Ahmad Abd El-Hadi Shalabi

Oscar Wilde’s Anti-Mimesis

Abstract

Oscar Wilde’s Aestheticism defends the notion that art should be produced only for art’s sake

and as he states, in his essay “The Decay of Lying”, life imitates art, not the other way around.

For him, art should be completely independent and its meaning and beauty lie within itself. It is

self-sufficient as it produces its own meaning without the need to refer to any external resources

to understand what it means. Life, nature (by nature I mean the material world around us),

society and any other external elements contribute nothing to a work of art. On the contrary,

those external elements may resort to art to shape their existence. Moreover, Wilde may have

gone beyond this notion to the extent that an art that imitates nature should be labeled as a lower

grade of Art. Not only does Wilde contradict his contemporary Victorian writers, who believed

that art could be a social reformer and an educational tool, but also found an anti-theory for that

of Platonic and Aristotelian mimesis. Aristotle defines tragedy in his Poetics as “An imitation of

an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude. . .” (Aristotle). Plato believes that

art is a copy of a copy; that is, the work of art is only an imitation of a copied vision of an

abstract original copy. Therefore, it is imitation that gives art its soul which later on grows to

shape its body as well. This paper examines the validity of Oscar Wilde’s anti-mimesis as it

constructs a clear opposition to the classical definition and practice of art.

Keywords: Aestheticism, Oscar Wilde, Neoclassicism, Anti-Mimesis, Victorian Era.

1
Aestheticism

Oscar Wilde’s innovation of Aestheticism in the Victorian Era is indebted to the English

critic and essayist Walter Pater. Pater states the aesthetic critic’s task is to regard “all the objects

with which he has to do, all works of art, and the fairer forms of nature and human life, as

powers or forces producing pleasurable sensations, each of a more or less peculiar or unique

kind. This influence he feels, and wishes to explain, analysing it, and reducing it to its elements”

(Pater 1901, 9). Also, David Mikics points out that “Pater and his immediate ancestor John

Ruskin share the aim of creating in the observer of art, and of life, an appropriately heightened

and refined consciousness of beauty” (Mikics 2007, 3). Aestheticism, therefore, perceives a work

of art as a self-sufficient entity that contains its beauty within itself where “Pater also argues that

we ought to resist society’s moralizing demands, which get in the way of aesthetic appreciation”

(Ibid, 3). Wilde may refer to this rejection as he claims that “‘all art is perfectly useless’: that the

perfecting of art, and of life-as-art, requires an indifference to the sober ideals of moral

responsibility” (Ibid, 3). Kelly Comfort remarks that the term Aestheticism “is linked to art for

art’s sake and its French equivalent l’art pour l’art; associated with the idea of pure art; related

to the notion of autonomous art.” He adds for further illustration; “Style is what matters; it alone

determines the quality of a work of art. The particular stylistic proclivities” (Comfort 2008, 2), a

statement that defines the core of Aestheticism.

This revolutionary notion of art rejected the practice of the Victorian Neoclassicists who

presented art as a means for social reform and an imitation of life as it should be. Neoclassicism

is the period that “spans the years 1660 to 1800 is most commonly identified with the classical

tradition. The chief literary movement in France at this time is termed ‘‘classicism’’ and its

2
English cousin ‘‘neoclassicism’’ –and with good reason.” (Kaminski 2007, 57). It is the period

which writers” consciously adopted the genres and conventions of ancient literature and applied

ideas and techniques derived from the classics to their own literary practice”( Ibid, 57) .

Neoclassicists extended the theories of Plato and Aristotle as both philosophers introduced the

mimetic theory of art that defines literature as an imitation of life and didacticism is its core

value. While aestheticist artists were demonstrating “against literature’s being used to teach

lessons, against art as political, religious, or social propaganda” (Olson1978, 60). In Book X of

the Republic, Plato emphasizes the imitative nature of art since he defines the tragic poet as “an

imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is thrice removed from the king and from the

truth” (Plato). For Plato, art is a copy of a modified copy of an abstract original copy that only

exists in the human mind; God is the creator of the perfect copy that a craftsman may imitate and

then an artist imitates that copied version. In his Poetics, Aristotle defines tragedy as “an

imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude. . .” (Aristotle). The

concept of imitation fuses life to art and art to life where one cannot exist without the other.

