one
with the surface the marks and the medium meant that the process became a flow of
mimetic data which became imitated and interpreted over time. The paper’s surface,
like the forest needs to be able to breathe. The surface and materiality becomes an
integral part of the process.

The washing of the image with the water imitates the washing of the rocks by
the creek and allows for a sense of time and layering in the drawing as seen in
Illustration 3.22. This work was washed back numerous times, hosed down and
drawn into with the dremel.

Metaphoric landscapes began to emerge. In this series of drawings I extended

the concept of hidden landscape explored in Chapter 3.3. For example, close-up
views of the moss on the waterfall ledge—as in Where the Rocks Still Weep
(Illustration 3.18B), could be uncharted forests, but are instead weeping, mossy
rocks.

Taking care not to interpret the inherent marks into body parts, as I did in Living
Water, I was pleased to hear viewers delight in identifying faces and forms within
these metaphoric landscapes. My delight stemmed from the viewer’s actively
perceptually problem solving, applying grouping (Ramachandran 2003c) and
empathising with the inherent patterns.

27


In Illustration 3.17 I again embraced the concept of the water washing the
image. This scene is a close-up of the waterfall ledge. As the water in the waterfalls
falls vertically I used a hose and water to work into the charcoal and ink. Sandpaper
was also use to buff back the image in places to achieve the sense of layering.

In Illustration 3.25A, charcoal washes, rather than ink washes, were applied.
This allowed for more flexibility in the layering techniques. An electric dremel was
used to engrave lines into the drawing. Only selected areas were washed down.
Erasing and sanding were also used to create layering effects. Having had some
etching experience, I found I was using many of the etching techniques of
burnishing, and engraving on the paper.

When I drew the water, my hand moved in a motion mimetic of the actual
movement of the water. I became aware that when I look at a photograph I
consciously tap into my memory of the experience and my drawing action reflects
the memory of the motion. I recalled Ramachandran’s (2009) observations that both
touch and action mirror neurons are fired in the mimetic process. No doubt these
would have been fired when I visited the site and again as I studied the image for the
movements and shapes within the image frame. By mimicking the action of the
water through the movement of my hand, and the washing-down process, action
becomes involved in the creation process of the static image.

These drawings bring together the use of the photograph as a source of mimetic
data, the use of the photograph to trigger memory of experience and information, the
use of digital technology as an extension of the mind, and the mimetic action of the
artist’s creation of the work through physical movement and the direction of water.
These works also explore the neurological insights as outlined in Chapter 2,
regarding the role of perception in the mimetic impulse and they apply the
understanding of mimesis being an interpretative process.

28


Chapter 4 Conclusion
Having concluded that mimesis and perception are intertwined and that both are
complex neurological processes allowed me to avoid the traditional concepts of
mimesis, established in the Renaissance.
The connection between the artist (myself) and the act of creating (i.e., the
process) becomes an essential part of the mimetic process. The contemporary artist can
employ digital media as an extension of their mind (Hulick 1984) and the photograph
can trigger memory and provide detailed information.
Triggering my memory in this way recaptured the initial “experience” and the
aura (Benjamin 1936) of the forest. The importance of touch and action with surface
became important in the drawing process but was absent in the digital graphics. The
process of drawing can include movement and this movement can be mimetic of
movement of the water and the direction of the grain of wood and rock. As a result, a
meshing of “experience”, detail, surface, action and materials can occur. This can have
the effect of seemingly transcending time and physical boundaries confirming
Ramachandran’s (2009) conclusion that barriers between self and others, and in fact the
outer world, are only skin deep.
My aim was to produce artwork that will engage the viewer while avoiding the
stereotypical eco-tourist images so readily available in mass-produced images.
Consequently, connection or engagement between the work and the viewer is of
ultimate importance. Being hardwired for mimesis, the viewer will have an innate
impulse to perceptually solve problems, to empathise, to associate, to infer and create
sympathies. All of these activities will assist in engaging the viewer in the work.
In my Uncharted Terrain drawings I re-presented my photographic, mimetic
records, often more than once on the same surface, exploring the code-like character of
the drawing marks to encourage viewer participation in the ongoing mimetic activity of
engaging or connecting with nature. In so doing, mimesis becomes part of an active
process, one that embraces representation as re-presentation and invites the viewer to
embrace a perceptual dialogue with the image.

