Ekphrasis as an Art Form

Is ekphrasis an art form? Most artists would have to agree that ekphrasis, which is described as “a literary description of or commentary on a visual work of art” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is in fact an artistic practice. However, I have been presented with what I believe is a form of ekphrasis that isn’t simply a description or commentary on some other great work of art. Ekphrasis is much more than an artistic way to speak of superior artworks. I strongly believe that it is a form of art that stands on its own; something powerful enough to merit its own descriptions and rhetoric. In this essay, I will give my reasons for believing in ekphrasis as a valuable contribution to art and culture in today’s age, as well as the example that led me to become so passionate about word art. I will show how ekphrasis has stirred mixed emotions to date, and how it remains the practice of forming rhetoric about other art without reducing its actual value in culture and creative arts in the 21^st century.

                First off, what is ekphrasis? As previously mentioned, ekphrasis is widely known as the practice of forming a poem or commentary of some sort pertaining to another artwork. Examples of famous ekphrasis works would be The Shield of Achilles by W. H. Auden, The Painting by Jon Balaban, Landscape with the Fall of Icarus by William Carlos Williams and so many others. Ekphrasis is useful in bringing the interpretations of artwork to a whole new level. However, ekphrasis is much more than that. “Webb insists that ekphrasis be considered in terms of effect rather than subject matter: it is "a speech that brings the subject matter vividly before the eyes"” (Jarratt). Ruth Webb wrote a book about ekphrasis, and here, Susan Jarratt explains how Webb sees it as more than just commentary. It requires thought and provocation, in much the way that the subject artworks themselves did. We cannot just simplify ekphrasis and say that it enhances the meaning of art. In fact, Webb speaks of how ekphrasis runs deeper than just paintings and sculptures. Jarratt writes about Webb’s observations on how “vivid impression could be achieved through the detailed description, or narration, of many subjects, including activities such as battles, storms, plagues, earthquakes, and festivals, not only through descriptions of objects such as paintings, sculptures, and architectural wonders” (Jarrat). We maintain here that ekphrasis is still and will always be art based on art. However, what art doesn’t have artistic roots? The philosophical questions in aesthetics have always been complex; however no one can deny that beauty and art are almost always hand in hand. If this is true, then seeing as most art stems from beauty, and beauty is paired with art in the first place, art is always about art. Why would ekphrasis be any different? The point here is that ekphrasis can be taken to a whole new level. On its own, it could be a dominating art form of the 21^st century. “Webb explains that ekphrasis points to "the complexities of a phenomenon which goes beyond the normal functions of language"” (Jarratt). If we simply regard ekphrasis as language meant to enhance art, we are missing the point. Ekphrasis has the potential to bring aesthetic meaning to elements in our lives that often go unnoticed or even misunderstood. "The connection between ekphrasis and the idea of visual representation ... runs deep"(Webb).

                So, what is the further application of ekphrasis in the 21^st century? Not long ago, I was presented with the work of Stephen Vitiello through the Soundwaves exhibition at The Museum of Contemporary Art in San Diego. Vitiello composed a book called Sounds Found. I say “composed” because the point of his book was to illustrate sound in a synesthetic kind of way; however his medium was Word Art. Chris Burnett reviews a Miami Word Art show in a scholarly article and observes that “the show itself works wonderfully in broadening the focus on avant-garde history to an open-ended resource for future discoveries offered by visual poetics” (Burnett). Word Art is an emerging art form where words are used in a visual, often multi-media fashion to portray modern issues, passions and phenomena in an abstract and yet obvious way to audiences. What Vitiello did was he collected newspaper clippings of words that visually made tangible sounds in his mind. Then, he put them all together in a book. This concept captivated me because I instantly recognized how what Vitiello did could be considered as ekphrasis. I knew it was a long shot to try and convince anyone of my belief; however it could potentially revolutionize ekphrational practices. Words in themselves are works of art. The union of letters, syllables, sounds, consonants, vowels and pronunciations all working together to form beautiful mechanisms of expression, each unique to the person using it: how much more artistic can anything be? And what Stephen Vitiello was doing, was creating his own artwork, based on this verbal art. He also encompassed sound art with his visual representation of noise. When looking at Vitiello’s work, the clippings he chose are indeed very stimulating. Some are loud and obnoxious, others quiet and peaceful. By cutting out just words and phrases, he eliminated all contexts, and amplified the sound present in this presentation. Isn’t that a method in “regular” ekphrasis? Some of the ekphraseis writings completely eradicate previous context of artworks and create a whole new dimension to seemingly clear-cut art. To me, Vitiello’s project showed how ekphrasis is more than a simple, cookie-cutter description or commentary of another work of art. Sounds Found shows how ekphrasis can be its own art form. Why not break the boundaries of simplicity?

