What is a 'good' poem

[TheFifthElement]

The forum has got me thinking.

Over the past 24 hours there's been a 'poet bashing' going on, against Charles Bukowski, with comments being made such as 'there's not much poetry...', as well as other's who have suggested that it's not possible to judge a poets work in an objective way (i.e. is your judgement coloured by whether you 'like' the poem, or not).

Of course everyone is entitled to like a poets work or not, but the debate got me thinking.

- what is poetry?
- what makes poetry good, or bad?
- can poetry be judged objectively?

Comments please :D

[jon1jt]

The forum has got me thinking.

Over the past 24 hours there's been a 'poet bashing' going on, against Charles Bukowski, with comments being made such as 'there's not much poetry...', as well as other's who have suggested that it's not possible to judge a poets work in an objective way (i.e. is your judgement coloured by whether you 'like' the poem, or not).

Of course everyone is entitled to like a poets work or not, but the debate got me thinking.

- what is poetry?
- what makes poetry good, or bad?
- can poetry be judged objectively?

Comments please :D

poetry is a dream's excrement surging out to sea. (inspired by my inner-bukowski. :p )

poetry is judged objectively only once, in those moments before you decide to write a poem. ;)

[Lote-Tree]

In physics, there is a concept called "resonance" and resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at maximum amplitude at a certain frequency. This frequency is known as the system's resonance frequency.

"Good" poetry is the one that resonates and therefore a Rubik's Cube could never be poetry :D

[Granny5]

In physics, there is a concept called "resonance" and resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at maximum amplitude at a certain frequency. This frequency is known as the system's resonance frequency.

"Good" poetry is the one that resonates and therefore a Rubik's Cube could never be poetry :D

huh???:lol:
just kidding

[ampoule]

In physics, there is a concept called "resonance" and resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at maximum amplitude at a certain frequency. This frequency is known as the system's resonance frequency.

"Good" poetry is the one that resonates and therefore a Rubik's Cube could never be poetry :D

Wow Lote...You have given me the answer I need for today. Truly. I am not being facetious.

[Lote-Tree]

huh???:lol:
just kidding

He he :D Gran did not mean to baffle you with Physics. I meant to say that "Good" poetry resonates with inmost parts of our being. It speaks directly to our soul...

[blazeofglory]

The forum has got me thinking.

Over the past 24 hours there's been a 'poet bashing' going on, against Charles Bukowski, with comments being made such as 'there's not much poetry...', as well as other's who have suggested that it's not possible to judge a poets work in an objective way (i.e. is your judgement coloured by whether you 'like' the poem, or not).

Of course everyone is entitled to like a poets work or not, but the debate got me thinking.

- what is poetry?
- what makes poetry good, or bad?
- can poetry be judged objectively?

Comments please :D

In fact it is really hard to say which is a good poem and what is a bad one, and in fact poems can be consdiered bad at times if they are properly worded or there are indeed some grammatical gaffes. But unlike works of prose poetic feelings cascade from the heart and indeed things that come from the hear can not be bad. I love poems and to me mo poems are bad. There is only a question of style.

[Virgil]

The forum has got me thinking.

Over the past 24 hours there's been a 'poet bashing' going on, against Charles Bukowski, with comments being made such as 'there's not much poetry...', as well as other's who have suggested that it's not possible to judge a poets work in an objective way (i.e. is your judgement coloured by whether you 'like' the poem, or not).

Of course everyone is entitled to like a poets work or not, but the debate got me thinking.

- what is poetry?
- what makes poetry good, or bad?
- can poetry be judged objectively?

Comments please :D
The simplest, most basic encapsulating definition of poetry is that it is charged language. Not mundane, everyday language ( no one naturally speaks in rhyme or imabic rhythm or with alliteration, if you want to go back to Shakespeare) but charged language. Poetry then is the art of crafting language to make it special. Now we may dispute what is charged to some degree. But we can agree that cliches and common phrasaing is not crafted language.

[blp]

Claes Oldenberg on happenings in the sixties: 'There was always a moment when someone said, "But is it art?" This was always the moment when I left the room.'

I don't want to say what it is and the great thing is, the great thing about it is, I don't have to. Except I hate the word poetry and when a poem is too much like a poem, I don't like it as much.

[Petrarch's Love]

Claes Oldenberg on happenings in the sixties: 'There was always a moment when someone said, "But is it art?" This was always the moment when I left the room.'

This is my new favorite quote. Ah, the number of rooms I have speedily vacated after hearing such questions!

[TheFifthElement]

In fact it is really hard to say which is a good poem and what is a bad one, and in fact poems can be consdiered bad at times if they are properly worded or there are indeed some grammatical gaffes. But unlike works of prose poetic feelings cascade from the heart and indeed things that come from the hear can not be bad. I love poems and to me mo poems are bad. There is only a question of style.

Blaze, this is a very well considered answer, especially the last point 'There is only a question of style.'.


Claes Oldenberg on happenings in the sixties: 'There was always a moment when someone said, "But is it art?" This was always the moment when I left the room.'

I don't want to say what it is and the great thing is, the great thing about it is, I don't have to. Except I hate the word poetry and when a poem is too much like a poem, I don't like it as much.

Yes, I have thought long and hard about what is art, and came to the conclusions that some things are undefinable, some things just are. I love the quote.


The simplest, most basic encapsulating definition of poetry is that it is charged language. Not mundane, everyday language ( no one naturally speaks in rhyme or imabic rhythm or with alliteration, if you want to go back to Shakespeare) but charged language. Poetry then is the art of crafting language to make it special. Now we may dispute what is charged to some degree. But we can agree that cliches and common phrasaing is not crafted language.

I like the idea of 'charged language' as this draws away from the pretentious aura that 'poetry' can have. It doesn't have to be inaccessible, just emotive and, perhaps, crafted (although the degree of crafting may be more or less transparent ;) ).

[Bakiryu]

Poetry is a flow of words that inspires passion and surges emotion. It can be simple, a haiku or complex, laden with words you actually need a dictionary to find.

It it inspires you, affects you in any way, it's poetry and it's beautiful.

[Virgil]

I find it odd that no one claims they can write a symphony without extensive learning and practice, no one claims they can paint like Da Vinci without extensive learning and practice, and yet claim that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write poetry by just picking up a pen and expressing yourself. Expressing yourself without learning what peotry is hardly ever comes out to be poetry. In a free society any spurt of expression can be called art, but that doesn't make it good art. I never said Bukowski wasn't art. The real question is not is it art, but is it good art. That takes critical acumen.

[Psycheinaboat]

Virgil, I agree. I suspect many people take on the writing of poetry because good authors make it look so effortless.

I recently purchased a book that is a facsimile of many of Sylvia Plath’s journal entries. She wrote, revised, crossed out, wrote, and revised again for pages and pages. It takes time and effort to produce poetry that good.

It is just my opinion, but the best poetry I have read seems to not only be emotionally charged and stimulating, but also to have some rhythmic form. Not necessarily sonnets, etc., but also in free style forms.

[stlukesguild]

I find it odd that no one claims they can write a symphony without extensive learning and practice, no one claims they can paint like Da Vinci without extensive learning and practice, and yet claim that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write poetry by just picking up a pen and expressing yourself. Expressing yourself without learning what peotry is hardly ever comes out to be poetry. In a free society any spurt of expression can be called art, but that doesn't make it good art. I never said Bukowski wasn't art. The real question is not is it art, but is it good art. That takes critical acumen.

Virgil! You ARE an "elitist"!:lol:

[Virgil]

I find it odd that no one claims they can write a symphony without extensive learning and practice, no one claims they can paint like Da Vinci without extensive learning and practice, and yet claim that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write poetry by just picking up a pen and expressing yourself. Expressing yourself without learning what peotry is hardly ever comes out to be poetry. In a free society any spurt of expression can be called art, but that doesn't make it good art. I never said Bukowski wasn't art. The real question is not is it art, but is it good art. That takes critical acumen.

Virgil! You ARE an "elitist"!:lol:

:lol: Yes I am.

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately the egalitarian notion has infected visual art as well as literature. Indeed... I would suggest that the visual arts are perhaps the most prone to this thinking. While no one may claim that one might paint like Leonardo without extensive training there are certainly those who will claim that anyone and everyone is an artist and everything is art. This is of course somewhat disconcerting to anyone who has invested years in formal and informal or self-directed study and practice. No college freshman having taken a single class on biology would think to declare himself or herself a doctor or a scientist... but anyone who makes a few scribbles or doodles in attempting to express him/herself ("self-expression" being everything in this age of Oprah) is suddenly no less than Michelangelo.:brickwall

[tinustijger]

In physics, there is a concept called "resonance" and resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at maximum amplitude at a certain frequency. This frequency is known as the system's resonance frequency.

"Good" poetry is the one that resonates and therefore a Rubik's Cube could never be poetry :D

I thinks it's very pretty theorie :) But I think that the definition of good poetry differs per person, so there can never be a 'good poetry standard', you can't look at it objectively! But that's said already.

I can't define art, sometimes that's the whole point of it.

And about everyone attempting to create art: I think anyone can come to brilliant creations, but it can hold you back if you haven't studied a particular artform. It's harder to express yourself in that case. Maybe you have this perfect statue in your head, you'd like to make it, but you're not an accomplished sculptor, minor problem... Or in music, there are people who just come up with a brilliant tune, but if you can't express yourself through an instrument, the song can turn out, let's say, less brilliant :P Or if you can't find the right words for the lyrics ... too bad!

[stlukesguild]

And about everyone attempting to create art: I think anyone can come to brilliant creations, but it can hold you back if you haven't studied a particular artform.

I agree that there are marvelous artworks that were created by artists who were never formally educated in their chosen medium. In the visual arts we have the examples of Robert Motherwell, Henri Rousseau, Adolf Wolfli, etc... In most cases, however, these artist put in a great deal of effort in self-education and practice. However, the odds of the novice picking up a brush... a pen... an instrument... and painting a brilliant painting... writing a brilliant poem... or composing a fabulous piece of music are slim to none. I think the idea that this can be done happens less in music where one actually needs to be able to perform... to play an instrument or sing... than in poetry and painting where the notion of "self-expression" combined with the somewhat hermetic nature of more recent developments in the art forms (ie. abstract art) leads many to believe that "anything goes".

[Granny5]

I find it odd that no one claims they can write a symphony without extensive learning and practice, no one claims they can paint like Da Vinci without extensive learning and practice, and yet claim that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write poetry by just picking up a pen and expressing yourself. Expressing yourself without learning what peotry is hardly ever comes out to be poetry. In a free society any spurt of expression can be called art, but that doesn't make it good art. I never said Bukowski wasn't art. The real question is not is it art, but is it good art. That takes critical acumen.

Virgil, there is such a thing as a prodigy. There are people who just "know" certain things without extensive learning and study. I knew a young boy who could create art with paints and charcoal the first time he picked either up. And I knew a young girl who knew ballet well enough to teach after only a month or two of classes. It happens. As for writing poetry, surely there is someone in the world who has written beautiful poetry without extensive schooling and training. Maybe they just had a instinct for rhyme and meter.

[quasimodo1]

This thread contains posts by members for whom I have particular and specific respect. The question that is subject of this discussion looms in front of anyone writing or attempting to write poetry. The question itself insinuates a belief in an age-old judgement standard, i.e. is it good or not?...is it art or not? This cliche'd and false question is based on two option thinking, which, unfortunately, we all must answer sometimes. Happily with regard to poetry, there need not be a reply. Most artists realize that they don't usually get to answer it regarding their own work. The readers and the "audience" do make that decision. That judgement must also include the vast shades of grey between black and white. The professional critics have to address this question too, but they have the duty (if they are fair minded), to look at a poem from all sides and in three dimensions. I'm sure I know what is a "good poem" and a "great poem", and the corollary. This doesn't make my view correct. The tribe and the time make that judgement. As regards poetry, much of it's nature is indefinable. quasi

[stlukesguild]

Virgil, there is such a thing as a prodigy. There are people who just "know" certain things without extensive learning and study.

By and large I don't believe this in the least. No one just "knows" something. All art forms are are a language or a vocabulary and as such they must be learned. Some persons certainly learn these at an incredible rate and with the proper circumstances, at an amazingly young age. The prodigal abilities of Mozart, for example, are the stuff of legend... and yet almost none of his juvenalia are seriously considered as major works. Keats and Rimbaud produced masterworks of poetry at an amazingly young age... and yet if one looks into their biographies we discover that they were seriously studying literature and engaging in means of practice (early attempts at poetry as well as efforts in translation) from a very young age.

I knew a young boy who could create art with paints and charcoal the first time he picked either up.

As an art educator I have no reason to doubt this claim... except to ask just how good his works were and how much prior exposure to other means of artistic creation (drawing, crayons, watercolors, etc...) did he have? I have seen my share of child prodigies in art but I must agree with the critic Clement Greenberg who stated that "Prodigies don't count in art"... in music, perhaps, but not art. There have been any number of prodigies (Alexandra Nechita is perhaps the most famous recent example) in art and their work may be incredibly impressive... for a child... and that qualifying phrase says it all. Almost none of them have gone on to continue as artistic giants. But we do have such happen in music. Any number of our greatest classical performers began as child prodigies (Itzhak Perlman, Glenn Gould, Emile Gilels, Yehudi Menuhin, etc...)

As for writing poetry, surely there is someone in the world who has written beautiful poetry without extensive schooling and training. Maybe they just had a instinct for rhyme and meter.

Yes... they may have had no "formal" schooling, but they probably will have engaged in an intense self-directed study. An instinct for rhyme and meter... or rather the ability to rapidly grasp the concepts of rhyme and meter are a small part of what is needed by the poet. I don't think we can reduce mastery of poetry to the mere ability to rapidly master a few of the mechanical elements upon which it is built.

Quasi... I believe every artist MUST certainly ask this question of him/herself. During the creative process the question may change from "is it good/bad" to "is it better/worse" but few artists that I have met are unconcerned with the quality of their work or imagine that as all art is "self expressive" all art is equal in that it is expressive of the individual who created it. Perhaps the difficulty arises in that an artist becomes so involved with a work that he or she can become blind to its defects or its merits. It might also be noted that every artist's notions of "good" and "bad" are based upon the achievements of one's admired predecessors... but truly innovative work often involves challenging or turning these earlier standards upon their heads. This is perhaps even more true of Modern art where innovation is far more valued than the mastery of traditional forms.

[quasimodo1]

To stlukesguild: Going along with your view, trying to judge your own work (or play) is necessary; being too close to it for objective judgement calls...can be difficult but exceptions abound with creative process. Sometimes a positive inspiration and a feeling of great confidence can make the artist/writer totally self-assured. You have to love times like that. Your point about innovation being essential in certain artforms is perhaps least true in writing, where all writers stand on their ancestor's shoulders to some extent. quasi

KING HENRY V
'Tis good for men to love their present pains
Upon example; so the spirit is eased:
And when the mind is quicken'd, out of doubt,
The organs, though defunct and dead before,
Break up their drowsy grave and newly move,
With casted slough and fresh legerity.
Lend me thy cloak, Sir Thomas. Brothers both,
Commend me to the princes in our camp;
Do my good morrow to them, and anon
Desire them an to my pavilion.

[AuntShecky]

I already went through all this in a thread called "Why Write Poetry?" http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27620&highlight=Aunt+Shecky
It opened a whole can o' worms, which I really hadn't intended. But I still stand by most of it, although I hope that anybody who reads that posting doesn't take it personally, because there is a 99.99999% chance I wasn't referring to him or her, or to anyone who has ever posted anything on this website.

[quasimodo1]

To AuntShecky: Did not know about any repitition and I don't think anyone took what you posted personally. There are many matters relative to this that could stand another look. Now let me check the thread you mentioned. quasi

OK apparently some did take it personally but the thread did elicit this by firefangled (?)......"There is a hiding in us all that rises like the heat from a desert of desire. Deep within there is a place for summer days we dreamed, when all the windows filled with white and nights were cold and long. And deeper still, a nameless we, loves beyond the heart, beyond love in return. It surfaces along our veins, not in a flowing, but a tow as if something of the world, wonderful and wild wants it so, and pulls it slow, until we cannot help but write. This is why we live in this mirage of flesh and bone, for these moments that are poems, whether caught in words or passing on to another hiding in another hidden world." {great stuff.....quasi)

[Zombie]

>.< i'm not a big fan of the poetry that people come up with lately. everyone has to make it as depressing as possible, or they use clichés and big pretty words that don't fit. it's very annoying. lets go back to Poe people!

[Virgil]

Virgil, there is such a thing as a prodigy. There are people who just "know" certain things without extensive learning and study. I knew a young boy who could create art with paints and charcoal the first time he picked either up. And I knew a young girl who knew ballet well enough to teach after only a month or two of classes. It happens. As for writing poetry, surely there is someone in the world who has written beautiful poetry without extensive schooling and training. Maybe they just had a instinct for rhyme and meter.
My answer would be pretty much like St Luke's answer. I have never heard of a child prodigy in literature. The only ones I know of are in music, and they are performers not creators. The only one I can think who started creatively at a young age is Mozart, and while his work younger than say fifteen may be impressive for that age it is not the Mozart that is usually identified as his great work. Occaisionally in literature you come across someone who writes a fine novel or collection of poetry in their early twenties, but of the great writers I can only think of John Keats who's work as a yong man has held up. Perhaps I'm wrong. It would be interesting if someone researched it. But even John Keats was deligently studying and working and experimenting at a young age so that by his early twenties he hit his stride. He had extensive personal training.


This thread contains posts by members for whom I have particular and specific respect. The question that is subject of this discussion looms in front of anyone writing or attempting to write poetry. The question itself insinuates a belief in an age-old judgement standard, i.e. is it good or not?...is it art or not? This cliche'd and false question is based on two option thinking, which, unfortunately, we all must answer sometimes.
Well, i disagree. I have just been reading the Lit net October short story contest. They are nice stories. Unfortunately none of them stack up to William Faulkner. Yes, those stories are art, but are they good art? Don't tell me that we don't assess writing or that there isn't merit in assessing writing or art. Not all art is created equal. Critical aclaim by not just one person but by a consortium of critics is a necessary thing. I'll leave you with this question: If you are going to the book store to spend $30 on a book of poetry, are you going to spend it on my book or on Wallace Stevens' book? And if you didn't have anyone to tell you that Wallace Stevens is one of the premier American poets of the 20th century, how would you know?

[Granny5]

Virgil, you've made very good points. I know of no prodigy in literature. But maybe there is one out there somewhere. Who knows? The stories in the October Short Story contest are good, but they aren't great...nothing would be published other than in a school paper or something. I sure wouldn't buy anything I'd written. But, if we had all the great poems posted by some of the better poets here on LitNet in front of us, I bet we'd find some that were worthy of publishing. There is art here, but it seems that the outstanding ones are from the same writers. I think this is a place to improve, to learn. Maybe it's just to learn that we're not as good at writing as we want to be.
My hard earned money will only go to buy books that I have some reason to believe that I would enjoy.

[AuntShecky]

[And if you didn't have anyone to tell you that Wallace Stevens is one of the premier American poets of the 20th century, how would you know?[/QUOTE]

You know, there was a famous British literature professor,
Ivor Richards (I'm going to do an Internet search on him soon) who did a controversial experiement with his students. He gave them several poems to read; some were by established poets whose works were considered "classics," others were unknown works, some rejected, some by students. And the results were astounding:

the poems with the sterling reputations were not especially admired by the student group, and as you may guess, the "slush pile" type pieces were well-liked.

This tells us something about taste; it also tells us about
the power of a reputation, and it also -- I think-- tells us that the "uneducated eye" may sometimes spot genius, but more likely finds affinity with things most like itself.

So when I personally read something that I do not immediately "get"-- I give the heralded writer the benefit of the doubt, and give it another try. Because perhaps, just perhaps, the failing might lie within me, rather than the work. For this reason, someday I'll take another whack at our new Nobelist, Doris Lessing.

But not today.

Auntie

[Lote-Tree]

[You know, there was a famous British literature professor, Ivor Richards (I'm going to do an Internet search on him soon) who did a controversial experiement with his students. He gave them several poems to read; some were by established poets whose works were considered "classics," others were unknown works, some rejected, some by students. And the results were astounding:

the poems with the sterling reputations were not especially admired by the student group, and as you may guess, the "slush pile" type pieces were well-liked.


Good point Aunty. But it tells us something more. "Slush pile" pieces tend to resonate with us and thus we like it. These tend to express the human condition more easily. "Elitist" kind tells the same thing in some Intellectual-Mind-Game-Play...

[Virgil]

[And if you didn't have anyone to tell you that Wallace Stevens is one of the premier American poets of the 20th century, how would you know?

You know, there was a famous British literature professor,
Ivor Richards (I'm going to do an Internet search on him soon) who did a controversial experiement with his students. He gave them several poems to read; some were by established poets whose works were considered "classics," others were unknown works, some rejected, some by students. And the results were astounding:

the poems with the sterling reputations were not especially admired by the student group, and as you may guess, the "slush pile" type pieces were well-liked.

This tells us something about taste; it also tells us about
the power of a reputation, and it also -- I think-- tells us that the "uneducated eye" may sometimes spot genius, but more likely finds affinity with things most like itself.


Well, quite the contrary, that proves my point. You need an "educated eye" to discern a good poem from a mediocre. You're telling me that those kids can tell the difference between good and bad? I know some college students who prefer the Three Stooges over Shakespeare. What does that prove? Before college i couldn't aprreciate T.S. Eliot's poetry. I didn't even understand it.

[TheFifthElement]

>.< i'm not a big fan of the poetry that people come up with lately. everyone has to make it as depressing as possible, or they use clich&#233;s and big pretty words that don't fit. it's very annoying. lets go back to Poe people!

Zombie, have you read any modern poetry (post 1849)? The implication of your post is not.



If you are going to the book store to spend $30 on a book of poetry, are you going to spend it on my book or on Wallace Stevens' book?

Neither. I would buy a good anthology by Bloodaxe, and from that would decide which poets I would like to read more extensively.


I find it odd that no one claims they can write a symphony without extensive learning and practice, no one claims they can paint like Da Vinci without extensive learning and practice, and yet claim that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write poetry by just picking up a pen and expressing yourself. Expressing yourself without learning what peotry is hardly ever comes out to be poetry. In a free society any spurt of expression can be called art, but that doesn't make it good art. I never said Bukowski wasn't art. The real question is not is it art, but is it good art. That takes critical acumen.

I think this is very difficult to judge Virgil as we only ever see the finished product. What went into producing it is a mystery at best. Practice seems to be the key, I doubt very much that you can truly teach someone to be a poet or a writer. And even those who undertake practice and extensive learning may still produce 'bad' art. How do you know that those poems which appear to be someone picking up a pen and expressing themselves hasn't followed extensive learning and practice, and the masterpiece on the wall something the artist rattled off in a day?

[Granny5]

I think this is very difficult to judge Virgil as we only ever see the finished product. What went into producing it is a mystery at best. Practice seems to be the key, I doubt very much that you can truly teach someone to be a poet or a writer. And even those who undertake practice and extensive learning may still produce 'bad' art. How do you know that those poems which appear to be someone picking up a pen and expressing themselves hasn't followed extensive learning and practice, and the masterpiece on the wall something the artist rattled off in a day?
But wasn't this what Virgil was saying? It take pratice and study and learning to create art. I do believe that there are people in this world who just "know" how to create art with certain mediums like paint or clay and some who have a natural talent in dance and acting. But, with words, I would think that at the least one would have to spend time reading other's work.


