06.10.2013 Views

Copyright by Laura Mareike Sager 2006 - The University of Texas at ...

Copyright by Laura Mareike Sager 2006 - The University of Texas at ...

Copyright by Laura Mareike Sager 2006 - The University of Texas at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Similarly, Ernest B. Gilman has discussed this “Imperialism <strong>of</strong> Language”<br />

as central to inter-art comparisons since Antiquity, emphasizing th<strong>at</strong> the paragone,<br />

or the rivalry between the arts, exists not only between the disciplines, but also<br />

between their academic exponents, art historians and literary critics. Alluding to<br />

the commonplace <strong>of</strong> painting as mute poetry and poetry as speaking picture, he<br />

concludes th<strong>at</strong> “[i]f the image lurks in the heart <strong>of</strong> language as its unspeakable<br />

other, then critics should be open to the possibility th<strong>at</strong> images harbor a similarly<br />

charged connection with language – as an invisible other.” 19 Likewise, Grant F.<br />

Scott discusses ekphrasis as appropri<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> the “visual other” and as an <strong>at</strong>tempt<br />

to “transform and master the image <strong>by</strong> inscribing it.” 20 Diverging from critics<br />

such as Jean Hagstrum, Leo Spitzer and Murray Krieger, who see ekphrasis as<br />

“imit<strong>at</strong>ion” <strong>of</strong> the visual arts, or as “giving voice” to the image, Scott sees it as “a<br />

means <strong>of</strong> […] demonstr<strong>at</strong>ing dominance and power” (303).<br />

Specifically, for critics such as Mitchell and Heffernan, this b<strong>at</strong>tle is <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

played out in terms <strong>of</strong> race and gender. Ekphrastic texts project the visual as<br />

“other to language.” 21 In this process <strong>of</strong> cultural domin<strong>at</strong>ion, “the self is<br />

understood to be an active, speaking, seeing subject, while the ‘other’ is projected<br />

as a passive, seen, and (usually) silent object. […] Like the masses, the colonized,<br />

the powerless and voiceless everywhere, visual represent<strong>at</strong>ion cannot represent<br />

itself; it must be represented <strong>by</strong> discourse” (157). <strong>The</strong> “other” art is thus defined<br />

19 Ernest B. Gilman, “Interart Studies and the ‘Imperialism’ <strong>of</strong> Language,” Art and Liter<strong>at</strong>ure I,<br />

ed. Wendy Steiner, spec. issue <strong>of</strong> Poetics Today 10.1 (1989): 23.<br />

20 Grant F. Scott, “<strong>The</strong> Rhetoric <strong>of</strong> Dil<strong>at</strong>ion: Ekphrasis and Ideology,” Word & Image 7.4 (1991):<br />

302.<br />

21 W.J.T. Mitchell, Picture <strong>The</strong>ory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Represent<strong>at</strong>ion (Chicago and<br />

London: U <strong>of</strong> Chicago P, 1994) 163.<br />

9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!