                In conclusion, it is very difficult to attempt to explain why something is more complex after it is made out to look simple. As humans we strive for simplicity amidst a complex existence. However, ekphrasis is not one of those things that require simplification. Ekphrasis is something complex, like the formation of any other artwork, and it deserves proper recognition. We truly must embrace the potential for artwork to grow and branch out. Stephen Vitiello managed to combine Word Art, Sound Art and ekphrasis into one symphony of meaningful art. Why are we going to try and ignore the roots of his work because the set definition of ekphrasis is “a literary description of or commentary on a visual work of art” (Merriam-Webster)? Can we be open to the concept of ekphrasis being as much an art form as painting, sculpting, dancing, acting or composing? I truly think that Vitiello calls us to re-evaluate the definition of art, and the boundaries that have been set by how we define it.

Works Cited:

Burnett, Chris. "Visual Poetics: Art and the Word." Afterimage 31.2 (2003): 8-. ProQuest Research

                Library. Web. 9 Nov. 2011.

Jarratt, Susan. "Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice."

                Rhetorica 29.1 (2011): 113,115,119. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 9 Nov. 2011.

"Culture” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011.

                Web. 9 Nov. 2011

"Art” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011.

                Web. 9 Nov. 2011

Holy Extra-Terrestrial

Sacred texts have been in human possession for centuries, and are still popularly known in today’s religious societies. However, as modern times are always dawning, these ancient and sacred texts have started appearing in our everyday lives in more secular, under-the-radar ways. Most of the time, it takes in-depth analysis to see where a secular use of a sacred reference is present; however, there are many instances of this occurring today. The most common appearances are through art and the media. People are becoming more aware of the distinct features and benefits of sacred principles, and therefore, they are becoming much more commonplace in movies, music, television, books, etc. In this particular essay, the focus is on the Holy Bible of Christianity and some similarities found in a popular film called E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.

                The passage in the Bible that I chose was Matthew 28:20. The scripture reads: “Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age”. More specifically, however, I chose to focus most on the part about Jesus being “with [us] always”. The context of the passage is important to the connection of sacred and secular usage. This passage is from the time when Jesus had been crucified. At this particular moment in the Bible, Jesus had risen from the dead, and was to ascend into heaven after fulfilling His Father’s wishes. First though, He gives this message to His followers and students.

                This passage refers to Jesus’ mission call that he bestowed upon His students that day. Kenton Sparks says in his article that Jesus called his disciples to “the ultimate “conquest” of the nations … accomplished not by the sword but by going out, baptizing and teaching” (Sparks). So the original context of this passage was indeed a mission statement. In the church today, this passage as a whole is used in much the same way. For Evangelical Christians, it calls them to go out and spread the word, to be ready to follow Christ, and to know that He is with them in doing this. The Pastor at my church often uses this passage to inspire and remind people of what they are called to as believers. However, my emphasis is on the second part of the passage: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age”. Often, the passage is broken up in such a way to create a different context. On the one hand, we have an inspirational call to serve, but on the other hand, we have a promise. Kenton Sparks reminds readers of the importance of said half of the passage. He writes: “Jesus the resurrected Messiah promised his disciples: “I am with you”. With these words, Jesus uttered anew [His] divine promise” (Sparks). I have heard many preachers use this part of the passage to encourage the Church, to uplift them in times of suffering, sorrow, pain, trials, discouragement, etc.

