The ekphrasis, a fancy word that I just learned myself, is an art history term meaning, ":vivid description." The ekphrasis was originally used to describe great works of art in an era before picture-taking was possible. So the great writers of the classical world would spill out the details on a work of visual art for others to read or listen to if they could not travel to see the work itself. Their descriptions would also evoke emotions in the reader/listener. Great ekphrases could actually be studied by artists who would then recreate the visual art based on what had been described. With enough written detail, the artist would not only be able to just recreate the dimensions and colors, but the mood of the work. The seemingly interpretive, anecdotal experience could actually produce true results, truer than if the painter had just been given a materials list with measurement specifications for the images within the painting. If that is the case with visual art, could it also be the case for other areas of human existence?
I'd argue that yes, the practice of ekphrasis can be transferred to everyday events as well.What's being lost when we don't consider the value of literary expression?
Well, actually a few things.
Our ability to articulate a facet of our own reality (and perspective) is key to building empathy among each other. It also allows an audience to partake in another's points of view. When we look at histories that are taught as the literal word, we see less empathy for "others" left out of the histories, because the readers/listeners have been inculcated to believe it to be a "T" truth. In a softer "t" truth, there is more room for other perspectives to not only exist but to be considered real as well. Furthermore, the dying art of reading is often lamented among the readers of the world as a loss of a particular type of empathetic experience that can only be achieved by taking part in another's written point of view.
In regards to modern education in the US, the Common Core and further standardization of not only the curricula but of how teachers are teaching a particular activity provides a similar effect to the lack of ekphrasis in the modern art world. The conversations that were once held between teacher and curricula, between student and teacher, student and curricula are muted. The conversation morphs into a monologue constantly streaming from a centralized source that is not looking for any sort of input from the lower levels of the hierarchy. The government bureaucracy that has grown around the education system in the US has made it very difficult for the average teacher, let alone student, to have a real voice. When we cut off a large group from participating in the conversation, we end up with a disgruntled populace that feels their voice is not heard or valued. Think back to that high school teacher you had whose sole purpose in life was to get everyone to shut their mouths so that they could fill your head up with what they thought that you should know. Whose assessments left little leeway for any sort of expression or interpretation by the test-taker. Unless you had "grit" (another bullshit term for another time), you probably didn't care too much about that class or the grade you got in it.
I'd argue that yes, the practice of ekphrasis can be transferred to everyday events as well.What's being lost when we don't consider the value of literary expression?
Well, actually a few things.
Our ability to articulate a facet of our own reality (and perspective) is key to building empathy among each other. It also allows an audience to partake in another's points of view. When we look at histories that are taught as the literal word, we see less empathy for "others" left out of the histories, because the readers/listeners have been inculcated to believe it to be a "T" truth. In a softer "t" truth, there is more room for other perspectives to not only exist but to be considered real as well. Furthermore, the dying art of reading is often lamented among the readers of the world as a loss of a particular type of empathetic experience that can only be achieved by taking part in another's written point of view.
In regards to modern education in the US, the Common Core and further standardization of not only the curricula but of how teachers are teaching a particular activity provides a similar effect to the lack of ekphrasis in the modern art world. The conversations that were once held between teacher and curricula, between student and teacher, student and curricula are muted. The conversation morphs into a monologue constantly streaming from a centralized source that is not looking for any sort of input from the lower levels of the hierarchy. The government bureaucracy that has grown around the education system in the US has made it very difficult for the average teacher, let alone student, to have a real voice. When we cut off a large group from participating in the conversation, we end up with a disgruntled populace that feels their voice is not heard or valued. Think back to that high school teacher you had whose sole purpose in life was to get everyone to shut their mouths so that they could fill your head up with what they thought that you should know. Whose assessments left little leeway for any sort of expression or interpretation by the test-taker. Unless you had "grit" (another bullshit term for another time), you probably didn't care too much about that class or the grade you got in it.
School reformers who focus on statistical evidence for their policies should really reconsider. Add literary, anecdotal evidence to your stock. Go on field interviews, observe classrooms, stop trying to standardize an experience that is so uniquely human that it cannot be standardized without losing something.
Unfortunately, this does not simply occur in the education arena. The ability to vote and to express a political voice has been counteracted by an exceedingly convoluted and bloated political structure. We are living increasingly standardized experiences, even as there is seemingly more and more individualization in regards to the types of advertisements we see, the music we listen to and the channels we watch. Why is that? Because when it comes down to it, whether you buy an iphone or an android, you're still doing the same thing to it - the packaging is different, but the use of the product is the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment