rivista	on-line	del	Seminario	Permanente	di	Estetica anno	IX,	numero	2 pag.	3 ©	Aisthesis	–	pratiche,	linguaggi	e	saperi	dell'estetico	•	2/2016	•	www.fupress.com/aisthesis	•	ISSN	2035-8466 Foreword Pietro	Conte,	Filippo	Fimiani,	Michel	Weemans Inherent to the concept of «imitation» is the difference between the object to be represented	and	its	representation. In	art,	but	also	in	public life	(as in	fashion	and	politics for	instance),	to	recognize	the	gap	between	the	real	and	its	image,	between	the	model	and his/her imitators or followers,	means to safeguard the proper perceptive, to defend the cognitive	pleasure	of	form,	and	to	guarantee	the	value	of	symbolization.	The	same	principle that	regulates	the	relation	between	the	model	and its	reproduction,	between	the	original and the fake, also governs the imitation	of something	or someone	prestigious, powerful, glamorous, as well as the «embodied simulation» of moving bodies and expressive gestures,	no	matter	whether	real	or	depicted. However,	mimesis	may also turn into	mimetism,	mimicry, and camouflage. Pushed to the limits of its possibilities and to the zero degree of reference, similarity becomes identity, images lose their typical «as if» dimension, and	we suddenly fail to discern the prototypes from their duplicates. This switching economy pertains to biology, poetics, aesthetics,	and	sociology	as	well:	a	living	being	may	become	image	of	an	inanimate	object by	adopting	different	surivival	strategies	in	the	«struggle	for	life»;	the	artists	may	strive	to achieve	an	extraordinary	degree	of	similarity	in	order	to	create	works	in	front	of	which	we cannot	decide	whether	we	are	dealing	with	artifacts	or	real	things;	the	mimetic	desire	may result in conformation and identification or even conformism and assimilation, thus potentially leading to the destruction of one's own (ontological, social, gender) individuality. In	all	these	cases,	what	we	are	dealing	with	is	an	issue	concerning	identity:	we	believe	it is	just	a	heap	of	leaves,	when	in	fact	it	is	a	snake;	we	are	convinced	it	is	a	real	person,	until we	suddenly	realise	it	is	a	statue;	we	think	we	know	all	of	our	friends,	but	we	find	out	they are always bearing some kind of living	masks, altering their own shape and transfiguring their outward public appearance, their «façade»; we are assessing our uniqueness and Pietro	Conte,	Filippo	Fimiani,	Michel	Weemans,	Foreword pag.	4 ©	Aisthesis	–	pratiche,	linguaggi	e	saperi	dell'estetico	•	2/2016	•	www.fupress.com/aisthesis	•	ISSN	2035-8466 originality, while we are also aware of being continuously influenced by others' words, feelings,	actions,	and	gestures. Mimicry, camouflage, transvestism, chance or cryptic anamorphism, fascination – all ways	of	changing	clothes,	habits	and	habitats	in	nature	as	well	as	in	culture,	in	any	symbolic field created by human beings during their history. Art and artification, aestheticization, stylization	and	beautification	are	all	practices	reflecting	the	need	and	desire for	biological as well as social adaptation, all performances producing functional and fictional frames, boundaries or hierarchies in ordinary life, including the artworld. They can	persuade and convince	by creating consensus	and	belief,	but they can	also lead to	a	different common sense,	a	sensorium	–	a	sensorial	medium	and	an	aesthetic	mediation	open	to	a	new	world and	to	new	experiences. By investigating	mimetism as a fundamental and polymorphic aesthetic performance, this	issue	of	«Aisthesis»	aims	to	rethink	the	concept,	value,	and	function	of	mimesis	and	its media in the context of camouflage, simulation, and dissimulation,	where images do not reveal	themselves	as	such,	but	are	to	be	perceived	unambiguously	as	what	they	are	not	–	as hieroglyphs	or	puzzles. In the	animal	kingdom,	as	well	as in	war	or in	ordinary	public life, camouflage consists in taking on the traits, colours, and shapes of a given form or environment.	