[And if you didn't have anyone to tell you that Wallace Stevens is one of the premier American poets of the 20th century, how would you know?

You know, there was a famous British literature professor,
Ivor Richards (I'm going to do an Internet search on him soon) who did a controversial experiement with his students. He gave them several poems to read; some were by established poets whose works were considered "classics," others were unknown works, some rejected, some by students. And the results were astounding:

the poems with the sterling reputations were not especially admired by the student group, and as you may guess, the "slush pile" type pieces were well-liked.

This tells us something about taste; it also tells us about
the power of a reputation, and it also -- I think-- tells us that the "uneducated eye" may sometimes spot genius, but more likely finds affinity with things most like itself.

So when I personally read something that I do not immediately "get"-- I give the heralded writer the benefit of the doubt, and give it another try. Because perhaps, just perhaps, the failing might lie within me, rather than the work. For this reason, someday I'll take another whack at our new Nobelist, Doris Lessing.

But not today.

Auntie[/QUOTE]

This tells me that just because I don't care for a poem doesn't mean it isn't art. And just because it's by someone reknown doesn't mean it is either.
There is wonderful poetry out there (and here) that is worthy of the label "art" written by unknown writers. It is all subjective. Art is in the mind of the reader.

[TheFifthElement]

But wasn't this what Virgil was saying? It take pratice and study and learning to create art. I do believe that there are people in this world who just "know" how to create art with certain mediums like paint or clay and some who have a natural talent in dance and acting. But, with words, I would think that at the least one would have to spend time reading other's work.

Not exactly no. I think it's impossible to judge because all you see is the finished product, and you can't know what's gone into making it, and it probably depends on how you view 'extensive learning and practice'. And saying that people can just 'know' how to create visual art, or dance, or drama but need to study to understand how to create art with words is a bit of a misnomer, because it's ignoring the fact that the 'study' of visual arts is the visual world, the 'study' of dance is the practice of movement, and the 'study' of drama comes from the observation of people. The only way to create an equivalent in each of these areas would be to remove the sensory inputs which form the basis of the study, so an equivalent would be :

- a blind person creating visual art.
- a paraplegic dancer.
- a hermit actor.

and only then would you have true prodigies in these areas.

I don't believe you can actually 'teach' someone to create art, I believe there must be a natural aptitude and through development of your understanding you can then refine your aptitude into the creation of 'art'. But this is true of all artists. I also think that this must be achieved largely through self-study / self-development, albeit perhaps with the assistance of a coach or mentor. If you have to be lead there, can you be a true artist?

***edit*** sorry, just wanted to make it clear (in case it wasn't), I do think that people who write, and produce written art, do study but they do so every time they read a book, whether that was their intention or not. I would class this as 'study', just as I would class viewing a sunset, or observing the way the wind moves through the trees, or the particular quality of a person's smile, as 'study' for a painter.

[stlukesguild]

Good point Aunty. But it tells us something more. "Slush pile" pieces tend to resonate with us and thus we like it. These tend to express the human condition more easily. "Elitist" kind tells the same thing in some Intellectual-Mind-Game-Play...

Or perhaps it is far easier to grasp the "slush" than it is to immediately fathom the extraordinary.

i'm not a big fan of the poetry that people come up with lately. everyone has to make it as depressing as possible, or they use clichés and big pretty words that don't fit. it's very annoying. lets go back to Poe people!

Actually I find that there are more than a few works of quite marvelous poetry than has been written in the last 25 years and more recently. Neither do I find it to be predominantly depressing. As for Poe... I love a good number of his tales but I don't think he was much of a poet (with a few exceptions)... By the way... nothing "depressing" in The Raven?

If you are going to the book store to spend $30 on a book of poetry, are you going to spend it on my book or on Wallace Stevens' book?

Actually, I've got everything I could want by Stevens... but I have been looking for a good translation of Pierre Ronsard for quite some time now.:lol:

[Rockin462]

I have always struggled with what is good and what is not.
A poem may be perfect with rhymn and meter but be boring it what it says. Maybe on an acedemic level it's good but to me, it's not?
Maybe I could post one of mine and you could tell me if it's good or not?

[Virgil]

Neither. I would buy a good anthology by Bloodaxe, and from that would decide which poets I would like to read more extensively.

You won't buy my book? :eek: Was it because I was brusque with you on that other post? ;) If I apologize will you reconsider? :p ;)


I think this is very difficult to judge Virgil as we only ever see the finished product. What went into producing it is a mystery at best. Practice seems to be the key, I doubt very much that you can truly teach someone to be a poet or a writer.
No I disagree. I think you can teach someone to be an adequate writer. Now greatness requires more than that, but you have to start with that. Can you imagine someone born a literary genius but never took a literature class or read up on literature and writing, that he could be a great writer one day just by picking up a pen? I have always wondered how many geniuses we have out in the streets who have never learned the medium where that genius can come out. What if Einstein as a child decided he wanted to be a painter and only studied painting, no math or physics, and developed into a meidocre painter? We would never know he had that innate ability in science. How many people are like that out there, and what is my innate genius? I don't really know.


And even those who undertake practice and extensive learning may still produce 'bad' art.
Correct. Hemingway had a statement that went something like this: A great writer is one who has an internal crap detector, so that when he sees its crap he throws it in the trash can. You can probably find the actual quote by googling it.


How do you know that those poems which appear to be someone picking up a pen and expressing themselves hasn't followed extensive learning and practice, and the masterpiece on the wall something the artist rattled off in a day?
I will say that sometimes masterpieces come together. Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) says something like "It just happens, man." :D Well, sometimes it does. But it doesn't happen to someone untrained in that medium. I'll never be able to pick up a guitar and reel off a great rock riff. It just doesn't happen, man. :D


But wasn't this what Virgil was saying? It take pratice and study and learning to create art. I do believe that there are people in this world who just "know" how to create art with certain mediums like paint or clay and some who have a natural talent in dance and acting. But, with words, I would think that at the least one would have to spend time reading other's work.

Yes, it takes a combination of lots of things. Innate talent, learning, and the right circumstances. If it were that easy we would all be Shakespeare.

