The ekphrasis exercise we did in class on Wednesday was pretty simple: describe one of two illuminated pages from the book of hours so that someone who has never seen it could have an idea of what it looks like. However, I found myself sitting there not knowing how to begin. Initially I blamed it on the 8:30 class time and the coffee depravation. I tried to scribble down a few sentences about the general layout of the page, and soon realized it was a failed attempt. When other people in the class read their sentences aloud, I was impressed and thought they did a pretty good job considering the short amount of time we had to do the exercise. I continued thinking about that exercise throughout the day, and realized that completely explaining an image or picture in words is impossible.
People have written many books and essays on different works of art, but I don’t think any written representation is able to entirely capture what a piece of art does. There are infinitely many things to say about any one piece; infinitely many descriptions, comparisons, conclusions. Imagine trying to write down everything that happens in any movie in complete detail. Or, if you’ve ever seen a really famous painting in person, remember how seeing the physical object in front of you was so different than reading about it in art history books.
I think the same can be said for trying to make an image out of text. People always complain about movies that are based on books, saying that “they missed the whole part about _”, or “that character looks nothing like their description in the book!” Trying to make a movie out of My Name is Red that is accurate down to the very last detail would be a real pain in the butt, as we all can imagine after reading the book.
Though I believe all ekphrasis (and its opposite) is just paraphrasing, I do think it is valuable. The in-class exercise made us all realize how difficult the process really is, and how much information can get lost in the transition from image to text, or vice versa.
Natalie,
I love some of the points you have brought up here!
Whether ekphrasis is even possible is a fascinating question. The notion of ‘a picture telling a thousand words’ speaks to the exhausting nature of describing a picture with words. Indeed, the fractal like detail of pictures renders our interpretations infinite.
We should perhaps consider the limits of language too. There are many feelings we cannot describe and Art, a medium that is inherent emotional, may to have visual elements that are ineffable.
However, if ekphrasis is impossible, why do we still try and do it?
Why not just look at the picture?