“Though poems based on paintings are nothing new in American literature, they have proliferated in the contemporary period, as the esthetic distance between poets and painters has diminished” (Moramarco 25). I agree with Moramarco here, as I have, in recent years, discovered the rise of ekphrastic poetry. That is, poetry, or any writing that is based on artwork. This observation is legitimate, and I believe it adequately outlines the context of much contemporary art and poetry. Ekphrastic expression does minimize the gap between painter and poet aesthetically, giving words to pictures or associating a painting with words. The thoughts of the writer become one with the painting, and vice versa. I question if poetry created from paintings is truly just an American trend, as Moramarco claims.
“I am Effie, visible and invisible, / remembering and remembered” (Rich lines 19-20). These lines expose the identity Rich attributes to the little girl in Elmer’s painting. This artistic interpretation is based on the contents of the painting, with the little girl (presumed deceased) and her mourning parents. There is prominence in the voice of this young girl through these lines, where she states her identity and her battle with it after her death. The reader knows the girl’s name, but who is she? Rich adds a unique dimension to Elmer’s piece by giving one of the characters a voice.
Together, Rich and Moramarco comment on an art form that is often seen but not named: ekphrastic writing. Rich, in particular, engages with the visual art of Elmer’s “Mourning Picture” by exploring a character’s thoughts, feelings, and identity. Moramarco, instead, considers the form of the writing employed by Rich. He defines the context for Rich’s work, allowing the reader to understand the creative form before reading the interpretive piece. These two authors engage in different forms (poetry and prose/analytical writing), yet their pieces complement each other, one providing commentary on the other. Based on the quote, Moramarco would consider Elmer and Rich aesthetically similar. I am not sure of this, as they discuss the same topic (since the poem is based on the painting), but does that make them similar aesthetically? Maybe, at least for this painting and this poem, but otherwise, it is unclear.
Where did the ekphrastic form come from? Why is there a shift towards it in the U.S. in particular? What about other ekphrastic works like writing from other art forms (music, dance, theater, etc.)? Can ekphrastic writing come from other writing? Does that make critique a form of ekphrastic expression? Does Elmer’s painting coupled with Rich’s poem make the two artists similar aesthetically, as Moramarco proposes?