[AuntShecky]

Well, quite the contrary, that proves my point. You need an "educated eye" to discern a good poem from a mediocre. You're telling me that those kids can tell the difference between good and bad? I know some college students who prefer the Three Stooges over Shakespeare. What does that prove? Before college i couldn't aprreciate T.S. Eliot's poetry. I didn't even understand it.
__________________
I agree.

Or perhaps it is far easier to grasp the "slush" than it is to immediately fathom the extraordinary.
__________________
I agree with this as well. By the bye, do you think those who go ballistic over a split infinitive are pedantic?
I used to think so, but then I realized that the infinitive has to be split in such phrases as "to more than double."
But every time I hear the famous intro from "Star Trek"
I bristle: "To boldly go where no man has gone before."

[Lote-Tree]

Or perhaps it is far easier to grasp the "slush" than it is to immediately fathom the extraordinary.

And if the both say the same thing?

What is the point of the latter?

[TheFifthElement]

You won't buy my book? :eek: Was it because I was brusque with you on that other post? ;) If I apologize will you reconsider? :p ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: I'll buy yours if you buy mine!


No I disagree. I think you can teach someone to be an adequate writer. Now greatness requires more than that, but you have to start with that.

Absolutely, you can teach someone to be an adequate writer, but not an artist.


Can you imagine someone born a literary genius but never took a literature class or read up on literature and writing, that he could be a great writer one day just by picking up a pen?

I agree with the 'read up on literature and writing', but I don't think that they would need to attend literature classes. At most, someone with the raw talent, benefits from a coach or a mentor - someone to guide but not teach. teaching is too directive to encourage creative development. Did you miss this bit?


***edit*** sorry, just wanted to make it clear (in case it wasn't), I do think that people who write, and produce written art, do study but they do so every time they read a book, whether that was their intention or not. I would class this as 'study', just as I would class viewing a sunset, or observing the way the wind moves through the trees, or the particular quality of a person's smile, as 'study' for a painter.


I will say that sometimes masterpieces come together. Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) says something like "It just happens, man." :D Well, sometimes it does. But it doesn't happen to someone untrained in that medium. I'll never be able to pick up a guitar and reel off a great rock riff. It just doesn't happen, man. :D

This is an interesting comment! I think it depends what you call 'trained' - my brother in law has self taught himself guitar, and is also a really good artist, he's attended no formal lessons in either, just tried things and learned from them. His girlfriend has taught herself to play the Concertina, and together they are starting to produce their own folk music. Again, no classes attended, all self taught.

[stlukesguild]

Or perhaps it is far easier to grasp the "slush" than it is to immediately fathom the extraordinary.

And if the both say the same thing?

What is the point of the latter?

But then you miss the point that they in no way "say the same thing" because the content (and not merely the subject matter) is dependent upon the form. If this were not so... well then all of these then "say the same thing" and I could see no reason to value one over the rest:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/opticsupper.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/29488.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/glitterdome.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/lastsuppsmall.jpg

[Lote-Tree]

content[/B] (and not merely the subject matter) is dependent upon the form. If this were not so... well then all of these then "say the same thing" and I could see no reason to value one over the rest:


And if one was to show that they do say the same thing? What then would you give up Elitist Art? :D

[Granny5]

Lote, I think stlukesguild has made an excellent point. I don't know if you can win this one.

[stlukesguild]

Virgil- I think you can teach someone to be an adequate writer. Now greatness requires more than that, but you have to start with that. Can you imagine someone born a literary genius but never took a literature class or read up on literature and writing, that he could be a great writer one day just by picking up a pen? I have always wondered how many geniuses we have out in the streets who have never learned the medium where that genius can come out.

I agree completely... you can teach someone to master the craft of their chosen art form but you cannot teach someone to be an artist... to create great art. If it were that easy we'd have new crops of masterful poets, painters, sculptors, composers, etc... pouring out of every university.

Quote:
And even those who undertake practice and extensive learning may still produce 'bad' art.

Correct. Hemingway had a statement that went something like this: A great writer is one who has an internal crap detector, so that when he sees its crap he throws it in the trash can.


Undoubtedly those who have all the appropriate training and even an unquestioned mastery of their craft are not assured of artistic brilliance. There are endless "perfect" sonnets which are just plain boring (I believe J.L. Borges wrote something to this effect), and there are any number of masterfully painted paintings that are great craft... but not great art. The problem I sense is that in this age of Oprah and Doctor Phil when "self expression" is the end-all/be-all the very institutions are frequently failing to teach that which can be taught. We have creative writing courses taught by academics who can't compose a properly structured poem and painting departments headed by academics who have no concept of the craft of painting. But if we agree that "self expression"... artistic genius itself cannot be taught, then the very notion of focusing upon these elements and ignoring any attempts at teaching the craft seems an abdication of one's duty as an educator at best.

I will say that sometimes masterpieces come together. Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) says something like "It just happens, man." Well, sometimes it does. But it doesn't happen to someone untrained in that medium.

Or as Picasso put it, "Inspiration exists, but it has got to find you working."

TheFifthElement- Absolutely, you can teach someone to be an adequate writer, but not an artist.

Exactly.

I think it depends what you call 'trained' - my brother in law has self taught himself guitar, and is also a really good artist, he's attended no formal lessons in either, just tried things and learned from them. His girlfriend has taught herself to play the Concertina, and together they are starting to produce their own folk music. Again, no classes attended, all self taught.

And I in no way would limit my interpretation of "training" or "education" for the artist (in any art form) to merely formal training at an accredited university or college. Some artists have learned as apprentices from a mentor, some, like Picasso and Mozart, had the advantages and disadvantages of learning under the tutelage of their parents. Some are truly "self-taught"... but whatever route is taken the learning must occur. One doesn't just pick up the pen and start writing sonnets worthy of Shelley, sit down for the first time at a piano and write a concerto worthy of Mozart, or pick up a paint brush for the first time and paint something brilliant.

And if one was to show that they do say the same thing? What then would you give up Elitist Art?

