Advertisement

An Organism of Words: Ekphrastic Poetry and the Pedagogy of Perception

  • Anne KeefeEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education book series (COPT, volume 8)

Abstract

This essay locates our understanding of poetry in a kind of phenomenological trust in the body’s sensory experience—one that coincides with (but doesn’t necessarily parallel) the poet’s sensory experience in writing the poem. Grounded in the philosophical writings of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and using as a case study the ekphrastic poetry of Margaret Atwood and Marianne Moore, this essay posits that the kind of attention to detail demanded by the ekphrastic poem’s focus on and description of the perceptual encounter with the art object can be taken as a method for reading the lyric poem as perception in language. The theoretical approach outlined here can transform the teaching of poetry by shifting students’ experiences of poetry from the solely intellectual practice of exegesis to a whole-body sensory experience of language, sound, form, and vision.

Keywords

Perceptual Experience Symbolic Meaning Bodily Experience Sibling Rivalry Poetic Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Atwood, M. (1995). Manet’s olympia. In Morning in the burned house (pp. 24–25). New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, W. (1986). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations. New York: Shocken Books.Google Scholar
  3. Brodsky, J. (2002). How to ‘See’ with the whole body. Visual Studies, 17(2), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruns, G. L. (2012). What are poets for? An anthropology of contemporary poetry and poetics. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bryson, N. (1983). Vision and painting: The logic of the gaze. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carman, T. (2012). Foreword. In Phenomenology of perception (pp. vii–xvi). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, B. (1996). Introduction to poetry. In The apple that astonished Paris. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, L. (2010). The wild being of Louise Bourgeois: Merleau-Ponty in the Flesh. Romance Studies, 28(1), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costello, B. (1981). Ut Pictura Poesis: Moore and the Visual Arts. In Marianne Moore imaginary possessions (pp. 186–214). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, John. (2005). Art as experience. Pedigree, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Hagstrum, J. H. (1958). The sister arts: The tradition of literary pictorialism and english poetry from Dryden to Gray. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haney, D. (Fall 2004). A conversation with natasha trethewey. Cold Mountain Review, 33(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  13. Heffernan, J. A. (1993). Museum of words: The poetics of ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Keefe, A. (2011). The ecstatic embrace of verbal and visual: 21st century lyric beyond the Ekphrastic Paragone. Word & Image, 27.2, 135–147. Print.Google Scholar
  15. Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in poetic language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Leavell, L. (1995). Marianne Moore and the visual arts: Prismatic color. Baton Rouge: Lousiana State UP.Google Scholar
  17. Loizeaux, E. B. (2008). Twentieth century poetry and the visual arts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (Donald A. Landes, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1993). Indirect language and the voices of silence. In The Merleau-Ponty aesthetics reader (pp. 76–120). Chicago: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Sense and non-sense. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Moore, M. (1981). The complete poems of Marianne Moore. New York: Viking [1967].Google Scholar
  23. Moore, M., & Willis, P. C. (1986). The complete prose of Marianne Moore. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  24. Paul, C. (2002). Poetry in the museums of modernism: Yeats, pound, moore, stein. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, M., & Grace, S. (2003). The poems of Marianne Moore. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  26. Schulze, Robin G. (Spring 1998). Marianne Moore’s imperious ox, imperial dish and the poetry of the natural world. Twentieth Century Literature , 44(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  27. Weatherhead, A. K. (Dec 1964). Two kinds of vision in Marianne Moore. ELH, 31(4), 482–496.Google Scholar
  28. Webb, R. (1999). Ekphrasis ancient and modern: The Invention of a Genre. Word and Image, 15, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Webb, R. (2009). Ekphrasis, imagination and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EnglishUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations