SCULPTING WITH WORDS: FROM EKPHRASIS TO INTERART TRANSLATION* Lamia Tewfik Grim and vast, In hermit loneliness, it sits and broods Above the Nubian desert. Its dull eyes, Stony and lidless, stare across the sands; And the colossal, parted, marble lips Are marble-mute and marble-cold, as when The gnawing chisel of the sculptor wrought Their curving outlines; and they answer not The immemorial question: "What art thou?" (“The Sphinx,” Andrew Downing) The notion of interart translation is one that has hereto received very little academic attention. This may stem from the inherent danger of essentialising artistic qualities and assuming the presence of equivalences of particular themes and motifs within and across art forms/mediums that may be latent in this term. Here emerges the importance of the term ekphrasis as a middle ground or a stepping stone through which interart translation can function, with ekphrasis acting as an intermediary in the process of interpreting one art form into another. Ekphrasis basically denotes the vivid description of a piece of visual art, real or imaginary, in a form of writing, thus the transformation of the visual into the verbal. But when can an ekphrasis abandon the confines of this description and become an independent translation of this work of art?1 This study aims to explore the possibilities, dimensions and limitations of translating sculpture to poetry- through the analysis of texts translating the Giza Sphinx sculpture into poems. The hypothesis here is that ekphrasis is the route through which interart translation can be conducted, in the case of translating sculpture to poetry. This exploration of ekphrasis as a route to conducting interart translation is a point not touched upon in academic research. The lack of any comprehensive study on interart translation, and in * First presented at The Cultural Politics of Translation conference, Department of English, Cairo University & Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, University of Manchester, UK- supported by the British Academy- in October 2015; accepted for publication in Cairo Studies in English, Department of English, Cairo University, forthcoming Sculpting with Words 2 particular the translation of sculpture to poetry, engenders a great deal of possibilities and challenges in achieving this task. Theorists over the years have been aware of the importance of the term ekphrasis. They have redefined and reformulated it in ways that will be put to use in this study’s exploration of the possibility of interart translation: a notion that is only approached at a distance and with great trepidation in studies of ekphrasis. Although ekphrasis was used in ancient times to contribute narrative elements and explanatory notes to paintings and other art objects, it was simply regarded as a way of complementing the original work of visual art. This, however, changes in later studies of ekphrasis. When Gotthold Lessing differentiates between two types of imitation that take place between visual art and poetry, he lays the foundation for the inquiry into interart translation.; he regards as superior a type of imitation in which the manner and way of one form of art is imitated in another to tackle the same subject matter, rather than imitating the work of art itself, which he regards as a form of plagiarism (54). This argument is harmonious with Aristotle’s notion of mimetic representation that he maintains is a determinant factor in poetry and visual arts. Murray Krieger, builds on this view, introducing the concepts of “stilling” and “freezing” to describe the nature of ekphrasis when taking plastic art as its subject (325). Other theorists such as Michael Davidson describe the strategies used in ekphrasis, as “equivalent” to those used in the work of art itself (72). According to the above three views ekphrasis is an autonomous creation that uses the original work of art as a starting point for the creation of something new, without assuming any form of superiority in the original work of art. This takes place through the adoption of the tools of the original form of art according to Krieger and Davidson, and through being inspired to refer to the same subject matter as the original form of art according to Lessing2. Maintaining this type of balance between the original work of art and its ekphrasis, forms a first step in the possibility of interart translation. Yet the road to interart translation remains bumpy. The main stumbling block is the difference in medium between writing