I doubt that's going to happen. Content and form are simply too interwoven in a work of art. A work of art cannot be broken down or explained in its entirety by a simple definition or "meaning". Certainly I might suggest that at its core content a novel like Dickens' Oliver Twist simply argues that "poverty sucks". If that meaning were all that there was to Dickens' novel then certainly I'll simply listen to you say "Poverty sucks"... I'll nod my head in agreement... and I'll be one my way having saved myself several hours of unnecessary reading. But art is not like that. The definition is not the same as the actual art. I can read any number of learned dissertations on Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata and they will in no way prepare me for the experience of the actual work of music. Standing in front of a Vermeer painting is not the same as reading about what it means... nor looking at another painting that supposedly "means" the same thing.

[quasimodo1]

To Virgil and stlukesguild and the other posters on this thread: This bit of dialogue has really taken on a life of it's own. I'm trying to figure out who has the floor and where this discussion has taken us...anybody with a synopsis?

To AuntShecky: The test you mentioned in a previous post about students getting poetry by both Masters and other students and perhaps just some unknown contemporary poets...now there's a test I'd like to take. Personally, I think experience with poetry both enhances your experience as it makes you jaded to works you may unfairly dismiss. quasi

[symphony]

To Virgil and stlukesguild and the other posters on this thread: This bit of dialogue has really taken on a life of it's own. I'm trying to figure out who has the floor and where this discussion has taken us...anybody with a synopsis?
Hmm I too am asking for a synopsis here. Otherwise I cant follow where this is leading us to anyway. Plus, I dont have the education or the eloquence or the energy to start discussing a different purview in here, almost all the points I could think of have already been covered.
So, like Robert Lynd I'll just wait for the summeries and pluck the wisdom from the pages while the wise ones do the work for me. :lol:

[Lote-Tree]

I can read any number of learned dissertations on Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata and they will in no way prepare me for the experience of the actual work of music. Standing in front of a Vermeer painting is not the same as reading about what it means...


All you have done here is to say "art" is subjective which is true all art is indeed is subjective. To class one as "slush pile" is just your subjective view.

But I will argue this: What you call "slush pile" has more to say about the human condition than some Convuluted Intellectual Gobbledy gooks.

Lets go back to your Dickens argument: Dickens writes about poverty and says poverty sucks and you call it "Art". A "slush pile" writer also writes about poverty sucks - and you call it "slush pile" and yet this "slush pile" resonates with a lot of people but Dickens only with few. What does that say about Dickens and Slush Pile writers?

[stlukesguild]

Dickens didn't write for idiots.:D

[stlukesguild]

The cliché... the overly sentimental... the "middle-of-the-road"... always have appealed to a far larger audience than the extraordinary. If you wish to suggest that because such art resonates with a larger audience it has more to say about the human condition then perhaps I will say fine... yes... it has far more to say about the reality of the human condition in the sense that the average human is just that... "average"... "mediocre". If you wish to spend your time engaged with average mediocre art I can only say more power to you... but I highly doubt this is true. Again you are simply acting the provocateur and we've had this discussion before. To suggest that a work of art must be aesthetically good or bad based upon its popularity is an absolute absurdity. It would be no more ridiculous for me to suggest that Harry Potter must be a bad book due to its popularity than it would for you to suggest that it must be a great work of art that speaks to the human condition based upon the same.

[TheFifthElement]

All you have done here is to say "art" is subjective which is true all art is indeed is subjective. To class one as "slush pile" is just your subjective view.

But I will argue this: What you call "slush pile" has more to say about the human condition than some Convuluted Intellectual Gobbledy gooks.

Lets go back to your Dickens argument: Dickens writes about poverty and says poverty sucks and you call it "Art". A "slush pile" writer also writes about poverty sucks - and you call it "slush pile" and yet this "slush pile" resonates with a lot of people but Dickens only with few. What does that say about Dickens and Slush Pile writers?

Lote, are you saying that Mills & Boon is art?

[Lote-Tree]

Dickens didn't write for idiots.:D

Those he writes about are Idiots are they? It is those "Idiots" that suffer most from Poverty don't they?

Ah such arrogance and compassion from Dickens at the same time?

[Lote-Tree]

The cliché... the overly sentimental... the "middle-of-the-road"... always have appealed to a far larger audience than the extraordinary.


I think when you remove the Elistist Eye Glasses then you can see why Slush Pile appeals to the rest of the human beings.

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, are you saying that Mills & Boon is art?

I am saying Art is subjective. Rest is details.

[Virgil]

:lol: :lol: :lol: I'll buy yours if you buy mine!

Deal! :)


Absolutely, you can teach someone to be an adequate writer, but not an artist.
St Lukes says something along those lines too. Here perhaps i might disagree with him and you. I think along with teaching a person the craft of his chosen artistic medium, I think you can teach aesthetics and the realtionship between aesthetics and ideas and integrate it into the medium. I have said in a number of posts and threads that the greatest work of literature i know is Dante's Divine Comedy, because it not only is a masterful work of poetry and epic literature, but because the aesthetics employed most perfectly matches the content and themes. Now we can't all be Dantes. Of course the God given element to that is vital. But with awareness and knowledge we can approach it. Dante didn't by accident stumble upon the his form and themes. He thought, learned, and practiced, and inspiration came to put it together. But I think most can reach a middle level of art. Perhaps I'm wrong. I would like to think we can.


I agree with the 'read up on literature and writing', but I don't think that they would need to attend literature classes. At most, someone with the raw talent, benefits from a coach or a mentor - someone to guide but not teach. teaching is too directive to encourage creative development. Did you miss this bit?
Perhaps I did miss it. And I agree, it doesn't have to be formal school. But some sort of learning has to occur.


This is an interesting comment! I think it depends what you call 'trained' - my brother in law has self taught himself guitar, and is also a really good artist, he's attended no formal lessons in either, just tried things and learned from them. His girlfriend has taught herself to play the Concertina, and together they are starting to produce their own folk music. Again, no classes attended, all self taught.
Oh i meant me just picking up a guitar without any lesson, self or formal. Keith Richards didn't exactly have a lot of musical schooling either. On the other hand though one is not going to write a Beethoven level symphony by just learning a musical instrument.