29


Illustrations List

Illustrations for Chapter 1

p.33 Illustration 1.1 Ecotourism advertisement

(http://www.visitlismore.com.au/cmst/vl001/view_doc.asp?id=970&cat=74
p.33 Illustration 1.2 Andrea Mantegna. The Dead Christ 1470-80.
68 x 84 cm, ca. 1470-80.
(http://www.abcgallery.com/M/mantegna/mantegna16.html
p.33 Illustration 1.3 Hans Holbein. The Ambassadors . 1933
(http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk)
p.33 Illustration 1.4 Jim Lambie. Screamadelica 2005
Photographed in Moma, New York, by Jennifer Andrews, July 2009
p.33 Illustration 1:5 Diego Velazquez La Meninas 1656
(http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2543097500101756339xubYpY)

Illustrations for Chapter 2

p.34 Illustration 2:1A Richard Gregory Dalmatian

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture3.shtml

p.34 Illustration 2:1B Image of a Neuron network

(http://arturogoicoecheablog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/neuron-network.jpg)

p.35 Illustration 2:2A Claire Watkins, Flock of Needles 2009, Kinetic

Sculpture
(http://vimeo.com/16718163)

p.35 Illustration 2:2B Claire Watkins, Lungs , 2010. Stainless steel, wires
and motors. Dimensions variable.
(http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426105868/lungs.html)
p.35 Illustration 2:2C Claire Watkins, Thinking Three Thoughts at Once, 2009
Magnets, motors, metal, LED’stool clip

30


(http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426105869/thinking-three-thoughts-at-
once.html
p.36 Illustration 2.3 Thomas Demand, Window, 1998, digital
chromogenic print mounted to Diasec ,183.5 x 286.5cm.
(http://www.christies.com/lotfinder)

Illustrations for Chapter 3: Selected Artists

p.37 Illustration 3.1A Giuseppe Penone Skin of Thorns
Photographed in Moma, New York, by Jennifer Andrews, July 2009
p.37 Illustration 3.1B Giuseppe Penone, Pelle Di Mamo Su Spine D’Acacla,
2001, Carrare marble, Acacia thorns, silk399.4 x 358.7 cm
(http://www.terminartors.com/artworkprofile/Penone_GiuseppePelle_di_Mamo
_su_Spine_dAcacla)
p.37 Illustration 3.1C Giuseppe Penone, I Feel the Respiration of the Forest
(Study for “Maritime Alps–It Will Continue to Grow Except at That
Point”).1968, black and blue ink on paper, 19 11/16 x 13¾.
(http://www.artistdaily.com/blogs/qs/archive/2007/11/15/exhibition-drawing-
connections-baselitz-kelly-penone-rockburne-and-the-old-masters.aspx)
p.37 Illustration 3.2 Susan Pickering, Disappearing voices - Elegy, 2008
49cm x 118.5cm Etching-burnished aquatint
(http://www.portjacksonpress.com.au/artists.php?ar=ae8016pjpa13039370539)
p.37 Illustration 3.3A Julie Mehretu, Seven Acts of Mercy 2004,
ink and acrylic on canvas, 284.5 x 640.1cm
(http://www.projectfreerange.com/2010/06/18/julie-mehretu-and-exploring-the-
syncretic/)
p.37 Illustration 3.3B Julie Mehretu, Berliner Plaetze, 2008/09
ink and acrylic on canvas, 304,8 x 426,7 cm
(http://www.e-flux.com/shows/view/7374)

Illustrations Chapter 3.1

p.38 Illustration 3.4 Pleine air site visit sketch 2009
Charcoal on Canvas on ply board 41x60cm

31


p.38 Illustration 3.5 Pleine air site visit sketch 2009

Charcoal canvas, 40x71cm
p.38 Illustrations 3.6A & 3.6B
Bejewelled Series, selected examples 2010
Epson print on pearl rag. Each 30x40cm
p.39 Illustrations 3.7 A Matter of Choice, 2009
Acrylic on Canvas, 102x152cm
p.39 Illustrations 3.8A Living Water, 2009
Charcoal on Heinmuller paper, 33x48cm
p.39 Illustrations 3.8B Photographic reference for Living Water
p.40 Illustrations 3.9A and 3.9B
Searching and Resting, The Embrace Series, 2010
Epson Print on Rag Pear, 40x30cm
p.41 Illustration 3.10A Photograph used in Ripple series , 2009
p.41 Illustration 3.10B The Forest Ripple, 2009.
Epson Print on Pearl Rag, Each panel 25x65cm
p.41 Illustration 3.10C Rainforest Ripple 2009.
Epson Print on Pearl Rag, 90x60cm
p.42 Illustration 3.11 A Turbulence, 2010.
Epson print on Pearl Rag, 40x60cm
p.42 Illustration 3.11B Water and Rock , 2010
Epson Print on Pearl Rag 30x40cm

p.43 Illustration 3.12 Intarsia, 2009 – 2010 Epson Print on Pearl Rag
p.43 Illustration 3.13A Ripple, 2009, Epson Print 48x32.5
p.43 Illustration 3.13B Photograph of a rock demonstrating ambiguity
p.43 Illustration 3.14 At The Base

