Aristotle's Poetics hinges on a foundational assumption: mimesis as a representational act. This isn't merely about imitation but presumes an ontic reality, a stable external world that the artist faithfully 'copies' or, in a more refined sense, 'perfects.' This framework establishes a clear model-copy paradigm. The success of a work is measured by its correspondence to this external truth, creating what can be termed an ontic-mimetic bridge. However, this entire structure rests on the premise that such a direct, objective bridge exists and that art's primary function is to traverse it.

The constructivist turn, particularly through the lens of Ernst von Glasersfeld's radical constructivism, dismantles this bridge. From this perspective, cognition does not provide a 'true' representation of an external world. Instead, it builds a viable path through our experiences. An aesthetic construction—a play, a poem, a painting—isn't judged against an objective reality, but on its viability. Does it function coherently within the experiential world of the observer? Does it offer a functional, navigable model of emotion, conflict, or beauty? Truth gives way to fit.

The Aristotelian model implies a unidirectional flow of information from a pre-existing world to a passive artistic representation. The constructivist critique reframes this entirely. The observer is not a recipient of reflected truth but an active constructor of meaning. The aesthetic object becomes a set of constraints and possibilities that the observer uses to build an experiential reality.

This leads to the ultimate failure of the mirror metaphor in art. A mirror implies passive, objective reflection. But cognition is not passive. An artwork does not hold up a mirror to nature; it provides a framework for constructing a version of nature. Its power lies not in its fidelity to an external object but in its capacity to organize and give form to the subjective, experiential world of the audience. The concept of viability replaces the correspondence theory of truth, asking not "Is it true?" but "Does it work?" for the observer.

Consequently, non-objective aesthetic realities—abstract art, surrealist literature, atonal music—pose an insurmountable problem for a strictly mimetic framework. These forms are not 'copies' of anything in the ontic world. Their value is derived from their internal coherence and their ability to structure novel experiences and emotions. They are viable constructions, not failed representations. The model-copy paradigm, rooted in Aristotle, simply lacks the vocabulary to account for their aesthetic power.