Thomas Kaminski answers the question of how this imitation is accomplished:

The artistic culture of the Romans, on which the French critics based so many of their judgments, was both

conservative and pragmatic. For them the literary tradition had already answered most of the difficult

questions. A wise poet learns from the experience of his predecessors. As a result imitation takes on a new

meaning: the best way to capture nature is to imitate existing works that accomplished this goal. (Kaminski

2007, 59)

3
 However, in his article “Why Neoclassicism? Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century

England”, Joseph M. Levien points to two main factors that contributed to the triumph of

Neoclassicism as he states:

And it appears evident that it was two conditions especially, interacting with each other in various degrees,

that brought about the neoclassical triumph. In the first place, there was the political situation, which

created for the governing classes what seemed to be an increasing practical utility for the classics, and

which installed them in the schools and gave them purpose and patronage - without which it is impossible

to understand their success and their influence. And secondly, there was access to antiquity, which was

developed more or less continuously from generation to generation, steadily increasing the stock of

knowledge and direct acquaintance with the classical past and on the whole encouraging a more accurate

imitation and a more active emulation of the ancient achievement. (75-76)

According to Levien, there was a crucial need for Victorian writers to resort to the “classical

past” to gain more knowledge and produce a well-made piece of art.

Neoclassicism

In his article “The Study of Poetry” Matthew Arnold praises the status of poetry and

argues that we may rely on it to the extent that it may substitute religion or science as he states

that “we have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us. Without poetry

our science will appear incomplete; and most of what now passes without us for religion and

philosophy will be replaced by poetry” (Arnold). Thus, for Victorians, art is in no means

separable from life as it constitutes a mirror of it. Moreover, it was considered as the core of life

and existence for the Victorians. To confirm the connection between the Neoclassicists and the

Classics, Arnold suggests the “touchstone” method of assessing poetry with reference to the

4
touchstones of literature, as Arnold categorizes them. He stresses the need to refer to the classics

to produce highly elevated poetry as he states: “Indeed there can be no more useful help for

discovering what poetry belongs to the class of the truly excellent, and can therefore do us most

good, than to have always in one’s mind lines and expressions of the great masters, and to apply

them as a touchstone to other poetry” (Ibid).

Samuel Johnson’s principle that literature should present life “as it should be” also

reflects and extends the classical doctrines of literature as an imitation of life. Robert Potter

remarks the influence of the classics on Johnson in the conclusion of his essay “The Art of

Criticism as exemplified in Dr. Johnson’s Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets” as it reads:

“ The characteristics of Dr. Johnson were general and extensive classical erudition, strong sense,

and accurate observation; which seasoned with dry humour and sly detraction, rather than

Dryden’s free, and Pope’s pungent wit, have rendered his classical erudition equally

immortal”( Potter 1971, 309 ). Moreover, Howard D. Weinbrot affirms Johnson’s imitation of

the classics for Johnson “wrote a blank-verse tragedy, translations, adaptations of classical

poems, satires, love poems, poems warning of the dangers of love” (Weinbort 1997, 34). There is

no doubt that Neocalssicim was resurrected in the Victorian Era. For example, Charles Dicken

can be considered as an excellent manifestation of the Neoclassical view of literature. In his

novel, Oliver Twist, Dickens imitates the life of the English society as it is and at the end of the

novel suggests how life should be as virtue defeats evilness.