Illustrations for Chapter 3.6 Uncharted Terrains

p.44 Illustration 3.15A This was one of the mimetic stating points for “Swirling
Waters” Illustration 3.16. I chose this image not because it was expertly
captured, but because it triggered my memory of the sound and
movement of the creek

32


p.44 Illustration 3.15B Process drawing based on photograph 3.15A for

Swirling Water 2009 charcoal on canvas152x102cm
p.45 Illustration 3.15C Initial drawing
p.45 Illustration 3.15D Second drawing after initial washing back.
p.45 Illustration 3.15E Washing back 3.15B
p.45 Illustration 3.15F Second washing back.
p.46 Illustration 3.16 Uncharted Terrains Swirling Waters, 2010. 57 x 91cm
p.47 Illustration 3.17 Uncharted Terrains 2010, 98 x63cm
p.48 Illustration 3.18A Uncharted Terrains Where the Rocks Still Weep,
2010/2011. 60 x 98cm
p.48 Illustration 3.18B Close up of Where the Rocks Still Weep
p.49 Illustration 3.19 Uncharted Terrains 2011, 98 x 63cm
p.50 Illustration 3.20 Uncharted Terrains Where The Water Falls 2011,
98 x 63cm
p.51 Illustration 3.21 Uncharted Terrains 2010 . 97 x 63cm
p.52 Illustration 3.22 Uncharted Terrains 2010/2011. 89 x 56cm
p.53 Illustration 3.23 Uncharted Terrains Swirl, 2011 96 x 60cm
p.54 Illustration 3.24 Uncharted Terrains 2011. 63 x 89cm
p.55 Illustration 3.25A Uncharted Terrains 2011 60 x 96cm
p.55 Illustration 3.25B Uncharted Terrains 2011 Close up of 3.25A showing
engraved dremel lines

33


Illustrations
Illustrations for Chapter 1
Illustration 1:1 Eco-tourism
advertisement

Illustration1.2
Andrea Mantegna.
The Dead Christ
1470-80.

Illustration1.3
Hans Holbein.
The Ambassadors 1533

Illustration 1:5
Diego Velazquez La Meninas 1656

Illustration1.4
Jim Lambie, Screamadelica 2005

34


Illustrations for Chapter 2

Illustration 2.1A
Richard Gregory
Dalmatian

Illustration 2.1B
Image of a Neuron network

35


Illustration 2.2A
Claire Watkins
Flock of Needle 2009

Illustration 2.2B
Claire Watkins
Lungs 2010
Stainless steel, wires and
motors. Dimensions

Illustration 2.2C
Claire Watkins
Thinking Three Thoughts at Once 2009
Magnets, motors, metal, LED’stool clip

36


Illustration 2.3
Thomas Demand
“Window” 1998
digital chromogenic print mounted to Diasec (183.5 x 286.5cm.)
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder

37

Illustrations for Chapter 3.3 Selected Artists
Illustration 3.1A
Giuseppe Penone
Skin of Thorns 2009
“A Skin of Thorns”
Illustration 3.3A
Julie Mehretu
Seven Acts of Mercy 2004,
ink and acrylic
Illustration 3.1B Illustration 3.1C
Giuseppe Penone Giuseppe Penone
Pelle Di Mamo Su Spine D’Acacla I Feel the Respiration of the
2001 Forest” 1968
http://www.mariangoodman.com/exhibition
Illustration 3.2
Susan Pickering
“Disappearing voices -
Elegy”, 2008
49cm x 118.5cm Etching-
burnished aquatint
Illustration 3.3B
Julie Mehretu Berliner Plaetze
2008/09 Ink and Acrylic on Canvas,
304,8 x 426,7 cm
38


Illustrations for Chapter 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 Studio Work

Illustration 3.4
Plein air site visit
sketch 2009
Charcoal on Canvas on
ply board 41x60cm

