{"title":"突兀的空间:中间事物的拉扯、碰撞和融合","authors":"C. Atherton, P. Hetherington","doi":"10.1080/14790726.2022.2025850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although James A.W. Heffernan influentially defines contemporary ekphrasis as ‘the verbal representation of visual representation’ (1993, 3), we argue for a more dynamic and fluid understanding of ekphrasis. In particular, we focus on the multiple and indeterminate perspectives created by ekphrastic poetry, emphasising the way ekphrastic poetry develops complex and interart relationships that cause a fracturing and/or stretching in the perspectives of both the poem and the artwork(s) it invokes. A powerful in-between or liminal ekphrastic space is created in which meanings tug, pull, swirl and merge. As new meanings are created ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner, Victor W. 1979. “Betwixt and between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.” In Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach, edited by W. A. Lessa and E. Z. Vogt, 234–243. New York: Harper and Row, 234), an ekphrastic point of view emerges, problematising and questioning both-artworks-at-once and highlighting the provisional as it probes what can possibly be said in language about modes of artistic representation in artworks. Additionally, because poetic ekphrasis cannot fully represent, and always reinterprets, another artwork, it is engaged in processes of substitution through which poetic tropes stand in for some of the content of the original artwork. In applying these ideas to the relationships of ekphrastic prose poems to works of visual art, we explicate works by David Grubbs and Lorette C. Luzajic, as well as our own ekphrastic prose poetry.","PeriodicalId":43222,"journal":{"name":"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing","volume":"20 1","pages":"83 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ekphrastic spaces: the tug, pull, collision and merging of the in-between\",\"authors\":\"C. Atherton, P. Hetherington\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14790726.2022.2025850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Although James A.W. Heffernan influentially defines contemporary ekphrasis as ‘the verbal representation of visual representation’ (1993, 3), we argue for a more dynamic and fluid understanding of ekphrasis. In particular, we focus on the multiple and indeterminate perspectives created by ekphrastic poetry, emphasising the way ekphrastic poetry develops complex and interart relationships that cause a fracturing and/or stretching in the perspectives of both the poem and the artwork(s) it invokes. A powerful in-between or liminal ekphrastic space is created in which meanings tug, pull, swirl and merge. As new meanings are created ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner, Victor W. 1979. “Betwixt and between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.” In Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach, edited by W. A. Lessa and E. Z. Vogt, 234–243. New York: Harper and Row, 234), an ekphrastic point of view emerges, problematising and questioning both-artworks-at-once and highlighting the provisional as it probes what can possibly be said in language about modes of artistic representation in artworks. Additionally, because poetic ekphrasis cannot fully represent, and always reinterprets, another artwork, it is engaged in processes of substitution through which poetic tropes stand in for some of the content of the original artwork. In applying these ideas to the relationships of ekphrastic prose poems to works of visual art, we explicate works by David Grubbs and Lorette C. Luzajic, as well as our own ekphrastic prose poetry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"83 - 98\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2022.2025850\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Writing-The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2022.2025850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
摘要尽管赫弗南(James A.W.Heffernan)将当代ekphrasis定义为“视觉表征的言语表征”(1993,3),但我们主张对ekphrassis有更动态、更流畅的理解。特别是,我们关注ekphrastic诗歌所创造的多重和不确定的视角,强调ekphrastic诗歌如何发展复杂的艺术关系,这些关系会导致诗歌和它所引用的艺术作品的视角断裂和/或拉伸。一个强大的介于两者之间或极限的话语空间被创造出来,在这个空间里,意义被拉扯、旋转和融合。随着新的意义在“中间和中间”产生(特纳,维克多W.1979)。《介于两者之间:通过仪式的极限时期》,载于《比较宗教中的读者:人类学方法》,由W.A.Lessa和E.Z.Vogt编辑,234–243。纽约:Harper and Row,234),一种修辞观点出现了,它同时对两件艺术品提出了问题和质疑,并强调了临时性,因为它探讨了艺术品中艺术表现模式的语言可能表达的内容。此外,由于诗意的ekphrasis不能完全代表并总是重新解释另一件艺术品,它参与了替代过程,通过替代过程,诗意的比喻代表了原始艺术品的一些内容。在将这些思想应用于口语散文诗与视觉艺术作品的关系时,我们阐释了David Grubbs和Lorette C.Luzajic的作品,以及我们自己的口语散文诗。
Ekphrastic spaces: the tug, pull, collision and merging of the in-between
ABSTRACT Although James A.W. Heffernan influentially defines contemporary ekphrasis as ‘the verbal representation of visual representation’ (1993, 3), we argue for a more dynamic and fluid understanding of ekphrasis. In particular, we focus on the multiple and indeterminate perspectives created by ekphrastic poetry, emphasising the way ekphrastic poetry develops complex and interart relationships that cause a fracturing and/or stretching in the perspectives of both the poem and the artwork(s) it invokes. A powerful in-between or liminal ekphrastic space is created in which meanings tug, pull, swirl and merge. As new meanings are created ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner, Victor W. 1979. “Betwixt and between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.” In Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach, edited by W. A. Lessa and E. Z. Vogt, 234–243. New York: Harper and Row, 234), an ekphrastic point of view emerges, problematising and questioning both-artworks-at-once and highlighting the provisional as it probes what can possibly be said in language about modes of artistic representation in artworks. Additionally, because poetic ekphrasis cannot fully represent, and always reinterprets, another artwork, it is engaged in processes of substitution through which poetic tropes stand in for some of the content of the original artwork. In applying these ideas to the relationships of ekphrastic prose poems to works of visual art, we explicate works by David Grubbs and Lorette C. Luzajic, as well as our own ekphrastic prose poetry.