Neoclassicism and Aestheticism

Although Wilde lived in the 19th century, when realism and didacticism were dominant

literary traits, he decided to revolt using his own theory of art. His Aestheticism’s emergence

5
marked a revolutionary break from the principles of the Neoclassical literature. The title of his

article, “The Decay of Lying”, suggests that the Victorian art was decaying since he uses “lying”

as a metaphor for art or as the main purpose of art; “Lying, the telling of beautiful untrue things,

is the proper aim of art “(Wilde 2000, 46). He believes in the importance of art as a self-

contained entity where beauty resides within the text itself. Art for Wilde “finds her own

perfection within, and not outside of, herself. She is not to be judged by any external standard of

resemblance” (Ibid, 49). He rejects the Neoclassical notion that art should imitate life and from

life it shapes its existence. On the contrary, he defends the core of his Aestheticism as that “Art

for Art’s sake” which means that true art should be produced only for its sake. The true art is the

one that is produced away from politics, religion, history or utilitarian function. He clearly states

the principle of his Aesthetics in “The Decay of Lying” as it reads: “Art never expresses

anything but itself. This is the principle of my new aesthetics. . . “(Ibid, 55). With this principle,

Wilde openly breaks the principles not only of the Neoclassicists but the Classics as well.

However, and as I mentioned earlier, this principle was not originally founded by Wilde. In his

book How to Write about Oscar Wilde, Harold Bloom affirms the influence of Walter Pater’s

aesthetic principles on Wilde as he points out that “Certainly Walter Pater was an enormous

influence on Wilde, particularly in terms of the aesthetic philosophies” (Bloom 2010, 49).

Moreover, Bloom remarks that “as the disciple of John Ruskin and Walter Pater, he [Wilde]

popularizes their ideas without strongly modifying them. The dialogical The Decay of Lying is

his salient critical contribution, and I myself owe a debt to his vision of the saving lie” (Ibid, 7).

Therefore, Wilde’s Aestheticism is a slightly modified version of his predecessors.

6
Since Neoclassicism is an extended version of the Classics, its core principle revolves around the

memetic nature of literature, a notion that Wilde totally rejected. Nevertheless, Wilde’s “ The

Decay of Lying” imitates Plato’s The Republic in form and disagrees with it in content.

Literature for the Classics is an imitation of life and for the Neoclassicists it is not only a mere

imitation but also a modified form of reality.

Neoclassicists were completely committed to the classical rules of art, as Kaminski summarizes

them:

The new classical doctrine had five major elements: (1) that imitation was the basis for artistic creation, (2)

that ‘‘rules’’ existed to guide the artist, (3) that genius must submit to the yoke of ‘‘art,’’ (4) that propriety

was required in all aspects of a work, and (5) that art must teach as well as delight. From this simple

enumeration of principles one can already spy out ‘‘reason’’ lurking in the shadows, but the principles were

often developed in subtle ways that encouraged creativity as much as they frowned on excess. ( Kaminski

2007, 58)

Unlike the Neoclassicists, Wilde argues that life imitates art not the other way around as its

reads:

Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life. This results not merely from Life’s imitative instinct, but

from the fact that the self-conscious aim of Life is to find expression, and that Art offers it certain beautiful

forms through which it may realize that energy. It is a theory that has never been put forward before, but it

is extremely fruitful, and throws an entirely new light upon the history of Art. (Wilde, 58)

He provides the example of fog as people might have never paid attention to its existence unless

it is mentioned in poetry or any other literary genre. Literature is not a mirror of life, but life is a

mirror of literature. It is art that “takes life as part of her rough material, recreates it, and

refashions it in fresh forms” (Ibid, 41). Moreover. “Nature is no great mother who has borne us.

She is our creation. It is in our brain that she quickens to life. Things are because we see them

7
and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the Arts that have influenced us” (Ibid, 46).

