补救性:辛·莫里西《医生》中的措辞

C. Armstrong
{"title":"补救性:辛·莫里西《医生》中的措辞","authors":"C. Armstrong","doi":"10.1515/9783110693959-009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea of a “paragonal” struggle has been repeatedly referred to by critics as a key characteristic of the genre of ekphrasis. “Words and image,” W. J. T. Mitchell has claimed, “seem inevitably to become implicated in a ‘war of signs’ (what Leonardo called a paragone) in which the stakes are things like nature, truth, reality, and the human spirit” (Mitchell 1986: 47). When literature responds to visual images, it is hard to avoid a struggle for supremacy or the workings of an implicit teleology: where the image was, the word shall be. Nevertheless, ekphrasis is complicated: as some sort of representation of the visual given is typically enacted, this opens for power relations that can rarely be summarized in simple terms. The ekphrastic poem may seldom describe the image in a totally subservient gesture, but it does not usually erase it either. Yet a suspicious, critical reading will tend to identify some sort of appropriative gesture between the lines of even the most innocuous of ekphrastic poems. The contrastive attitudes underlying this situation exemplify more general trends concerning the power relations of literary influence. It is no coincidence that important work on ekphrasis was done in the 1980s and 1990s, when literary criticism became increasingly inclined to identify power relations in intertextuality and other relationships of influence.Where Harold Bloom’s (1997) anxiety of influence presents a narcissistic process of self-empowerment, correctives such as Christopher Ricks’s (2002) view of allusion as being a generous homage to one’s predecessors opened up for more mutual relations. A turn from the former to the latter – from appropriation to mutuality – has an obvious ethical attraction, as it potentially brings with it the promise of a movement, within aesthetic practices, from self-regarding acquisitiveness to a more open-handed altruism. In an article entitled “New Ekphrastic Poetics,” which attempts to use a collection of essays on French examples of ekphrasis to identify a major sea-change within the genre, Susan Harrow approaches the promise of such a turning of a leaf with infectious enthusiasm. She writes of a “desire to develop the ekphrastic beyond traditional assumptions of linear influence, mimetic translation, and textual incorporation,” conceiving of the arts not as rivals but as representative of “reciprocal visual and textual cultures” (Harrow 2010: 257). Whereas she derides traditional conceptions of ekphrasis as being charac-","PeriodicalId":420435,"journal":{"name":"Terrorizing Images","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remedial Intermediality: Ekphrasis in Sinéad Morrissey’s “The Doctors”\",\"authors\":\"C. Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/9783110693959-009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The idea of a “paragonal” struggle has been repeatedly referred to by critics as a key characteristic of the genre of ekphrasis. “Words and image,” W. J. T. Mitchell has claimed, “seem inevitably to become implicated in a ‘war of signs’ (what Leonardo called a paragone) in which the stakes are things like nature, truth, reality, and the human spirit” (Mitchell 1986: 47). When literature responds to visual images, it is hard to avoid a struggle for supremacy or the workings of an implicit teleology: where the image was, the word shall be. Nevertheless, ekphrasis is complicated: as some sort of representation of the visual given is typically enacted, this opens for power relations that can rarely be summarized in simple terms. The ekphrastic poem may seldom describe the image in a totally subservient gesture, but it does not usually erase it either. Yet a suspicious, critical reading will tend to identify some sort of appropriative gesture between the lines of even the most innocuous of ekphrastic poems. The contrastive attitudes underlying this situation exemplify more general trends concerning the power relations of literary influence. It is no coincidence that important work on ekphrasis was done in the 1980s and 1990s, when literary criticism became increasingly inclined to identify power relations in intertextuality and other relationships of influence.Where Harold Bloom’s (1997) anxiety of influence presents a narcissistic process of self-empowerment, correctives such as Christopher Ricks’s (2002) view of allusion as being a generous homage to one’s predecessors opened up for more mutual relations. A turn from the former to the latter – from appropriation to mutuality – has an obvious ethical attraction, as it potentially brings with it the promise of a movement, within aesthetic practices, from self-regarding acquisitiveness to a more open-handed altruism. In an article entitled “New Ekphrastic Poetics,” which attempts to use a collection of essays on French examples of ekphrasis to identify a major sea-change within the genre, Susan Harrow approaches the promise of such a turning of a leaf with infectious enthusiasm. She writes of a “desire to develop the ekphrastic beyond traditional assumptions of linear influence, mimetic translation, and textual incorporation,” conceiving of the arts not as rivals but as representative of “reciprocal visual and textual cultures” (Harrow 2010: 257). Whereas she derides traditional conceptions of ekphrasis as being charac-\",\"PeriodicalId\":420435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Terrorizing Images\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Terrorizing Images\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110693959-009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Terrorizing Images","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110693959-009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“模范”斗争的思想被评论家们反复提到,这是ekphrasis体裁的一个关键特征。“文字和图像,”w·j·t·米切尔声称,“似乎不可避免地卷入了一场‘符号之战’(列奥纳多称之为典范),其中的赌注是自然、真理、现实和人类精神之类的东西”(米切尔1986:47)。当文学回应视觉形象时,很难避免一场至高无上的斗争,或者一种隐含的目的论的运作:形象在哪里,文字就在哪里。然而,术语是复杂的:由于某种形式的视觉呈现通常是制定的,这为权力关系打开了大门,这种关系很少能用简单的术语来概括。俗套的诗可能很少以一种完全顺从的姿态来描述形象,但它通常也不会抹去它。然而,一种怀疑的、批判性的阅读往往会在最无害的散文诗的字里行间发现某种挪用的姿态。这种情况下的对立态度体现了关于文学影响力的权力关系的更普遍的趋势。在20世纪80年代和90年代,文学批评越来越倾向于在互文性和其他影响关系中识别权力关系,这并非巧合。哈罗德•布鲁姆(Harold Bloom)(1997)对影响力的焦虑表现出一种自我赋权的自恋过程,而克里斯托弗•里克斯(Christopher Ricks)(2002)将暗示视为对前辈的慷慨致敬的观点等纠正方法,为更多的相互关系打开了方便之门。从前者到后者的转变——从挪用到互惠——具有明显的伦理吸引力,因为它潜在地带来了一场运动的希望,在美学实践中,从自我考虑的占有欲到更慷慨的利他主义。在一篇名为《新Ekphrastic Poetics》的文章中,苏珊·哈罗试图用一本关于法国Ekphrastic范例的文集来确定这一流派的重大变化,她以富有感染力的热情接近了这种转折的承诺。她写道,“希望发展超越线性影响、模仿翻译和文本合并的传统假设的语言”,她认为艺术不是竞争对手,而是“相互的视觉和文本文化”的代表(Harrow 2010: 257)。然而,她嘲笑传统观念中的短语是个性的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Remedial Intermediality: Ekphrasis in Sinéad Morrissey’s “The Doctors”
The idea of a “paragonal” struggle has been repeatedly referred to by critics as a key characteristic of the genre of ekphrasis. “Words and image,” W. J. T. Mitchell has claimed, “seem inevitably to become implicated in a ‘war of signs’ (what Leonardo called a paragone) in which the stakes are things like nature, truth, reality, and the human spirit” (Mitchell 1986: 47). When literature responds to visual images, it is hard to avoid a struggle for supremacy or the workings of an implicit teleology: where the image was, the word shall be. Nevertheless, ekphrasis is complicated: as some sort of representation of the visual given is typically enacted, this opens for power relations that can rarely be summarized in simple terms. The ekphrastic poem may seldom describe the image in a totally subservient gesture, but it does not usually erase it either. Yet a suspicious, critical reading will tend to identify some sort of appropriative gesture between the lines of even the most innocuous of ekphrastic poems. The contrastive attitudes underlying this situation exemplify more general trends concerning the power relations of literary influence. It is no coincidence that important work on ekphrasis was done in the 1980s and 1990s, when literary criticism became increasingly inclined to identify power relations in intertextuality and other relationships of influence.Where Harold Bloom’s (1997) anxiety of influence presents a narcissistic process of self-empowerment, correctives such as Christopher Ricks’s (2002) view of allusion as being a generous homage to one’s predecessors opened up for more mutual relations. A turn from the former to the latter – from appropriation to mutuality – has an obvious ethical attraction, as it potentially brings with it the promise of a movement, within aesthetic practices, from self-regarding acquisitiveness to a more open-handed altruism. In an article entitled “New Ekphrastic Poetics,” which attempts to use a collection of essays on French examples of ekphrasis to identify a major sea-change within the genre, Susan Harrow approaches the promise of such a turning of a leaf with infectious enthusiasm. She writes of a “desire to develop the ekphrastic beyond traditional assumptions of linear influence, mimetic translation, and textual incorporation,” conceiving of the arts not as rivals but as representative of “reciprocal visual and textual cultures” (Harrow 2010: 257). Whereas she derides traditional conceptions of ekphrasis as being charac-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信