and visual arts: the two mediums that will be the concern of this study. WJT Mitchell states that Sculpting with Words 3 “ekphrasis is impossible,” because words “can cite but never sight” ("Ekphrasis and the Other" 152). This view is a good example of what seems to be the grand barrier between arts. Yet Mitchell believes that this barrier is self-inflicted due to what he terms “resistance” or” counter desire” stemming from the fear that the barriers between the arts may collapse (154). This collapse would be regarded as dangerous as the distinction between the two territories is a necessary reflection of the very separation of the senses (155)3. There are, however benefits to be gained from this separation between the arts, according to Mitchell, who proposes a certain complementarity between the verbal and the visual, not dissimilar to that between algebra and geometry (“What Is an Image",530, 532), with imagination and metaphor bridging the gap between the two art mediums (“Ekphrasis and the Other” 152, 156). Here discourse stands up for visual representation, helping it to represent what it cannot represent for itself (157). The verbal can thus help the visual at the artistic level by giving it a voice to overcome its muteness, so as to help it to transgresses the boundaries of its original artistic medium (Meltzer 21). The term “metaekphrasis” proposed by Janee J. Baugher, is one more capable of expressing the tendency of ekphrasis to “transcend the bounds of the object d’art” ("Secret Designs, Public Shapes: Ekphrastic Tensions in Hildegard’s Scivias” 111)4. She maintains that “poets use words to stab at the wordlessness of the feeling of seeing something beautiful” (113)4. Complementarity and reconciliation between the visual and the verbal can help to fill in the gaps of the visual medium of expression, while also taking the visual work of art to new heights and aesthetic possibilities. In Michele Foucault’s ekphrasis of the 1656 painting Las Maninas (The Maids of Honour) by Diego Velázquez, he momentarily reverts from his ekphrastic description to reminisce on the nature of the relationship between language and painting: But the relation of language to painting is an infinite relation [...] Neither can be reduced to the other’s terms: it is in vain that we say what we see; what we see never resides in what we say. And it is in vain that we attempt to show, by the use of images, metaphors, or Sculpting with Words 4 similes, what we are saying; the space where they achieve their splendour is not that deployed by our eyes but that defined by the sequential elements of syntax [...].(10) Yet, Foucault still believes in the possibility of using what he calls the “incompatibility” of the linguistic and the visual as an opportunity rather than an obstacle (10). In fact, it is the distinction between the arts that signals the possibility of interart translation. Although Gary Shapiro uses Foucault’s abovementioned view to once more stress the lack of equivalences between the arts (13), this “gap, scission,” “point of difference,” or what Foucault terms “ecart” between what is seen and said, or the “absent image” seems to be a necessary component of ekphrasis (14, 15)5. Shapiro encourages an embracement of this distance between words and images, regarding it as essential and necessary. The term “translation” in this sense appears in Claire Barbetti’s description of the process of writing reviews of museums and galleries, looking upon this as one of “translating” the visual into the verbal (Ekphrastic Medieval Visions: A New Discussion in Interarts Theory 1). Her view constitutes one of the rare moments of mentioning the term “translation” in the context of ekphrasis. Art, accordingly, becomes a sort of amalgamation of diverse media that respond to each other (1)6. Sam Halliday also mentions translation when he states his belief that the information stored in one artistic medium, by the rule of translation, may be “converted” into the language of the other medium (101); that “one medium’s materials often, if not always, have cognates in others, and that practitioners working in different fields may thus ultimately be able to ‘say’ the same things” (102). Halliday’s view, though echoing earlier stances by other theorists, bears the additional value of using the term “translation” to describe this process. Bearing in mind the difference of medium between the arts, translation in this sense cannot be regarded, as a simple mirroring of the art object or giving it a voice, but