FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4379621357> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4379621357 endingPage "40" @default.
• W4379621357 startingPage "23" @default.
• W4379621357 abstract "The Ekphrastic Visual / Verbal Game of Mirroring in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 Yosr Dridi (bio) Ever since the publication of André Gide’s 1893 journal, the mirror trope in artistic representation has been irrevocably linked to the originally heraldic metaphor1 of mise-en-abyme. Describing the paintings of Hans Memling and Quentin Metsys, Gide devotes particular attention to the way “a small convex and dark mirror reflects the interior of the room in which the scene of the painting is taking place” (30). These painting-reflecting mirrors-within-the-painting are Gide’s way of illustrating his fascination with any work where he can “find transposed . the very subject of that work” (30). It was not until 1950, when Claude-Edmonde Magny published her Histoire du roman français depuis 1918, that Gide’s observation about reflexive mirrors found a conceptual consecration in the notion of mise-en-abyme. In its turn, mise-en-abyme had to wait until Lucien Dällenbach rebaptized it as “the mirror in the text” for its ultimate association with the mirror representational metaphor. In his The Mirror in the Text, Dällenbach posits that “the mise en abyme and the mirror are sufficiently interchangeable for us to combine the two and to refer to ‘the mirror in the text’ whenever the device appears” (35). Such is the short history of how the mirror trope came to be equated with mise-en-abyme. Thus theorized, the mirror in the text / mise-en-abyme has traditionally been understood as either a painting within the painting, a play within the play, or a novel within the novel. But what of a painting or a film within the novel? What of Remedios Varo’s Bordando El Manto Terrestre and the fictional film Cashiered in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49? Can they not be analogically considered mirrors of the text in the text? These questions warrant an examination of the notions of pictorial and cinemato-graphic ekphrasis in relation to the mirror trope. Originally a rhetorical device in the Greco-Roman tradition of “bring[ing] the subject matter vividly before the eyes” and “mak[ing] listeners into spectators” (Webb 1, 8), ekphrasis has come to mean the “verbal representation of visual representation” in modern scholarship (Heffernan, Museum 3; Mitchell 152). In addition to its definition as the vivid verbal rendering of plastic2 artifacts within a literary work, ekphrasis can be classified [End Page 23] into two types, depending on the object of ekphrastic representation. Accordingly, a verbal representation of a painting or a sculpture is referred to as a “pictorial ekphrasis,” and a verbal description or narration of a film or a filmic element is known as a “cinematic [or cinematographic]3 ekphrasis” (Heffernan, “Cinematic Ekphrasis” 4). The distinction between pictorial and cinematographic ekphrases is formulated as follows: “while pictorial ekphrasis often turns an arrested moment into a story, cinematic ekphrasis typically narrates what is already a story told by a sequence of images” (4). The rationale behind the theorizing of cinematographic ekphrasis rests on the fact that, like painting or sculpture, cinema is also visual art and, as such, it can lend itself to ekphrastic representation. Be it pictorial or cinematographic, ekphrasis is a nexus between visual and verbal poetics. However, despite the visual nature of its object of representation, ekphrasis remains essentially a literary mode, performed entirely in the verbal medium. It is, therefore, only logical that pictorial and cinematographic ekphrases would adapt themselves to the specificities of literary writing by narrativizing and dramatizing the visual subject matter. In this regard, Shadi Bartsch and Jaś Elsner insightfully observe that there is no such thing as “an ekphrasis degree zero,” asserting that pure descriptive ekphrasis, untrammeled by narrativization and dramatization, is a rare (and rather uninspired) occurrence in literary writing (ii). There is always a purely literary, and by extension defamiliarizing, added value in any ekphrastic representation of a painting, sculpture, or filmic element. Laura M. Sager Eidt classifies such transformative ekphrases under the category of “dramatic ekphrasis,” which appropriates and dramatizes the visual artwork by summoning it up, eliciting its recognition in the audience, and eventually altering it..." @default.
• W4379621357 created "2023-06-08" @default.
• W4379621357 creator A5087999548 @default.
• W4379621357 date "2020-01-01" @default.
• W4379621357 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4379621357 title "The Ekphrastic Visual / Verbal Game of Mirroring in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49" @default.
• W4379621357 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sli.2020.a895910" @default.
• W4379621357 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W4379621357 type Work @default.
• W4379621357 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4379621357 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4379621357 hasAuthorship W4379621357A5087999548 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C189645446 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C205783811 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C2776359362 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C2776562800 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C2778311575 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C2779714059 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C124952713 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C138885662 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C142362112 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C15744967 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C17744445 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C189645446 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C199539241 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C205783811 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C2776359362 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C2776562800 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C2778311575 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C2779714059 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C41895202 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C46312422 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C52119013 @default.
• W4379621357 hasConceptScore W4379621357C94625758 @default.
• W4379621357 hasIssue "1&2" @default.
• W4379621357 hasLocation W43796213571 @default.
• W4379621357 hasOpenAccess W4379621357 @default.
• W4379621357 hasPrimaryLocation W43796213571 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W169794994 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W2253945764 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W2268712973 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W2300634748 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W2796092422 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W4239004715 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W577538335 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W627686627 @default.
• W4379621357 hasRelatedWork W635221961 @default.
• W4379621357 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W4379621357 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4379621357 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4379621357 workType "article" @default.