Nature for him is not a comfortable place where one can relax or be inspired by its beauty. That

is why people should seek beauty in literature, not in nature or life. Wilde believes that the life of

an author is much more important than nature or society:

If Nature had been comfortable, mankind would never have invented architecture, and I prefer houses to

the open air. In a house we all feel of the proper proportions. Everything is subordinated to us, fashioned

for our use and our pleasure. Egotism itself, which is so necessary to a proper sense of human dignity’ is

entirely the result of indoor life. Out of doors one becomes abstract and impersonal. One’s individuality

absolutely leaves one. And then Nature is so indifferent, so unappreciative. Whenever I am walking in the

park here, I always feel that I am no more to her than the cattle that browse on the slope, or the burdock that

blooms in the ditch. Nothing is more evident than that Nature hates Mind. (Ibid, 42)

Nature also can stand for the Victorian society:

Nature in “The Decay of Lying” is also a metaphor for Victorian society and Wilde’s attitude towards

Nature in this context is most clearly revealed in his discussion on realism and naturahsm. For Wilde, the

conventions of realism and naturalism (which he sees as an extension of realism) are manifestations of the

ideology of Nature at its most tyrannical; the writers in these genres eschew the imagination in favor of a

faithful recording of everyday life. (Marcovitch 2002, 90)

Wilde’s view of nature extravagantly contradicts Alexander Pope’s notion of nature. The

latter urges poets and artists to refer to nature to deduce their subjects as nature, for him, is a

fertile source of beauty. Pope’s Essay on Criticism is a great example of the principles of

Neoclassicism. Pope applies the major principles of Neoclassicism: first, his Essay is an

imitation of Horace’s Ars Poetica; “In its form, organization, and style the Essay emulates the

achievement of the Roman Augustan poet Horace as poet and critic in his verse epistles on the

8
subject of art and literature, notably his Ars Poetica” (Sowerby 1988, 10). Second, the poem is

purely didactic as it dictates the rules of well-established criticism and poetry. Third, Pope

emphasizes the imitation of nature in poetry; “Nature and Homer were, he found, the same”

(Pope). Robin Sowerby affirms Pope’s commitment to the principles of Neoclassicism:

In some accounts of Pope, the Essay is used to deduce a rather formidable set of period attitudes labelled

‘neoclassical’ often on the assumption that it only has real value as a period piece. With this assumption

may also be found the feeling that the characteristic attitudes of the period stressing imitation of the

ancients and adherence to the rules were narrow and limiting. Allied to this feeling is the prejudice that no

critic before Coleridge in the nineteenth century can have much of value to say about literature because of

the limiting terms in which the discussion is conducted. (Ibid, 11)

In addition to his advice to the critics to stress the need for imitating and refereeing to nature, as

the Ancients did, Pope states in part 1 of his Essay:

Yet if we look more closely we shall find

Most have the seeds of judgment in their mind;

Nature affords at least a glimm'ring light;

The lines, tho' touch'd but faintly, are drawn right.

But as the slightest sketch, if justly trac'd,

Is by ill colouring but the more disgrac'd,

So by false learning is good sense defac'd;

Some are bewilder'd in the maze of schools,

And some made coxcombs Nature meant but fools.

In search of wit these lose their common sense (Pope)

Wilde’s Aestheticism can be seen as a binary opposition to Realism, where novelists and artists

present reality or real life as it is by copying natural, economic and social occurrences as they

9
are. However, for Wilde, “the realistic novel is condemned to be a copy of the worst, not because

its morals are bad . . ., but simply because it aims to tell the 'truth' instead of making it new”

(Danson 1997, 87). Wilde believes that the problem of the realistic novel lies in its lack of

creativity and its purely imitative nature. Therefore, “to Wilde, realism is on the wrong side of a

divide which separates imitation from creation, nature from form, life from art, realism from

romance. . .” (Ibid, 87). In many ways, Wilde’s claim that “Art never expresses anything but

itself” clearly contradicts the realists claim that they refer to the out world.