rather a reformulation and modification of this work of art. The verbal representation of an art object is shaped by ideological Sculpting with Words 5 factors that modify the way it is both perceived and interpreted (Pimental 64). The ekphrastic text thus modifies and “orients” the view of the art object through a “filter” that shapes its future descriptions (64). What is translated here is thus the “ekphrastic other;” and the translation is thus a “critical ekphrasis” (64). Richard Stamelman, believes that in ekphrasis, “artistic works [are] translated into words and put in the service of a metaphorical, rhetorical, emblematic, allegorical, or moral intention” (614). A comprehensive theory of “interart aesthetic” is presented by Peter Dayan, in 2011. He talks of a “triangular marriage” between music, poetry and art, in which the marriage vows are as follows: “the description of each art as if it were one of the others;” this principle, he believes, has lead to a sense of brotherhood between arts and the artists (1). He believes that the marriage vows continue to have power and that they create a sense of unity between the arts, where arts can be used to define each other (2). Dayan sets the five rules of interart aesthetic as follows: works of art are valuable in themselves and not because of any related principle or authorial intention; it is not possible to calculate any equivalences between arts, and thus imitation of form between arts is not of value and “there can be no direct translation, and no unproblematic collaboration;” the common property that makes art “great” cannot be defined, measured or rationalized, although it exists and can be asserted; the characteristic that all works of art share, however, is that they are different and unique, constituting a “new reality;” finally, the relation between the arts can only be described by talking of one form of art “as if it were operating in another,” and as if “all arts worked in the same way” achieving what he calls the “interact analogy” (1-3). The second principle in particular is of importance to this study as it stresses the impossibility of measuring equivalences between forms of art: that no direct unproblematic translation or collaboration is possible between the arts. This brings the theories on the relation between the word and the image full circle back to Lessing in his stipulation that poetry and painting imitate each other by referring to the same object (54); and although imitation of form is explicitly rejected by Dayan, its essence is present in his recipe to achieve the “interart analogy,” namely: “talking of Sculpting with Words 6 one form of art as if it were operating in another” (1-3) which suggests a fluidity of form, both in creating the work of art and in its analysis. Drawing on the above-mentioned second principle it can be argued that although it is not possible to have a direct translation of a sculpture like the Giza Sphinx in a poem or text, it is possible to write poems/texts that take the sphinx as its object. The relationship between the Sphinx sculpture and the poem that takes the sculpture as its object would be one of rendition/reformulation, shaped by a multitude of factors and put to the service of various intentions, such as those stated by Richard Stamelman. It would not be feasible to explore the possibilities, dimensions and limitations of interart translation- in this case of the sculpture of the Giza Sphinx in poems/texts- without taking into consideration the full body of theoretical work carried out on the concept of ekphrasis above-outlined. Tracing the manifestations of interart translation in the following selected examples entails a focus on the mechanics of interaction between the verbal and the visual in these poems as the sculpture is brought to the page. The word “Sphinx” here does not refer to the physical sculpture located in Egypt, nor does it refer to the object pictured by the original Pharaonic sculptor. The Sphinx depicted in such a poem is not simply a stone block, but functions semiologically, to use Pimentel’s words, as a “sacred syntax,” and a “petrified concept” (64). The Sphinx depicted here is also the “ekphrastic other” of the sculpture, to use Pimentel’s term. In other words, an ekphrasis that can reach the level of interart translation is not a mere translation of the Giza Sphinx sculpture but an artistic rendition/reformulation by a writer of the meaning attached to the Sphinx at a number of levels and through numerous filters that add new meaning