This	is	a	twofold	process:	on	the	one	hand,	by	blending	two	or	more	shapes	in one,	the	camoufleur	seeks	to	remain	hidden	and	to	mislead	the	others in	order	to	keep	a vital secret or an ephemeral whim; on the other hand, however, he/she aims to be recognized	by	a specific	milieu	or	group, thus	betraying	a	craving for communication	and familiarity,	as	well	as	a	need	to	convey	an	agreeable	appearance	and	to	share	a	way	of	life. The first three essays of this issue of «Aisthesis» focus on the roles of imitation in animals. Bertrand Prévost highlights the aesthetic positivity of mimicry by regarding the camouflage	strategies	more	as	an	appropriation	of	the	environment	than	a	submission	to	it. In a similar way, Valeria Maggiore's article refers to Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Hannah Arendt,	Roger	Caillois,	and	Adolf	Portmann	(crucial	in	Prévost's	researches,	too)	in	order	to outline	a	semiotics	of the	visible	which	could	show	how	the	sphere	of the	appearance(s), far	from	being	merely	«superficial»,	is	a	privileged	point	of	view	for	reconsidering	the	role and	value	of	self-presentation	to	the	others.	Moreover,	a	key	point	in	Maggiore's	argument is the link	between (philosophy	of)	biology	on the	one	hand,	and	artistic	practices	on the other,	here	illustrated	by	the	application	of	the	laws	of	color	camouflage	in	Abbott	Thayer's painting. The	relationship	among	biology,	aesthetics,	and	art is	also	at	the	core	of	Roy	Behren's, Maite	Méndez	Baiges'	and	Érik	Bullot's	essays.	Roy	Behrens	focuses	on	military	camouflage Pietro	Conte,	Filippo	Fimiani,	Michel	Weemans,	Foreword pag.	5 ©	Aisthesis	–	pratiche,	linguaggi	e	saperi	dell'estetico	•	2/2016	•	www.fupress.com/aisthesis	•	ISSN	2035-8466 during	World	War	I,	stressing	that	the	camoufleurs	specialised	in	fooling	the	enemy	through spatial and chromatic	distortions	had	been	originally trained	as	artists, graphic	designers, architects,	and	theatre	scenographers.	Not	by	chance,	the	mimetic	strategies	they	adopted are also frequently described in artistic terms as theatrical set designs, trompe-l'oeil paintings	and	wildlife	displays.	The	word	camouflage,	which	might	derive from	the Italian «camuffare»	(to	disguise,	to	fool)	or	the	French	«camouflet»	(to	blow	smoke	in	someone's face in order to cause disorientation) has spread in current vocabulary and in various languages	since	World	War	I,	when	mimicry	and	dissimulation	strategies	used	in	the	animal kingdom	inspired	human	strategies	of	concealment:	academic	painters	and	stage	designers created techniques of	simulation	and avant-garde artists (coming from cubism and surrealism in France, futurism in Italy, vorticism in England) invented the camouflage patterns	of	dissimulation. Maite	Méndez	Baiges'	article	can	be	considered	as	the	ideal	complement	of	Behren's,	as it	explains	not	only	how	avant-garde	artists	contributed	to	the	invention	and	refinement	of military	camouflage	techniques	but	also	–	the	other	way	round	–	how	military	camouflage influence contemporary visual culture. If	military camouflage	was in its origins and early history inspired by avant-garde art, now it is paying back its debts by inspiring painters, sculptors, and architects and by providing camouflage with an aesthetic sense in the expanded	field	of	multicultural,	globalised	contemporary	life. By	focusing	on	Paolo	Gioli's	and	Stan	Brackhage's	film	aesthetics	and	poetics,	Érik	Bullot explores	the	use	of	flickering,	variations	in	lighting	and	flashes	of	still	frames	so	as	to	show how flicker films	work	at the	heart	of the filmic itself, since they	expose the intermittent nature	of	the	filmstrip	and	thus	mimick	the	filmic	device. Andrea	Mecacci	proposes	a	critical	survey	of	the	aesthetics	of	fake,	starting	from	Plato's concept of mimesis and investigating its persistent influence on the contemporary philosophical	debate	over the status (and	artistic value)	of copies	and simulacra.	