Aesthetics: Criticism and (Re)presentation

Aesthetics: Criticism and (Re)presentation

The Juilliard School

Spring 2012

Professor Snchez

Midterm ExaminationMarch 2, 2012

Please answer both questions below in thorough essays (50 points each):

1. G. E. Lessing writes, in his Laocon, the following about Homers Achilles Shield:

Homer does not paint the shield as finished and complete, but as a shield that is being made. Thus, here too he has made use of that admirable artistic device: transforming what is coexistent in his subject into what is consecutive, and thereby making the living picture of an action out of the tedious painting of an object. We do not see the shield, but the divine master as he is making it.

What is Lessings larger claim about the Shield? Is this a correct interpretation of the episode, according to your reading of the Iliad? Is Homers episode a convincing example of Ekphrasis? Does Lessing think so? Lastly, how does W. H. Auden, in his poem, The Shield of Achilles, complicate Lessings ideas on the temporal and spatial dimensions (coexistent and consecutive) of Homers Shield?

a) Lessing's larger claim is that Homer is better at painting a picture in words because he stays within the realm of poetry--that is, only occupies himself with the idea of describing progressive actions, as opposed to describing a stagnant object. See page 77

b) I think this is correct, especially since he backs it up by saying that most static descriptions are limited in Homer (black ship)

c) I think it is more along the lines of what Lessing says--that it is not necessarily a representation of a painting but certainly represents something which gives us a clear description

d) because of the fact that Homer says the shield contains the whole world--which seems to Auden to mean that it must continually contain the whole world within its small spatial dimensions. In that regard it is as if everything is coexisting and consecutive simultaneouslywhich complicated Lessing because the latter firmly speaks of the fact that the shield is described with one spatial trajectory.

ESSAY NUMBER ONEIn his essay Laocoon, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing delves into an analysis of the complex relationship between poetry and visual art, using many textual references to Homer and his poetry. One of the conclusions he ultimately draws is that painting and poetry have had troubling histories due to their desires to imitate or achieve the others goal in works of artthat is, paint pictures with words, or describe with poetry. Lessing argues that it is specifically the resistance and avoidance of the inherent fact that art can only truly represent a single moment, and poetry only consecutive moments which causes artists to strive for impossible goals within their respective media.

The Shield of Achilles is an example cited by Lessing of a poet describing consecutive events instead of trying to describe a picture. More importantly, however, is the broader claim which he is making about the Shieldwhich is that Homer is not trying to paint a picture in the formal sense (that is, a static picture of an object), but a poet trying to paint a picture in the minds eye of an individual in the act of creation. In other words, he has successfully painted a picture which, Lessing claims, is more accessible to a reader than a description of an already-existing painting, and which employs poetry in order to paint in a way which does not force it to imitate a different art form.

From my reading of the Iliad I believe that Lessing makes a persuasive argument for two main reasons. First, on a simple level, the entire narrative within this section is written in the present progressive, so it is continually happening within the temporal space of the story. This is in contrast to other parts of the narrative, which are in the past tense. In addition, and more significantly, Homers choice of what he describes vividly and what he does not within this passage imply focus on the consecutive events instead of static objects. He reserves for tangible objects or worldly entities very brief descriptionssuch as the polished shone benches, the handsome citadel, and so on (Homer 588-99). This is a point noted as well in Lessing, where he mentions the fact that Homer is very sparing in his description of physical objects.

Homers description of the Shield is successful at creating a poetic picture, to use Lessings term from Chapter 14, but to say that Homer succeeds at creating an abstract picture in the conventional sense is a stretch of the imagination. While Homer is descriping, in simplest terms, a shield, as stated before, it is just as much a description of the act of creating a shield as a description of the object himself. While ones imagination can clearly become heavily activated due to his descriptions, this passage contains too many consecutive events to be ekphrastic in the traditional sense of connecting poetry and visual art.

While comparing Homers original text to that of Lessing the arguments the latter makes are compelling, at least in my opinion. The ideas of W. H. Auden in his poem The Shield of Achilles, however, complicate matters as far as his ideas of spatial and temporal dimensions. Lessing argues that Homer is describing a shield being made, yet he does not address the issue of Homers descriptions of what exactly is on the shield itself. These descriptions are troubling because, as Auden points out, they are also in the present progressive, and imply continual action, as well as claiming that this shield contains the whole world. Since this poetry is of actions progressing, Auden takes this claim that it has the whole world on it in order to also imply a totality of the events of the world being necessary as a result. In short, Lessing does not spend any time describing this aspect of the shield, and instead notes the act of creation as being the most significant representation within the textwhile in contrast Auden hardly speaks of the act of creating the shield and instead focuses on the actions taking place on the physical entity itself.2. Does the conclusion of Honor de Balzacs story, The Unknown Masterpiece, more closely side with the concept of heterotopia or is it consonant with prosopopeia?

Because of the fact that those two other guys don't see what Frenhofher see, I think it's more heterotopic for the characters--especially because since this happens F gets all upset and his perception of the piece changes as well. Further emphasizing this is the fact that he doesn't even let us get a real description of the painting--which seems to imply that we wouldn't really be able to get a good image of the picture through words anyway.ESSAY NUMBER TWO

It is my belief that the conclusion of Honore de Balzacs Unknown Masterpiece more closely sides with the concept of heterotopia than prosopopeia, primarily through to the authors use of descriptions within the text, as well as aspects of the narrative he has ultimately created. Balzacs story does not have a lack of description of surroundings and individuals, and yet the significant descriptions he provides of his characters are more within the realm of describing their personalities or behavior than physical appearance. While this fact alone could not lead one to argue that he believes in the validity of heterotopia, this along with the conclusion of his story make an persuasive claim in this direction. Throughout the entire story, along with there being a lack of descriptions of individuals there is also no description or viewing of the masterpiece itselfwhich remains hidden for most of the story from both the readers and two primary characters. The first substantial description of this painting we are provided with comes from Frenhofer himself near the end of the story, after refusing to show his work to Poussin and Pourbus for most of the narrative, and within this he describes the spirit and essence of the portrait instead of the literal elements within the painting itself. And yet it is a comprehensive, albeit unusual description of a portrait.The problem comes when Poussin and Porbus actual look at the picture in question, and are unable to see that which Frenhofer had described with words. Although his description created for the minds eye an incredible work of art, from the reactions of the other two characters one is lead to believe that these words were not able to correctly describe the painting and thus created false expectations within the viewers. This leads to an important conclusion which can be made from this aspect of Balzacs storywhich is that, as displayed through this exchange between characters, the mental image one creates for an object never seen but verbally described is inevitably contrasting to that of any other individual. While words could perhaps describe images already viewed, for the task of them successfully describing images not viewed but seen after being described is an impossible task which fails in this instance, for what each individual experiences and comprehends the work of art as being is inherently different.This is further emphasized by the fact that Balzacs description to the readers themselves of this painting is little more than a general description which could be used to describe many works of artchaos of color, half-tints and vague shadows, etc. and thus in the end the readers have only a vague notion of what this work of art looks like.

If Balzac were to have left the readers only with the description Frenhofer provides of his painting and not include as well the reaction the other characters provide, he would have set himself up with the possibility of making a case for prosopopeia. And yet there is a clear absence of a true description from the authors voice of this work of art, which leaves the reader with nothing but two contrasting verbal manifestations of how each respective character understands the work. And this disconnect in perception between these characters is so troubling for Frenhofer that it leads to his untimely deathand ending which seems to imply a negative connotation in Balzacs mind between an attempt at connecting words and visual art.