                As mentioned above, the sacred use of this passage was much the same as its secular use today. Jesus was speaking to His students and disciples, asking them to pass on His teachings, His message, His Father’s word and love. However, over the years, the interpretations of the passage have changed based on its context. Kenton Sparks states in his article that there is a “juxtaposition of… themes” (Sparks) concerning what Jesus’ followers had been saying and what Jesus promised His people that day on the mountain top. However, the use of the passage has very well remained the same in a contemporary Church setting, although the interpretations are still up for debate. The audience remained the same as well: Jesus was speaking to all followers of Him; Christians, believers, the Church, men and women, young and old. Today, preachers use it to speak to that same group of people.

The secular use I chose was in the movie E.T. when E.T. tells Eliott, “I’ll be right here”. E.T. is implying that although he is ascending back to where he came from, he will always remain with Eliott in spirit. This concept is actually used in many movies. Often it is during a separation of the main characters, when one or both of those characters states that they will always be there, always be with one another, etc. These can all be traced back to many sacred texts, not only the Christian Bible. I chose Jesus’ words “I am with you always” because I know them well, however Buddhism encourages its followers in saying that Buddha is within each of us. In fact many religions have the same principle of God or the gods always being present. Some examples of movies that use this concept in much the same way are The Lion King: “He lives within you”, Tarzan: “You’ll be in my heart” and so many other movies that include separation or conflict of some kind (which is most of them).

                E.T.’s words and Jesus’ are similar in many ways. They are both claiming to always be with someone in spirit. They both offer this statement as truth and encouragement. They both make this statement as a promise as well. Other similarities are contextual: both Jesus and E.T. were ascending to the heavens. Outside of this passage, there are many parallels between E.T. and Christ that critics have noticed in the past. Bob Sullivan touches upon this in his article. He says, “Commentators have drawn parallels between E.T. and Christ, pointing to, among other aspects, the creature’s arrival, his healing touch, his persecution by civil authorities, and his ascension into the heavens” (Sullivan). Jesus was born in a stable and E.T. was found in a shed. Jesus provided a healing touch, and so did E.T. In fact, the image of the boy’s and E.T.’s fingers meeting is slightly reminiscent of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam. Jesus spent time with questionable crowds as did E.T.; Jesus was crucified by authorities, E.T. was pursued by them. The list goes on and on. Bob Sullivan says, “The perceived message of the times… was one of hope, love… Thus it was that Spielberg’s film proved timely to its age, reflecting spirit and values that were being so eagerly sought by a troubled nation, and thereby appealing to adults and children alike” (Sullivan). This makes a statement about the audience. The movie was addressed to everyone; anyone seeking comfort and encouragement in dark times. That is slightly similar to Jesus’ intended audience and purpose in the passage of Matthew 28:20.

                In conclusion, there are so many instances where we can see multiple references to different sacred religions and texts in modern media and artwork. It is a way to spread these undeniably good concepts with the rest of the world that isn’t listening in a religious way. When studied hard enough, there can be a religious or sacred reference found in almost any movie, song, book or artwork. It is truly fascinating to observe.

Works Cited:

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Steven Spielberg. DVD. Universal Pictures, 1982.

             

Jesus Bible (The). New Living Translation. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2002. Print.

               

Sparks, Kenton L. "Gospel as Conquest: Mosaic Typology in Matthew 28:16-20." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68.4 (2006): 651. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

              

Sullivan, Bob. “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.” Life & Health Library: FindArticles. CBS Interactive, Jan. 2002.   Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

               

Nietzsche s.6 of The Birth of Tragedy: A Musician’s Argument on the Importance of Lyrics

As a musician, I have often found myself having the same dispute over and over again with fellow music enthusiasts: is lyrical content important to the art of music? My argument has always been that composers such as Beethoven, Bach, John Cage, etc. never needed lyrics to be great. However, there was always some doubt in my mind about the importance of lyrics to a musician; the ability to appreciate them, write them, understand them. Where do lyrics fit into music, and how important is it to a musician? Furthermore, how does this concept affect contemporary music today? In this essay I will refer to Nietzsche’s view on music and more specifically, his input on lyrical poets, and the place for lyrics within music, which is visited in depth in section 6 of The Birth of Tragedy.

