ABSTRACT

 

Departing from self-analysis, the annexation of metalepsis in the field of composition comes to subsume formal concerns that whether founded or spanned my projects almost systematically. Featured as the figure of speech which mentors formal transgression and paradoxality, metalepsis necessarily conveys a reception based approach of æsthetics. In that sense (the sense that very minds the effects at reception), if the artist's corruptibility embodies a significant danger towards his production, it might reveal the negative appearance of a psycho-æsthetical open-mindedness still unready (less polemically, indifferent or unwilling) to welcome addressee’s activity. The stakes of my formalization stand symmetrically in opposition : the prior consideration of making’s effects tends to retroact positively through enhancing the manipulability of material, multiplying the power of speech of arranged entities, lighting the transcendent horizon of their play.

 

key-words : metalepsis ; figurality ; rhetorics ; litterature sciences ; semiotics ; epistemology ; æsthetics ; stylistics ; music ; composition ; form ; morphology ; structure ; dimension ; transgression ; paradoxality ; transtextuality ; effects ; reception ; tension ; expressiveness ; autopoiesis

FURTHER DEFINITIONS & EXTRA-MUSICAL EXAMPLES

 

¿ formal trangression ?

--> an illegitimate interpenetration of narrative layers which are supposed to be distinct (G. GENETTE).

¿ rhetorical versus ontological metalepsis  ?

--> the distinction relies on the size or depth of the metaleptic affection in the narrative structure, i.e gradually from a begnin local affection to a real serious contamination of the overall laying out. (M.-L. RYAN)

¿ diegetic disruption & æsthetico-stylistic inductions ?

--> The nature and depth of the disruptive relations established in between any identified fonctional agents might control the æsthetic thickness of a work and its artistry. (G. MOLINIÉ)

 

--> The nature and depth of the arranged disruptive relations might subvert the relations that normally prevail in such : schools, genres, systems, traditions, cultures, ...

 

--> If the sake for difference, as the state of making naturally subvertly (?), are nurturing the ground for high stylicity, there might be formal correlations in between :

metaleptic processing

<->

diegetic disruption

<->

æsthetic depth

<->

artistry

TECHNICAL OPERATIONS

 

¡ fundamental legitimacy of migration !

--> If the fonctional agents mentionned right above may rather be : persons (artist, editor, audience, ...) and characters (figures, actors, ...) I hereby see no strong epistemological reason not to assume that any identified semiotic entities (words, signs, symbols, sounds and musems,...) might endorse their formal subversion duty.

¡ Metalepsis :  musical spreading of the figure !

 From the edge of sound to the open textuality... 

--> that is to say :

The musical metaleptic manipulations might gradually range from more or less local treatments of acoustic ambiguity to more or less global transtextual operations.