Illustration 3.5
Plein air site visit sketch 2009
Charcoal canvas, 40x71cm

Illustrations 3.6A (top) and

3.6B (left)
Bejewelled Series examples
2010/ 2011, Epson print on pearl rag.
Each 20x30cm

39


Illustrations 3.7
A Matter of Choice, 2009
Acrylic on canvas
102x152cm

Illustration 3.8A Illustration 3.8B

Living Water , 2009 Photographic reference for Living Water
Charcoal on Heinmuller paper,, 33 x 48cm

40


Illustration 3.9A Searching

Illustration 3.9B Resting

The Embrace Series, 2010
Epson Print on Rag Pear, 40x30cm

41


Illustration 3.10A
Photograph used in Ripple
series , 2009

Illustration 3.10B The Forest Ripple 2009 Epson Print on Pearl Rag,
Each panel 25x65cm

Illustration 3.10C
Rainforest Ripple, 2009
Epson Print on Pearl Rag,
90x60cm (outside
measurement)

42


Illustration 3.11 A (above) Illustration 3.11B (below)

Turbulence, 2010 Water and Rock, 2010
Epson print on Pearl Rag 40x60cm Epson print on Pearl Rag 30x40cm

43


44


Illustration 3.12 Intarsia 2009 - 2010

Illustration 3.13A Illustration 3.13B

Ripple, 2009, Epson Print Photograph of a rock demonstrating
48x32.5 ambiguity

Illustration 3.14
At The Base

45


Illustrations for Chapter 3.6 Uncharted Terrains

Illustration 3.15A
This was one of the mimetic stating points for Swirling Waters” Illustration 3.16. I
chose this image not because it was expertly captured, but because it triggered my
memory of the sound and movement of the creek.

Illustration 3.15B
Process drawing based on photograph 3.15A for Swirling Water , Illustration 3.16,
charcoal on canvas, 2009
152x102cm

46


Illustration 3.15C
Initial drawing

Illustration 3.15D Second

drawing after initial washing
back.

Illustration 3.15E
Washing back

Illustration 3.15F
Second washing back.

47


Illustration 3.16 Uncharted Terrains

“Swirling Waters”
2010 57 x 91cm

The Final work developed through the process shown in Illustrations 3.15 A-F above.

48


Weeping Ledges
2010, 98 x63cm

49


Illustration 3.18A Uncharted Terrains

Where the Rocks Still Weep 2010/2011 60 x 98cm

50


Illustration 3.18A
Close up of
Where the Rocks Still Weep

51


3.19
Waterfall’s Ledge
2011 98 x 63cm

52


Illustration 3.20 Uncharted Terrains

Where The Water Falls
2011, 98 x 63cm

53


Tumble
2010 97 x 63cm

54


Illustration 3.22 Uncharted Terrains

2010/2011 89 x 56cm

55


Illustration 3.23 Uncharted Terrains

“Swirl “ 2011

56


Illustration 3.24 Uncharted Terrains

2011 63 x 89cm

57


Illustration 3.25A Uncharted Terrains

2011. 63 x 89cm

Illustration 3.25B Close up of Illustration 3.25A

58


Bibliography

.

Barolsky, P. (Feb.-Mar.,1995) A Very Brief History of Art from Narcissus to Picasso.
The Classical Journal, 90(3), 255-259 Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/3297528
Benjamin, W. & Tarnowski, K (Spring,1979). Doctrine of the Similar (1933) New
German Critique, 17, Special Walter Benjamin Issue, 65-69. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/488010
Benjamin, W. (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Blandy, D. & Hoffman, E. (Autumn, 1993). “Toward an Art Education of Place”
Studies in Art Education, 35(no.1), 22-33.Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320835
Blinder, D. (1986). In Defense of Pictorial Mimesis. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 45(1), 19-27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/430462
Butler,S. (2009). Macquarie Dictionary. 5th ed. ISBN: 1876429666. Retrieved from
http://app.griffith.edu.au/reference_tool/index-core.php
Coppel, G. (1982). Old Perspective and New Vision. Leonardo 15(4), 269-276.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/1574734
Chesters, G. & Welsh, I. (2005). Complexity and Social Movement(s) : Process and
Emergence in Planetary Action Systems. Theory Culture Society, 22, 187-211.
DOI: 10.1177/0263276405057047 Retrieved from
http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/22/5/187
Dorsey,E.R. & Steeves, H.L. & Porras, L.E. (2004). Advertising ecotourism on the
internet: commodifying environment and culture (Publication no.
10.1177/146144804044328). Retrieved 8 April 2011:
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/6/6/753
Foucault, M. (1982). "The Order of Things". London.