                First, it is important to understand the background history of Nietzsche’s work. The full title of his text was The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music. Nietzsche had a love for music, which he shared with an important person and father figure in his life, Richard Wagner. Together they explored the importance of music as an art form, and bore much criticism on the matter. Knowing the context of Nietzsche’s writings helps one understand that he had an understanding of music on a philosophical level that brings much validity to the issues surrounding the definition of music and what a musician is. Nietzsche brings the roles of Apolline and Dionysian nature into the art of music. It is also important to first understand the definitions of Apolline and Dionysian nature. Nietzsche says this about the two: “In order to gain a closer understanding of these two drives, let us think of them in the first place as separate art-worlds of dream and intoxication” (14). Nietzsche identifies Apolline art as being the art of an image-maker or sculptor; very visual and logical, often inspired by something else within the branch of aesthetics and art. He goes on to say that Dionysian art is imageless; much like music is by his definition. Dionysian works are wild and raw while Apolline works are diluted and thought-out. Dionysian nature is at the root of our primordial being, meaning that it is driven more by intuition, and feeling: an animal approach stemming from the root of our existence. Apolline nature deals with more thought and reflection. That is where Nietzsche’s use of the comparison between dreams and intoxication are useful. In dreams, as Nietzsche puts it, we are aware of the “semblance of a semblance” (26). Great works of art come from amidst the Apolline culture because that sense of knowing something is just a semblance is healthy for a being. However, the fact that the semblance of semblance is so recognizable is what makes Apolline art different from Dionysian works. The sense of being intoxicated relates well to Dionysian inspiration because when one is intoxicated, inhibitions, intuition and thought all tend to go out the window. When intoxicated, people act and react without a filter. There is no semblance involved. What is present is what is there. Often when people are intoxicated, true feelings and desires are surfaced that otherwise never leave a person’s mind. On the most basic level, this describes Dionysian works perfectly. When Nietzsche speaks of music, he therefore speaks of an art form that is rooted in our primordial beings of Dionysian nature, something raw and often incomprehensible.

                Having understood Nietzsche’s position on music, we can dive into his views on lyric poets and the place for lyrics in music. When Nietzsche begins talking about lyrics in The Birth of Tragedy, he says that lyrics are simply “language straining its limits to imitate music” (34). As a musician myself, I have always taken pride in the fact that I have an appreciation for all genres of music, and I strive to understand the artistic abilities of different types of musicians in different styles. For me, a true musician is one that appreciates music as an art form, like Nietzsche did, and not simply a person who plays an instrument and knows about some popular bands in 2011. The purpose of my essay is to visit the topic of lyrics in music. I have an ongoing dispute with one of my friends about the fact that lyrics are not what make music. He - claiming to be a musician - says that music is nothing without good lyrics. Nietzsche brings up the point that “[while] lyric poetry depends utterly on the spirit of music, music itself, in its absolute sovereignty, has no need at all of images and concepts but merely tolerates them as an accompaniment” (36). Nietzsche’s statement is undeniable. Lyrics depend on a melody to carry them. Music is an art that speaks for itself. When reading The Birth of Tragedy I was instantly gratified in section 6 when I stumbled upon Nietzsche’s thoughts on language and imagery in music. It clearly sorts out the importance of lyrics in music in a way that demonstrates an undeniable thirst and passion that elevates the credibility of the statement. When Nietzsche speaks of the vast difference between music and lyrical poetry, the words simply dance on the page in my mind:

“Lyric poetry can say nothing that was not already contained, in a condition of the most enormous generality and universal validity, within the music which forced the lyric poet to speak in images. For this reason it is impossible for language to exhaust the meaning of music’s world-symbolism, because music refers symbolically to the original contradiction and original pain at the heart of primordial unity, and thus symbolizes the sphere which lies above and beyond all appearances” (36).

