CrissCross Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 2 2017 Writing as a Spatiotemporal Concept: Ekphrasis of Place and the Spatial Turn Maggie Kennelly Illinois Wesleyan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/crisscross Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Kennelly, Maggie (2017) "Writing as a Spatiotemporal Concept: Ekphrasis of Place and the Spatial Turn," CrissCross: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/crisscross/vol5/iss1/2 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Commons @ IWU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this material in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This material has been accepted for inclusion by editors of CrissCross at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document. Kennelly: Writing as a Spatiotemporal Concept: Ekphrasis of Place and the S Writing as a Spatiotemporal Concept: Ekphrasis of Place and the Spatial Turn Maggie Kennelly ENGL 480 13 December 2016 1 Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2017 1 CrissCross, Vol. 5 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 2 Abstract Ever since Lessing wrote his Laocoön many critics have classified painting as a solely spatial art and writing as a solely temporal one. However, in recent years the idea of the spatial turn, of space not fitting into only one category, has sparked new critiques as to what defines art. In this paper, I prove that, by using ekphrasis of place, writing is a spatiotemporal art, meaning it depicts both space and time. This argument is supported by evidence from literary critics, notably Joseph Frank, and pieces of poetry and prose in which ekphrasis of place is used. Through this support, writing is shown to be a spatiotemporal art and the importance of interdisciplinary studies is highlighted. The Initial Argument Against Lessing In human nature there is a desire for expression, a need to show what we as individuals or groups know, and to interpret this information for others use. Thus, the arts exist. At its core art is the medium of expression, of displaying all concepts and ideas that humans can create to others. However, within the realm of art there are subcategories or branches, for just as long as humans have had the desire for expression they have also had the desire to organize those expressions. Thus, the arts are divided into multiple categories; film, painting, sculpture, writing, music, theater, etc. Each category is its own specific branch on the artistic tree. Now, among these categories there are two in particular that have baffled humanity and literary theorists for centuries, the arts of painting and writing. At first glance, such bafflement between two similar arts is puzzling. They both express an artist’s personal vision, they both create images and inspiration within others, and they have both influenced one another in an almost endless cycle where painting has inspired written 2 https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/crisscross/vol5/iss1/2 2 Kennelly: Writing as a Spatiotemporal Concept: Ekphrasis of Place and the S expression and writing has in turn developed paintings. However, despite these similarities between such two distinct branches numerous literary critics have argued over exactly what other concepts writing and painting must align with. It is difficult to pinpoint when exactly people began to stubbornly organize writing and painting, but it is highly probable that Lessing’s famous Laocoön played a major role in their separation when he discussed the essential differences that divide painting from poetry (a form of writing). Lessing states that: The difficulty must be this: although both subjects, being visible, are equally suitable for actual painting, there is still this essential difference between them: in the one case [writing] the action is visible and progressive, its different parts occurring one after the other in a sequence of time, and in the other [painting] the action is visible and stationary, its different parts developing in co-existence in space. (Lessing 77) Lessing, in his attempt to make sense of poetry and painting, aligns them with the already existing universal concepts of time and space. Literary critics have then taken this idea of spatial painting and temporal writing and encouraged their separation, so that even today arguments erupt over whether writing is a solely temporal art and painting is a solely spatial one. However, the idea of writing as a solely temporal concept and of painting as a solely spatial concept is fundamentally flawed. While writing may be a mainly temporal concept, it is also a spatial one based on the idea of ekphrasis. Writing is a spatiotemporal concept. This spatial turn, the notion that space is not solely aligned with one single subject, but can be aligned with multiple concepts, stems from the idea and usage of ekphrasis in the modern world. Ekphrasis is a complicated subject in and of itself, as theorists cannot seem to decide on which of two versions of ekphrasis to use, the classical definition or the modern interpretation. The modern interpretation can be simply defined as “the description of works of art,” making ekphrasis any written description of a piece of art, such as a painting (Koelb 19). However, ekphrasis in the classical sense is defined as a written expression or speech that “had to do with a notion of vividness that makes imaginative eyewitnesses of the audience,” making the concept 3 Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2017 3 CrissCross, Vol. 5 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 2 much broader than just physical art (Koelb 19). Depending on which definition one decides to use ekphrasis can either be a simplified, categorized concept, much like the modern concepts of writing and painting, or ekphrasis can be this grand generalization that seeks to explain and name an idea that humanity shares, much like art in general. Ekphrasis can be used purely to describe art forms, but it can also be used to describe all worldly expressions, including art forms. Critiquing writing through the classical lens not only gives readers a broader view of imagery, but it also brings readers closer to the concepts people were trying to describe when ekphrasis was first defined and used critically. The classical definition was used in society and taught as “an advanced exercise for older boys” throughout the middle ages, creating generations of scholars who only viewed written ekphrasis with the classical definition, and no other, in mind (Koelb 21). It was not until some point in the modern era that the definition of ekphrasis changed into only describing art forms. Therefore, ekphrasis should be used more in terms of the classical definition, as the modern definition is just another way to simplify a complex subject that does not need to be defined in a simple manner. It is easier to label the modern definition as a branch of ekphrasis, as just one way ekphrasis can be used, rather than using the modern definition in critical analysis of all written forms. For example, using a term such as ekphrasis of painting, the written description of a painting, or ekphrasis of statuary, the written description of a statue, or some other such idea would allow for the concept of ekphrasis to be both used the way it has been used for millennia, and to help modern critics make sense of ekphrasis in general. Therefore, ekphrasis should always be defined in its classical sense, but can then be narrowed by the author into a more specific branch, like the field of art as was discussed earlier. Through this definition ekphrasis can be used to describe a variety of concepts and forms of expression or art. Thus, the concept of ekphrasis of place, of writing used to describe and transmit the vividness of 4 https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/crisscross/vol5/iss1/2 4 Kennelly: Writing as a Spatiotemporal Concept: Ekphrasis of Place and the S a place, exists and can be used as evidence against the idea of writing as a solely temporal concept. If writing was a solely temporal art, then writers would not be able to create either space or place through their words. However, this would be a weak argument against Lessing’s claims that “Objects or parts of objects which exist in space are called bodies. Accordingly, bodies with their visible properties are the true subjects of painting. Objects or parts of objects which follow one another are called actions. Accordingly, actions are the true subjects of poetry” (Lessing 78). Essentially, Lessing claims that painting is a solely spatial concept because a painting can focus solely on an object, on the individual aspects and complete body (or dimensions) of that object. Poetry (writing) on the other hand can only focus on the actions of bodies, on how individual objects do not display all the object’s dimensions, which is what makes poetry, and writing in general, a solely temporal concept. This argument effectively counters the idea of writers creating a space by casting doubt as to whether they are showing the full body of that specific space. This is where ekphrasis of place comes into play, as writers may not be able to completely depict the dimensions of a space, but they can describe all the dimensions of a place.