Golden, L. (1975). Plato's Concept of "Mimesis". British Journal of Aesthetics, 15(2),

Retrieved from http:// bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org
Gooding, M. (2002). Artists, land, nature (1 ed.). New York: Harry N. Abrams.

59


Gombrich, E. H. (1987). Art And Illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial

representation (5th Impression ed.). Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited.
Hagberg, G. (1984). Aristotle's "Mimesis" and Abstract Art. Philosophy, 59(229).
DOI:10.1017/S0031819100069953
Hatfield, M. (Writer). (2008). The Future Makers [Film]. In L. Duff (Producer):
Discovery Channel.
Hulick, D. E. (1990). The Transcendental Machine? A Comparison of Digital
Photography and Nineteenth-Century Modes of Photographic Representation.
Retrieved April 21,2011, from The MIT Press:
http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/1575345
Lewis, S.E. (2010). Unhomed Georgraphies: The Paintings of Julie Mehretu. Callaloo,
33(1) DOI: 10.1353/cal.0.0591. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/
Marian Goodman Gallery (2003) Giuseppe Penone. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from
http://www.mariangoodman.com/exhibitions/2003-03-18_giuseppe-penone/
Massey, I. (2009). The Neural Imagination - Aesthetic and Neuroscinetific Approaches
to the Arts (1st ed.). Texas USA University of Texas Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Cezanne’s Doubt. In T. Baldwin (Ed.)(2004),
Maurice Merleau-Ponty: basic writings.(pp.272-289). New York, Routledge
Miles, M. (2005). Eco–art Practices. In M. Miles (Ed.), New practices, new pedagogies
: a reader (1st ed., pp. 248 p.). London ; New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (Spring,1984). What Is an Image? New Literary History,.15(3)
pp. 503-537. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/468718
Moxey, K. (2009). Mimesis and Iconoclasm. Retrieved March 30, 2009:
http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/stable/468718
Onians, J. (2007). Neuroarthistory : from Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki.
London: Yale University Press.
Poiana, P. (2007). The Order of Mimesis in Saint-John Perse's Vents. Neophilologus,
91(1), pp 33-49. DOI: 10.1007/s11061-006-9003-2
Port Jackson Press Australia, n.d. Retrieved from
http://www.portjacksonpress.com.au/artists.php?ar=ae8016pjpa13039370539
Potolsky, M. (2006). Mimesis: The new critical Idiom. New York: Routledge.

60


Ramachandran, V. S. (2003a). The Emerging Mind: Lecture 1 Phantoms of the Brain.

Paper presented at the Reith Lectures 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/
Ramachandran, V. S. (2003b). The Emerging Mind: Lecture 2 Synapses and the Self.
Paper presented at the Reith Lectures 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/
Ramachandran, V. S. (2003c). The Emerging Mind: Lecture 3 The Artful Brain. Paper
presented at the Reith Lectures 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/
Ramachandran, V. S. (2007). The Neurology of Self-Awareness. Retrieved May 13
2011 from
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html
Ramachandran, V. S. (2009). The neurons that shaped civilization. Retrieved April 24
2011 from
http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilizati
on.html
Rose, G. (2007). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual
Materials (2 ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and memory (1st ed.). New York: A.A. Knopf :
Distributed by Random House.
Schön, D. A. (1995). Reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (New
ed.). England :Aldershot,
Stafford, B. M. (1996). Introduction:Visual Pragmatism for a Virtual World Good
Looking: Essays on the Virtue of Images (pp.17). London: The MIT Press.
Stafford, B. M. (2007). Echo objects : the cognitive work of images. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Taussig, M. (1993). Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New
York: Routledge.
Turvey, D. N. (2006). Terainia Creek: Rainforest Wars. Australia: Glass House Books
W.Tatarkiewicz. (1968). Mimesis. In P. P. Weiner (Ed.), Dictionary of The History of
Ideas (Vol. 3, pp. 226-230). New York: Philip P. Weiner. Retreived June 6 2011
from

61


http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist3.xml;bra
nd=default;;query=mimesis
Watkins, C. (2010). Retrieved April 10, 2010 from http://www.claire-
watkins.com/statement.html.
van Eck,C. & Winters,E. (2005). Introduction. van Eck,C. & Winters,E. (Ed.), Dealing
with the Visual Art History, Aesthetics and Visual Culture (pp. 13). Hants,
England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

62