Art’s didactic nature and realistic imitation were the spirits of Neoclassicism, where

Victorian writers tended to abide by its principles. Although Wilde was a Victorian, his Anti-

Mimesis was a rebellion against the commonly adopted ideas where “the tendency toward

artistic autonomy is best characterized by the call for complete artistic freedom—freedom from

morality, from didacticism, from convention, and, as the previous paragraph suggests, from the

responsibility of realistically representing reality” (Comfort 2008, 2). His new aesthetics, for

some scholars, might have inspired many thinkers to question the relation between art and life

“Wilde’s esthetics have been, among younger thinkers, the starting-point of a constant discussion

of art and literature” (Roditi 1947, 225). R. Eric Tippin argues that G.K. Chesterton shared

Wilde’s aesthetic principles since “both cultivated their caricatures diligently: the loquacious,

liquid aesthete defying Victorian conventions to the bitter end” (Tippin 2019, 392 ).

Nevertheless, the question still needs an answer; what came first Art or Nature? and “To what

extent does this become a chicken-and-egg argument? If art came first, then what inspired it, and

how did “external Nature” come to be?” (Bloom 2010, 111). The question Bloom asks make us

10
reconsider Wilde’s principles of Art and to what extent they fit our understanding of the role of

art in our life.

11
 REFERENCES

Aristotle. (305 BCE). Poetics. Translated by S. H. Butcher.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html. Accessed December 5,2019.
Arnold, Matthew. The Study of Poetry.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69374/the-study-of-poetry . Accessed
December 9, 2109.
Bloom , Harold. (2010). How to Write about Oscar Wilde. Infobase Publishing: New York.
Comfort, Kelly. (2008). Editor. Art and Life in Aestheticism: De-Humanizing and Re-
Humanizing
Art, the Artist, and the Artistic Receptor. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Danson, Lawrence. (1997). “ Wilde as a Critic”. The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde.
Edited by Peter Raby. Cambridge University Press: New York. Pp. 80-95.
Heather Joy Marcovitch. (2002).The Art of the Pose: Oscar Wilde’s Theory of Persona.
University
of Florida. PhD dissertation.
Kaminski, Thomas.(2007). “Neoclassicism”. A Companion to the Classical Tradition. Edited by
Craig W. Kallendorf. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 57-71.
Levien, Joseph M. (2002) . “Why Neoclassicism? Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century
England”. British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. (25) 1: 17-101.
Mikics, David. (2007). A New Handbook of Literary Terms. Yale University Press: New Heaven
&London.
Olson, Robert C.(1978). “A Defense of Art for Art’s Sake.” Lamar Journal of the Humanities.
(4).1 :59–64.
Pater, Walter. (1901). The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry. E-Texts for Victorianists. E-
text Editor: Alfred J Drake. Electronic Version 1.0 / Date 7-11-02.
Plato. (360 BCE). The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.11.x.html. Accessed December 5, 2019.
Pope, Alexander. An Essay on Criticism.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69379/an-essay-on-criticism.Accessed
December 9,2019.
Potter, Robert. (1971). “The Art of Criticism as exemplified in Dr. Johnson’s Lives of the Most

12
 Eminent English Poets” 1789. Samuel Johnson the Critical Heritage. Edited by James
T.Boulton. Routledge: London & New York.
Roditi, Edouard. (1947). Oscar Wilde. Norfolk: New Directions Books.
Swoerby, Robin. (1988). Alexander Pope: Selected Poetry and Prose. Routledge: London.
Tippin, R.Eric.( 2019). “The Trick of Modernist Difficulty: Oscar Wilde, G. K. Chesterton and
the
Essay.” English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920. (62).3: 391–413. 
Weinbrot D. Howard. (1997). “Johnson's poetry”. The Cambridge Companion to Samuel
Johnson.
Edited by Greg Clingham. Cambridge University Press: New York. Pp. 34-50.
Wilde, Oscar. (2000). The Decay of Lying. 1891. Oscar Wilde: The Major Works. Oxford:
Oxford
UP. 215–40.

13