to the sculpture. This can literally achieve the sculpture-aspoem/text formula, where the work of sculpture is spoken of as if it were a poem, becomes part of it, and voices the repository of references with which it is replete. In this rendition/reformulation it is important to gauge how the poem deals aesthetically with the gaps and inadequacies between the medium of the visual image of the Sphinx (with the attached repository of meaning), and the verbal representation, and how it can make up for the Sculpting with Words 7 silence and the static nature of the image of the sculpture that it aims to conjure up. The following literary texts will facilitate conducting a practical exploration of the possibilities, dimensions and limitations of interart translation, based on previous theoretical efforts. The texts analyzed thus act as a reference point and a touchstone for this theoretical exploration. The interest here is not one of literary analysis, but rather looking into the texts solely as translations of the Sphinx sculpture. This dimension has not been tackled in previous analyses of these texts. In the poem Abul Houl (The Sphinx), by the Egyptian poet Ahmed Shawqy (1868-1932), published in 1918, various traditional traits are attributed to the Giza Sphinx: as a witness and a defiant of the passage of time. Rather than describing the sculpture, as would be the expectation in traditional ekphrasis, the sculpture is addressed directly: َ ‫الم ركـــوبُكَ متـــنَ الرمـــا ِل ِل‬ ‫ب السِّـ َح ْر؟‬ ِ ‫ي األَصيـ ِل َو َج ْـو‬ ِِّ ‫طـ‬ َ ‫ِإ‬ ْ َ ً ُ ُ )231( ‫َّـفر؟‬ ْ ‫بـار الس‬ َ ‫ فأيِّــان تلقــي غ‬،‫تُســـافر منتقــال فــي القــرو ِن‬ Whereto do you ride the back of the sands Till the fall of dusk and the rise of dawn? You travel, moving across the centuries When will you drop the burden of your travels?7 (132) The static nature of the sculpture is a gap that is overcome by creating the image of the Sphinx as a traveller across time rather than across space. The Sphinx here becomes a witness of various eras and historical figures, such as Julius Caeser: ‫صر‬ ً َ‫ وكيف أذل بمصر الق‬،‫وشاهدت قيصر وكيف استبد‬ )231( ‫وكيف تجبر أعوانه وساقوا الخالئق سوق ال ُحمر‬ You saw how Caesar tyrannized and humiliated Egypt’s palace and how his haughty his aides became driving people around like camels (139) Sculpting with Words 8 The aim here is to fill in the gaps that are part and parcel of the muteness of sculpture. Silence is thus recurrently portrayed as elective on the part of the sculpture as it witnesses the passage of time and people, setting its relative immortality in contrast with the mortality of the historical figures that pass beside it, both in time and place. The process unfolding here brings to mind Janee J. Baugher’s earlier mentioned view on how poets use words to “stab” at wordlessness ( “Secret Designs, Public Shapes: Ekphrastic Tensions in Hildegard’s Scivias,” 113). The poet draws on history to endow the sculpture with the historical value not immediately available at the visual level. This verbal dimension is cable of helping the visual work of art to transcend its boundaries and portray a more profound aesthetic experience. The rendition of numerous historical events is resumed throughout the poem, with a continual reference to the unnatural immortality of the Sphinx. The Sphinx is an integral albeit silent part of these events and of the passage of time, even becoming immersed in a striking image, where the sand around and between the paws of the Sphinx is pictured as the sins of people across the ages: )231( ‫كأن الرمال على جانبيك وبين يديك ذنوب البشر‬ As if the sand at your sides and between your paws are the sins of people (136) The poem takes a turn towards its end when the Sphinx is explicitly requested to move, and implicitly to come to life: )211( ‫ حتى الحجر‬، ‫ هذا الزمان تحرك ما فيه‬، ‫تحرك أبا الهول‬ ِّ Move, Sphinx, in this age everything has moved, even stone! (144) Surprisingly, the Sphinx responds, with the poet taking a step back, leaving the voice of the poem to another person/persona who says that when the poet ended his poem “another [person/poet]” hiding behind the sculpture and talking with its voice answered him: :((‫))فلما أتمها أجابه آخر كان يختفي وراء التمثال وينطق بلسانه‬ ‫ ودان القدر‬،‫ والن الزمان‬،‫ي أبي الهول آن األوان‬ ِّ ‫نج‬ ‫ وال يخبأ العذب مثل الحجر‬،‫خبأت لقومك ما يستقوون به‬ Sculpting with Words 9 ‫فعندي الملوك بأعيانها وعند التوابيت منها األثر‬ )211( ‫ وهذا هو الفلق المنتظر‬،‫محا ظلمة اليأس صبح الرجا‬ ((So when he completed it [the poem], another person hiding behind the sculpture and talking with its voice answered him)): Sphinx whisperer, the time has come, and destiny is close I have hidden for your people their source of empowerment, sweet things are best held in stone I have the kings with their notables, and their traces are at the coffins The morning of hope has erased the darkness of despair and that is the awaited dawn (144) The voice of the Sphinx here fills in the gaps of silence, as the repository of references with which the sculpture is replete is put into concise words. Giving a voice to the Sphinx- albeit that of a man speaking on its behalf -is reminiscent of theoretical views on the possibility of ekphrasis adding artistic dimensions to works of art to liberate them from their boundaries. Here the forever mute Sphinx is given “new dimensions of life and a new vividness” thus conforming with Françoise Meltzer’s view on the possibilities opened up by ekphrasis (21). Opening up new possibilities for the Sphinx takes on literal dimensions at the end of the poem with the sculpture’s breast opening up to reveal a young man and woman who sing a song of patriotism that is totally removed from the original poem. Although this part is the weakest in the poem artistically, it continues to demonstrate how an ekphrasis can incorporate ideological factors that shape the way the art object is interpreted (Pimental 64). In this case Shawqy uses the Sphinx to articulate a message of patriotism that is very relevant to the context of the production of the poem. The view of the Sphinx and hence its interpretation are oriented through a type of “filter, to use Pimental’s term- in this case patriotic, that will in turn shape subsequent interpretations of the Sphinx. Sculpting with Words 10 A number of the artistic motifs used in Shawqy’s rendition of the Sphinx can be traced in other poems about the sculpture: The passage of time around the Sphinx is often demonstrated by lively depictions of historical events and characters: In the short poem “A Sphinx” (1916) by Carl Sandburg (1878-1967), this process takes place together with the motif of silence appearing once more: Close-mouthed you sat five thousand years and never let out a whisper. Processions came by, marchers, asking questions you answered with grey eyes never blinking, shut lips never talking. Not one croak of anything you know has come from your cat crouch of ages. I am one of those who know all you know and I keep my questions: I know the answers you hold. 8 (1) What is portrayed as elective silence here fills in the gap between the visual and the verbal by describing the sculpture as “never blinking” and “never talking.” This helps in recreating the motif of elective silence and motionlessness, setting up the sculpture as an omniscient witness of the passage of time and events, with the added characteristic of the wise holder of answers. This interpretation is similarly made by Andrew Downing (1838-1917), in his depiction of the Egyptian Sphinx in Giza in his poem, even alluding to character of Caesar as a historical figure as witnessed by the Sphinx. Here also the Sphinx “sits and broods,” “in hermit loneliness” as it “stare across the sands” with “marble-mute” lips (1). Downing also uses the Sphinx sculpture as an opportunity to ponder on life: So, fronting every man that lives, there is A dark enigma that he may not solve— A mute and stony Sphinx whose riddle deep Is never wholly guessed, though all the lore, And wisdom of the ages, help the quest ( 1) Sculpting with Words 11 This riddle motif conforms to the Sphinx of Greek mythology, showing how cultural and mythological factors can control attempts of interart translation and shape them. Incidentally, this motif is so fitting with the Giza Sphinx and true to the appearance of the sculpture- perhaps demonstrating how the mythological story was born in the first place. Ahmed Shawqy too describes the Sphinx as an enigma that has marveled the Bedouins across ages in his poem (134). A totally different set of filters are at work in the poem “The Sphinx” published in the travel book by W.H.Auden and Christopher Isherwood in 1939, with the Sphinx scorned, insulted and belittled: Did it once issue from the carver’s hand Healthy? Even the earliest conquerors saw The face of a sick ape, a bandaged paw A Presence in a hot invaded land.. This scorning of the Sphinx is unique in renditions/translations of the sculpture and is testimony to the power of the ideological filters shaping ekphrasis