He is saying that lyrics are the result of music. Without music there are no lyrics. He goes on to say that “language, as the organ and symbol of phenomena, can never, under any circumstances, externalize the innermost depths of music” (36). Needless to say, my end of the dispute pertaining to lyrics is heavily uplifted by Nietzsche. The Birth of Tragedy clearly states that lyrics are by no means the essence of music. I think that in today’s age, Nietzsche’s view is something that should be drilled into the mainstream music scene. Artists, producers, fans – everyone looks to their favorite singer for those words of wisdom, blurted out to a catchy tune. However, lyrical content is dying a slow and painful death. Musicians are now defined by the words they sing, and yet those words are losing credibility and meaning by the minute. Soon we will have to write The Rebirth of Tragedy Out of the Dying Spirit of Music. This essay isn’t just about whether or not lyrics are in fact important in music, but it is defining why they way us down as musicians. The focus is too much on lyrics and not enough on music, and the essence of musicality. Nietzsche presents music in its original form through his words.

                However, regardless of the philosophical proof that lyrics are not what music is about, Nietzsche still manages to retain the importance of Apolline culture in music. An Apolline lyric poet is as much as musician as a one of Dionysian nature. In this excerpt, Nietzsche describes the lyric poet as someone that today’s most talented musicians should strive to be:

In order to express the Will’s appearance in images the lyric poet needs all the stirrings of passion, from the whisper of inclination to the fury of madness; impelled by the drive to speak of music in Apolline symbols, he understands the whole of nature, including himself, to be nothing but that which eternally wills, desires, longs. But by virtue of the fact that he interprets music in images, he himself is at rest on the still, calm sea of Apolline contemplation, no matter how much all those things around him which he contemplates through the medium of music are in the grip of thrusting, driving motion. Indeed, when he catches sight of himself through that same medium, his own image presents itself to him as being in a state of unsatisfied feeling; his own willing, longing, groaning, and shouting for joy, is a symbolic likeness with which he interprets music. This is the phenomenon of the lyric poet: as an Apolline genius he interprets music through the image of the Will, while he himself, completely set free from the greed of the Will, is a pure, unclouded sun-eye” (35).

Described in that way, Apolline lyric poets are geniuses of musical interpretation. What is there not to strive for in that description? No matter how much Nietzsche stresses that lyrics do not equal music, but rather that music inspires and produces lyrics, the two go hand in hand on many occasions. And Nietzsche – as demonstrated above – also refers to the importance of lyricists. If the music of today is to be revived at all, lyricists must strive to be of the Apolline sort that Nietzsche describes. And although to a true musician, the lyrics will never quite be as important as the music itself, the lyrical content of Apolline nature will be regarded much more highly then the utter crap (excuse my lack of better description) that plays on the radio today. Nietzsche recognizes that both Apolline and Dionysian nature is at play in all forms of art, including music. Therefore, the lyrical side to music is at play. However he defines the boundary between the Dionysian aspects of music and the image-encompassing Apolline drive.

                In conclusion, I believe that Nietzsche’s work makes clear the distinction between lyrics and music itself. He calls attention to the true Dionysian nature of music, where the essence of musicality and being a musician should lie. However, he also sheds light on the importance of Apolline nature in all art forms, including music, and illustrates how an Apolline musician should strive to appreciate and therefore reap the benefits of music’s full potential. Lyrics do not make the music, but a musician should recognize Nietzsche’s points on the nature of imagery in music and be able to appreciate that second drive within music. If we could all go back to the philosophical way of dissecting aesthetics, perhaps much of the entertainment we enjoy today could revive the essence behind its conception, therefore enhancing our experience and understanding of art and culture in the modern world.

Works Cited:

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy And Other Writings. Edited/ translated by Raymond Guess and Ronald Speirs. Print. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.