Talk:Ekphrasis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DakinV. Peer reviewers: Dmgq6b.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues

er, i think this article is largely incorrect in broadening the use of the word ekphrasis too rapidly. here´s some considerations:

- ekphrasis historically a strictly rhetoric term for any kind of vivid depiction in words

- use of ekphrasis is more frequent in the expert literature then ecphrasis

- first known use (?)in Aphthonius's Progymnasmata

- 'famous' example in Catullus 64 refers to a long passage where a description of the bride Thetis´treasure has a scene on a textile depicting ariadne's story which is then told ´as seen depicted'.

The term then is used to categorise some Romantic works, setting a tradition of rendering painting , sculpture or architecture in (poetical) language. The use of the term in the broad meaning as anything mixing or spreading a subject to different arts is fairly recent, and, i would say, rather fashionable or boldly metaphorical.

here´s a quote from Muse to back this up:

"Although the concept is at least as old as Homer, ekphrasis emerges quite late in antiquity as a privileged term reserved for rendering an art work into words. In fact, the rhetoricians of the "Second Sophistic" used ekphrasis to cover any set-piece of vivid description generally; and it became in the second century c.e. one of the standard exercises, or progymnasmata, of rhetorical training. Heffernan prudently restricts the scope of his literary inquiry, first to the translation of a work of art, and then more specifically to encounters between poetry and the visual arts."

(from Macksey, Richard 1931- "Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery" MLN - Volume 110, Number 4, September 1995 (Comparative Literature Issue), pp. 1010-1015 abstract found here:http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/mln/v110/110.4br_heffernan.html

_____________________________

I agree with above comments. My preference would at least to make it clear to readers that the broader meaning of the term is a recently emerging sense and not the meaning most people are likely to intend to convey when they use the term. Webster's dictionary, e.g., only offers the narrower sense of the term. As pointed out above, the broader meaning is metaphorical, and though metaphors are feats of mental flexibility, their potency derives from the solidity of notions compared; viz., a metaphorical sense, when a speaker wishes to call it up, not only succeeds but thrives even if "definitions" (or lengthier encyclopedia entries) do not pre-empt the metaphor and offer the extended sense as standard. Ventifact (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________

I have to agree with Ventifact and the unsigned original comment above. "Ecphrasis" was apparently used by the classical Greeks, but until 1990 it's use in English was rarer than rare. From Merriam-Webster online, today:

Although "ekphrasis" (also spelled "ecphrasis") is a relatively new entry in our dictionary, the practice of using words to comment on a piece of visual art is an ancient one. One of the earliest and most commonly cited forms of ekphrasis occurs in The Iliad, when Homer provides a long and discursive account of the elaborate scenes embossed on the shield of Achilles. It should be no surprise, then, that the term ekphrasis derives from Greek, where it literally means "description" and was formed by combining the prefix ex- ("out") with the verb "phrazein" ("to point out or explain"). "Ekphrasis" first appeared in English in the early 18th century.

Yet the article seems intent on convincing the audience of the validity of a broader usage, even to the extent of misrepresenting the history of the word (by expansively discussing the history of the concept as though the word and the concept were the same thing). For instance, whereas Merriam-Webster points to the 1st known English usage, same is not even alluded to in the article. This slant in the article leaves me uncomfortable. MGBuell Mbuell72 12:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

_____________________________________

Also, the external link to U of Minnesota Duluth (sect 1.3, "Plato and Aristotle", 'ecphrasis') is bad. I don't remember how to flag it, and I don't recall if I should just delete it. Since my time is limited at the moment, I will leave that hour of research (whether to do or not to do) to someone else. MGBuell Mbuell72 12:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

_______________________________________

Having considered this subject for a time, I am still concluding that this article is problematic and inaccurate. Going back to the very first (2003) entry for the topic, I find a lede that more accurately represents the current status of the topic:

Ecphrasis or ekphrasis (from Greek ek out + phrasis speaking) in modern times is taken to be the graphic, often dramatic description of a visual work of art while anciently the word applied to a description of things, persons, or even human experiences.

Given that this topic is low on my priority list, I will likely leave it to etymologists, lexicographers, and art historians.MGBuell Mbuell72 21:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Re "horrible intro"

"Reworded horrible intro, now merely bad". Nydas, why don't describe the previous efforts by others in really insulting terms, just in case you haven't made your point? Flaming Norah! Dieter Simon 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Roland Barthes

In 'The Effect of Reality' and 'The Discourse of History' Barthes utilised the concept of ecphrasis as a tool for the analysis of modern texts and we ought to include a section on this in this entry.Rykalski (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Retitle the two pages

Since in the article the form "eKphrasis" is used, I suggest changing the title to that form, and make the "eCphrasis" page redirect there. I would have done it, but don't know how to change titles. --David Be (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, the term "ekphrasis" is the more common version in this article as well as Google and other search engines. I have moved the article to the correct name, all history and links should have been moved as well. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

However, you can do this yourself, as long as you are logged in and as long as your reasons are sufficiently plausible. If it is a controversial decision you will need to open a discussion on it. See Help:Moving a page tell s you how to do it. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Catullus 64

I suggest adding a more extensive discussion of Catullus 64 to the ancient literature section. The majority of the poem, which is maybe the best representative of the epyllion genre and certainly a significant influence on subsequent Latin poets, is ekphrasis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.91.244 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)