in this poem9. Here the poets assume the role of the conquerors and their ideological views lead to this uniquely humiliating rendition of the Sphinx sculpture. The poets do not fail however to attempt to fill the gap between the verbal and the visual; they give the Sphinx a voice- albeit with an amusing outcome: Do people like me? No. The slave amuses The lion: “Am I to suffer always?” Yes. The poem demonstrates how an ekphrastic text can orient and modify the view of the art object, realizing the type of critical ekphrasis described by Pimentel. The attempt to fill the gap between the visual and the sculpted takes on exaggerated proportions in the French poem “The Sphinx” by Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891). Here the Sphinx is portrayed once more as a female figure sitting “silently,” and once more an “awesome guard,” but then things change as “beings long since gone rise up in the dark:” Sculpting with Words 12 Ressurgis du passé, ils defilent en cadence: Grands colossus de pierre a tete de belier Sphinx, griffons, ibis, pharaons et guerriers Tous viennent une nuit pour la derniere séance... Reemerging from the past, they parade rhythmically: Great giants of stone with heads of rams, Sphinx, griffons Ibis, Pharaohs and warriors All come one night for a last visit (2) The emerging “giants of granite and ghosts of snow” (2) disappear with the rise of dawn; then a message is delivered: Un pharaon de pierre interpelle le mortels Pour leur dire que leur corps n’est que de la poussiere A Pharaoh of stone challenges the mortals and tells them That their body is only dust (2) These visitors from the past, the animated statues, are an admirable artistic image, inscribed at a time before the birth of animation and graphics. The poem brings to mind Meltzer and Baugher’s stipulation of ekphrasis’ ability to add new dimensions of life and a new vividness to the work of art in ways that cause them to transgress the boundaries of its original artistic medium. As the sculptures are brought to life, not only is the gap between the verbal and the visual bridged, but a whole civilization is brought to the scene and brought to life. The immortality of the sculpture is set against the mortality of man as the voice of the Pharaoh is implied, needing no words to deliver its message. To conclude, it has been argued that although there will never be a direct or final translation of a work of art in another, there will always be interart renditions, with filters through which these renditions pass: ideological, cultural, aesthetic, mythological and subjective. These, in turn, do produce some recurrent motifs and repetitive themes that shape future renditions of the visual arts in the verbal medium. Sculpting with Words 13 Supporting the previously mentioned views of Mitchell, Foucault and Shapiro, it is clear that it is not possible to bridge the gap between the verbal and the visual; yet the incompatibility of the two media can be seen as a rich ground for innovative artistic expression. The boundaries of the art object are accordingly pushed to encompass other media that enhance its artistic message. Converting the information in visual art to the medium of writing shows how both media can deliver the same message. Yet, this process often takes place through diverse “intentions” that are put to play, to use Stamelman’s previously mentioned view. Seeing ekphrasis as a representation of a “long conversation” in western texts according to Barbetti, and viewing the contest between words and images as embodying the basic contradictions of western culture according to Mitchell is testimony to both the richness and the complexity of the term. Accordingly, as Dayan stipulates, although there can be no direct translation of works of visual art, verbal renditions/reformulations of works of art like the Sphinx can display common motifs and/or characteristics. The meaning attached to this sculpture can be inscribed using a number of filters, adding new meaning. This can literally achieve the sculpture-aspoem/text formula, where the work of sculpture is spoken of as if it were a poem, becomes part of it, and voices the repository of references with which it is replete. In the analysed examples, it is shown how the writers, in their verbal/ekphrastic representations of the sculpture, make up for the silence and the static nature of this work of visual art. The result is an interart translation of the sculpture by which it acquires a voice and is capable of transcending its boundaries