He thus outlines	a	«grammar	of	fake»	through	three	points:	a)	the	issue	of	pseudos	in	Plato	and	its impact on contemporaneity; b) the notion of hyperreality as absolute fake; c) the dimension	of	operative	fake,	grasped	in	its	postmodern	enucleation. Anton	Killin's	and	Brenno	Boccadoro's	essays	introduce	readers	to	the	fascinating	issue of camouflage in singing	and	music.	The first	deals	with the so far	highly	underestimated vocal mimics (i.e. species capable of mimicking sounds heard in their external environment), whereas the latter proposes a detailed analysis of the role played by calembours	and	dissociation	between	shapes	and	sense	in	verbal	and	visual	images	as	well as	in	sounds	and	musical	scores.	Boccadoro	argues	that	musicologists	have	to	delve	deeply Pietro	Conte,	Filippo	Fimiani,	Michel	Weemans,	Foreword pag.	6 ©	Aisthesis	–	pratiche,	linguaggi	e	saperi	dell'estetico	•	2/2016	•	www.fupress.com/aisthesis	•	ISSN	2035-8466 into this harmonic phenomenon, going	back to the ancient	Greek theory	of	metabolai in order	to	understand	the	mimetic	ambiguity	of	Renaissance	music. By	highlighting	the	paradox	of	social imitation in	the	European	culture	during	the	17th and	18th	Centuries,	Giancarlo	Alfano	focuses	on	the	concepts	of	politeness	and	honnêtété in	the	so-called	Ancien	Régime.	If	the	honnête-homme	has	to	conform	to	an	ideal	standard, then	identity	means	to	be	like	all	the	others	–	an	ordinary	man	without	any	special	quality. To	live	in	a	society	means	to	constantly	reshape	the	original	and	unique	self	in	accordance to	a	given	repertory	of	masks:	identity	is	a	mimetic	process	that	must	always	cope	with	the ideal	gaze	–	omnipresent	and	ubiquitous	–	of	society. Another kind of masking of the self and unconscious self-deception has been deconstructed by Freud. The last essay, by Markus Klammer, is on the metaphor of «reading»	and	the	notion	of	«rebus»	in	psychoanalysis.	Freud	regards	the	verbal	accounts of	dream	images	provided	by	the	patient	as	a	specific	kind	of	ekphrasis;	at	the	same	time, however,	the	images	themselves	are	distorted	versions	of	an	underlying	«dream	text».	The psychoanalytic interpretation of dreams amounts to a very special art of misreading between	the	lines	of	a	distorted	form	of	a	different,	deeper,	censored	and	disfigured	text: dreams	are	at	the	same	time	a	rebus	resulting	from	incomplete	mimicry	of	the	correctness of	everyday language,	a rhetorical	camouflage for	a	cryptic	and	unseen	figurability,	a text waiting	to	be	translated	and	re-interpreted	again	and	again.	Klammer	ends	his	article	with	a sidestep to Freud's aesthetics as exemplified by the famous essay on «The Moses of Michelangelo»,	emphasizing	the	striking	similarities	between	the	hermeneutic	«reading»	of dreams and an interpretation of works of art that reduces images to a set of signs and makes	them	perform	a	mimicry	of	textual	systems. Copies	which	are	only	mine:	the	latest	contribution	is	a	poem	by	Luigi	Trucillo	specifically written	for	this issue	of	«Aisthesis».	It is	a	witty	and	cruel	exercise	of	self-reflection	about his	work	as	poet.	But	this	auto-analysis is	not just	about	the	originality	and	the	plagiarism set up by the writer against himself. The poem reveals the relationship of the alleged artist's uniqueness with a camouflaged auto-mimesis or a dissimulated auto-simulation made	up	through	replicas	and	repetitions	of themes, formulas	and	styles. It sounds like	a refrain	of	Rimbaud's	Je	est	un	autre:	«the	other	is	the	self-expropriated	self»,	a	clandestine lookalike. Trucillo affirms that the poet's style is «a raptus of / an empathic snatching». Finally, the human style is not a clean break with the world: rather, it is a sudden and dangerous	theft	of	the	living	matter	of	all	beings	and	things	–	not	only	through	feeling,	but also	through	language.