2017
DOI: 10.24193/mjcst.2017.3.09
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Paradox of Romantic Ekphrasis. Metacritic Discourse, Perception and Imagination in Art Description

Abstract: You know, Phaedrus, that is the strange thing about writing, which makes it truly correspond to painting. The painter's products stand before us as though they were alive, but if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These aspects were significant for the Romantic use of ekphrasis, reflecting the radical innovations occurring in the philosophical debate about perception, thought, and emotion, as pointed out by many scholars focusing their investigations on the regimes of the visible as related to language (Boehm, 2014;Boehm & Pfotenhauer, 1995;Miller, 2002;Osterkamp, 1991;Pfotenhauer, 2000). What is at stake in the ekphrasis of Romanticism is the crisis of the classical aesthetic representation of visible qualities (Gambino & Pulvirenti, 2017a). This is the case of Kleist's ekphrasis: The text does not describe the work of art itself (i.e., the pictorial features of Friedrich's painting), but the process engaged in by the viewer looking at the picture, that is, the reader's/viewer's physical and emotional process of relating to the depicted overwhelming nature by moving into it.…”
Section: Transcendental Sublime Versus Sensitive Sublimementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These aspects were significant for the Romantic use of ekphrasis, reflecting the radical innovations occurring in the philosophical debate about perception, thought, and emotion, as pointed out by many scholars focusing their investigations on the regimes of the visible as related to language (Boehm, 2014;Boehm & Pfotenhauer, 1995;Miller, 2002;Osterkamp, 1991;Pfotenhauer, 2000). What is at stake in the ekphrasis of Romanticism is the crisis of the classical aesthetic representation of visible qualities (Gambino & Pulvirenti, 2017a). This is the case of Kleist's ekphrasis: The text does not describe the work of art itself (i.e., the pictorial features of Friedrich's painting), but the process engaged in by the viewer looking at the picture, that is, the reader's/viewer's physical and emotional process of relating to the depicted overwhelming nature by moving into it.…”
Section: Transcendental Sublime Versus Sensitive Sublimementioning
confidence: 99%