is diverse ways. The various filters applied by the writers, including cultural and ideological ones, shape the renditions/translation of the sculpture in aesthetically diverse ways. This analysis paves the way for further studies on the nature of interart translation and suggests the possibility of tracing this process in more theoretically rigourous ways. Sculpting with Words 14 Endnotes 1 Students of rhetoric in the Roman Empire were taught that ekphrasis constitutes the ability to describe a subject matter in a visually vivid manner. This element of “visual vividness” is considered the main feature of ekphrasis by Greek rhetoric teachers such as first century Theon, with Progymnasmata (basic exercises in rhetoric) including the first definitions of the term (Webb 1,2; Zanker 59). See Andrew Laird “Sounding Out Ekphrasis: Art and Text” in Catullus 64’, JRS, 83 (1993): 18–30, and Donald R. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge, 1983). The lengthy description of the Shield of Achilles in Homer’s Iliad in the eighteenth century is often cited as the earliest example of this literary technique in Western literature (Heffernan, The Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery, 9). Ekphrasis created a powerful type of illusion or fiction, displaying the ability of language to construct a “universe of likeness” (10). The qualities of clarity and vividness were integral components in the creation of this illusive, fictional reality (D’Angelo 445). In ancient ekphrases, works of art were complemented with narrative accounts to describe their subjects and events, with writers incorporating narrative elements related to these works in their descriptions. The sharp demarcation between ekphrasis and narration was thus absent, with both the work of art and its ekphrasis having shared referents (D’Angelo 443; W ebb 8). Providing the narrative context to readers was a method of improving the understanding of a painting (D’Angelo 444). Additionally, the way that ekphrasis was put to use in rhetoric exercises placed the focus on appealing to the listener rather than on any success in conveying the subject of description. The fact that this is a description is of an imaginary object has opened up debate on the nature of ekphrasis (see Haffernan 1993 and Francis 2009). In current critical discourse, ekphrasis first appeared in the second half of the twentieth century, and only then was it used in relation to modern literature, rather than being reserved for classical texts (Webb 5, 6). In poetry, ekphrasis first appeared in isolated parts of narrative verse, then was put to use in lyric poetry (D’Angelo 445). Sculpting with Words 15 2 It can also be argued that poets/writers who practice ekphrasis inevitably become immersed and overwhelmed by the craft and tools of the real or imaginary visual art that has entered the text (Tewfik 3). 3 In another work, Mitchell refers to this tension and resistance between the verbal and the visual, calling it this time a “contest between the intere” (“What Is Image” 530). He attempts to historicize this contest by dealing with it as one that that highlights the “fundamental contradictions of our culture” (530). 4 Claire Barbetti, believes that the verbal dimension added to works of art is capable of drawing upon “memory banks” that are incidentally very visual, providing the perfect formula for communicating meaning (81). Here the art object does not exist in isolation or singularity, but as an amalgamation of multiple media that inter-react and inter-respond (81). 5 Shapiro explores the works of various post-structuralist theorists, showing how their writings shed light on the distance in translation between the image and the word in both directions (19). He uses the legend that the poet of the ekphrasis of the Shield of Achilles was blind and the fact that the object of description was impossible because it involved movement to strengthen his argument; he maintains that absence is a significant element in ekphrasis (15). In the type of art she calls “extraverted art,” stemming from the unconscious mind through a sort of detachment, ekphrasists give themselves over to a type of submission to the demands of the object of art and creative forces, enabling the poet to “lead from an object to the universe” (112). 6 7 Translations of Shawqy in this paper are conducted by Lamia Tewfik 8 This excerpt is the full poem. This poem is seen by Nicholas Jenkins as part of a “de-anglicising” process, shown in the sculpture’s facing away from America, being oriented towards the past, while the implication is that the future “lies in looking towards America” (41). 