First Aesthetics Class, First Blog

So I was sitting in aesthetics class today when my professor highly recommended everyone present should have a blog to mark their thoughts on the subject matter of the class. This post is the direct result of that event. It's a philosophy class, by the way.
 I was under the false conviction the class would have to deal with whether beauty is subjective or objective. That's the only philosophical problem I had ever heard about in aesthetics and I was somewhat surprised to learn there was another. In Philosophy 161 we're currently worrying about mimesis which seems like a fancy word for copying or imitation. Today we were asked to come up with forms of art that were mimetic in nature and ones that weren't. It was generally established that most every form of art will have mimetic versions but if specified enough will not. For example "painting" is too general to be categorized as non-mimetic or mimetic. Some paintings are the result of an artist rocketing paint at a canvas while others are meant to look like something.
There is a problem that needs to be overcome before proceeding further in the whole "whether a work is mimetic" question . There seems to be three players in the enterprise that could easily be forgotten. The artist, for one, can have his own intention with a painting. The second option is that the painting itself has its own objective level of copying reality regardless of other people's beliefs. The third option is that the viewer of the painting chooses to see the painting as an imitation or not. Depending on what a person supposes "mimetic" to depend on, one could generate a whole different answer to the question. So it's important to clarify which one of these three options is being taken.
Putting that difficulty aside for a moment I'm of the opinion that every form of art can be mimetic. Thus, what's interesting to discover is those forms of art that seek to create their own reality, or none at all. The non mimetic works of art to me can include instrumental music, architecture, dancing, sculpture, painting and then an array of odd examples that would depend on what is meant by "art". Garry Kasparov once insisted chess could be an art, and if that was so, I would argue it doesn't seek to imitate reality even though some of its subjects are queens and kings.
But I've run out of steam for today, those are all my thoughts on today's lecture and mimesis. I'll be sure to update this when I have another revelation on the topic of mimesis.Or I might delete this post if I think it's too random and poorly justified in existing.
Time to run 3 miles! Woohoo!