9 Sculpting with Words 16 Works Cited Auden, W. H., and Christopher Isherwood. Journey to a War. Faber and Faber Limited, 1939. Barbetti, Claire. “Secret Designs, Public Shapes: Ekphrastic Tensions in Hildegard’s Scivias.” Reading Memory and Identity in the Texts of Medieval European Holy Women, edited by Margaret Cotter, Lynch and Bradley Herzog, Palgrave, 2011, pp. 81-104. Barbetti, Claire. Ekphrastic Medieval Visions: A New Discussion in Interarts Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Baugher, Janee J. “Art to Art: Ekphrastic Poetry”. Boulevard vol. 25, no. 1, 2009, pp. 111-114. D'Angelo, Frank J. “The Rhetoric of Ekphrasis.” JAC: A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture and Politics, vol. 18, no, 3, 1998, pp. 439-447, <http://jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol18.3/dangelo-rhetoric.pdf> Accessed Jul. 2015. Dayan, Peter. “Introduction: The Five Laws of Interart Aesthetic.” Art as Music, Music as Poetry, Poetry as Art, from Whistler to Stravinsky and Beyond. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011, pp. 1-8. Davidson, Michael . “Ekphrasis and the Postmodern Painterly Poem.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 42, no. 1, Autumn 1983, pp. 69-79. Downing, Andrew.”The Sphinx.” www.blackcatpoems.com/d/the_sphinx .html#RKqvJt9xGHcHhFRy.99. Accessed Oct. 2015. Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Translated by Tavistock. Routledge, 1966, 1970. Sculpting with Words 17 Francis, James A.. “Metal Maidens, Achilles’ Shield, and Pandora: The Beginnings of Ekphrasis.” American Journal of Philology, vol. 13, no.1, Spring 2009, pp. 1-23. Halliday, Sam. Sonic Modernity: Representing Sound in Literature, Culture and the Arts.Edinburgh UP, 2013. Heffernan, James A. W. . “Ekphrasis and Representation.” New Literary History, vol. 2, .no. 2, Spring 1991, pp. 297- 316. Heffernan, James A. W. The Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery. University of Chicago Press, 1993. Hollander, John. The Gazer’s Spirit: Poems Speaking to Silent Works of Art. The University of Chicago Press, 1995. Jenkins, Nicholas. “Auden in America.” The Cambridge Companion to W.H. Auden, edited by Stan Smith, Cambridge UP, 2004, pp.39-54. Krieger, Murray. “Ekphrasis and the Still Movement of Poetry; or, Laokȯȯn Revisited.” Perspectives on Poetry, edited by James Calderwood and Harold Toliver, Oxford UP,1968. 323-48. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Laocoon: An Essay in the Limits of Painting and Poetry. Translatd by E.C. Beasley, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1853. Meltzer, Françoise. Salome and the Dance of Writing: Portraits of Mimesis in Literature. The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Mitchell, W. J. T. “What Is an Image?” New Literary History, vol.15, no. 3, Spring, 1984, pp. 503-537, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00286087%2189 8421%291 5%3A3%3C503%3AWIAI%3E2.O.C0%3B2-S. Accessed 15th June 2015. Sculpting with Words 18 Mitchell, W. J. T. “Ekphrasis and the Other.” Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp.151–81. Pimentel, Luz Aurora , “Ekphrasis and Cultural Discourse: Coatlicue in Descriptive and Analytic Texts.” Neohelicon, vol. 30, no. 1, 2003, pp. 61–75. Rimbaud, Arthur. “The Sphinx.” <www.historical.net/english.egypt/ 24sphonx.htm>. Accessed March 2016. Sandburg, Carl. “A Sphinx.” Chicago Poems, <http: Bartley.com/165/86.html> . Accessed Oct. 2015. Shapiro, Gary. “The Absent Image: Ekphrasis and the ‘Infinite Relation and Translation.” Journal of visual culture, vol. 6, no.1, 2007, pp.1324. Shawqy, Ahmed. Al ‘Amal Al-She’areya Al Kamila. Volume I. Dar El Awda, 1988. Stamelman, Richard. “Critical Reflections: Poetry and Art Criticism in Ashbery’s ‘Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror.” New Literary History vol. 15, no. 3, Spring 1984, pp.607-630. Tewfik, Lamia. “The Statuesque Poem: Dimensions of Ekphrasis in Thomas Woolner’s My Beautiful Lady.” Cairo Studies in English., Jan 2010, pp. 167-180. Webb, Ruth, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. Zanker, Graham. “New Light on the Literary Category of 'Ekphrastic Epigram' in Antiquity: The New Posidippus (Col. X 7-XI 19 p. Mil. vol. VIII 309).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Bd. 143, 2003, pp. 59-62, <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ekphrasis.html> Accessed Oct. 2015.