[SleepyWitch]

If you are going to the book store to spend $30 on a book of poetry, are you going to spend it on my book or on Wallace Stevens' book? And if you didn't have anyone to tell you that Wallace Stevens is one of the premier American poets of the 20th century, how would you know?
hehe, the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. here's what I'd do:
1.cadge a free copy off you
2. blow the 30$ on penguin novels and a nice cocktail or coffee :)

[stlukesguild]

I think when you remove the Elistist Eye Glasses then you can see why Slush Pile appeals to the rest of the human beings.

I don't plan on removing my "elitist" eyeglasses anytime soon... and for the simple reason that I am fully aware that when Mallarme exclaimed, "The flesh is sad! alas! and I have read all the books!" it was but hyperbole. None of us have the time to read all the books. The question then becomes what books shall I spend my time with. (Walter Pater puts it better than I can possibly achieve... below) If Harry Potter does it for you... please enjoy. As for me... I imagine that the limited time I may have to read would be best spent in reading something extraordinary... something that goes beyond the expected... the clich&#233;... the average... the mundane. If that is what gets you off and makes you feel superior... embracing the huddled masses in a true egalitarian manner... again I say go for it. Reading to me is not a political act. Indeed... I might suggest that in all actuality I do more for your romanticized notions of the poor huddled masses in a single day teaching in an urban American school than you will ever achieve with all your efforts at egalitarian reading. But I don't imagine that my reading habits will help bring about an enlightened world. I read for myself.

*******************
Walter Pater: from The Conclusion to The Renaissance

Every moment some form grows perfect in
hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the
rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is
irresistibly real and attractive to us,--for that moment only. Not
the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A
counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated,
dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them
by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point
to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest
number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this
ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that
our failure is to form habits: for, after all, habit is relative to a
stereotyped world... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any
exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by
a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring
of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours,
or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's friend. Not to
discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those
about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic
dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and
sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of
our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into
one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time
to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we
have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and
courting new impressions...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the
sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening
in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had
clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed
himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he
might make as much as possible of the interval that remained;
and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he
decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found
just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all
condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of
death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve--les hommes sont tous
condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval,
and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval
in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among
"the children of this world," in art and song. For our one chance
lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as
possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this
quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various
forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which
come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion--that it
does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied
consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the
desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For
art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the
highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for
those moments' sake.

[stlukesguild]

By the way... I would certainly say that Pater's paragraphs above are "Good Poetry". His prose is so magnificently wrought that I would almost certainly define it as poetic.

[stlukesguild]

I am saying Art is subjective. Rest is details.

That's but a coward's way out. Artistic relativity, eh? There is no "good" nor "bad" art? I doubt there is but a single "good" artist who believes such drivel. A "valueless" art would seem to me to be rather worthless. I doubt that even your ennobled masses believe such tripe. They certainly have their own clear notions as to "good" and "bad". Should we expect less of those of us who have invested a degree of serious effort and time into the study of and the experience of reading? Or do we simply take the realization that there are no pure absolutes in art to the absurd conclusion and declare absolute artistic relativity? Michelangelo and Sponge Bob cartoons, Dante and Jackie Collins, Beethoven and that catchy MUZAK pumped into the mall... it's all the same and to suggest otherwise is snobbish... elitist... and politically suspect at best? We should all nod our heads in agreement and chant the mantra, "There is no "good" nor "bad" in art. Then perhaps we can all hold hands and sing, "Raise every voice..." as we bring about the great, enlightened, valueless, egalitarian world.:sick:

[jon1jt]

I think when you remove the Elistist Eye Glasses then you can see why Slush Pile appeals to the rest of the human beings.

I don't plan on removing my "elitist" eyeglasses anytime soon... and for the simple reason that I am fully aware that when Mallarme exclaimed, "The flesh is sad! alas! and I have read all the books!" it was but hyperbole. None of us have the time to read all the books. The question then becomes what books shall I spend my time with. (Walter Pater puts it better than I can possibly achieve... below) If Harry Potter does it for you... please enjoy. As for me... I imagine that the limited time I may have to read would be best spent in reading something extraordinary... something that goes beyond the expected... the cliché... the average... the mundane. If that is what gets you off and makes you feel superior... embracing the huddled masses in a true egalitarian manner... again I say go for it. Reading to me is not a political act. Indeed... I might suggest that in all actuality I do more for your romanticized notions of the poor huddled masses in a single day teaching in an urban American school than you will ever achieve with all your efforts at egalitarian reading. But I don't imagine that my reading habits will help bring about an enlightened world. I read for myself.

*******************
Walter Pater: from The Conclusion to The Renaissance

Every moment some form grows perfect in
hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the
rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is
irresistibly real and attractive to us,--for that moment only. Not
the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A
counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated,
dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them
by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point
to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest
number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this
ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that
our failure is to form habits: for, after all, habit is relative to a
stereotyped world... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any
exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by
a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring
of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours,
or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's friend. Not to
discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those
about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic
dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and
sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of
our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into
one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time
to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we
have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and
courting new impressions...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the
sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening
in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had
clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed
himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he
might make as much as possible of the interval that remained;
and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he
decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found
just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all
condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of
death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve--les hommes sont tous
condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval,
and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval
in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among
"the children of this world," in art and song. For our one chance
lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as
possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this
quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various
forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which
come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion--that it
does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied
consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the
desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For
art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the
highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for
those moments' sake.

yes! :thumbs_up

[TheFifthElement]

St Lukes says something along those lines too. Here perhaps i might disagree with him and you. I think along with teaching a person the craft of his chosen artistic medium, I think you can teach aesthetics and the realtionship between aesthetics and ideas and integrate it into the medium. I have said in a number of posts and threads that the greatest work of literature i know is Dante's Divine Comedy, because it not only is a masterful work of poetry and epic literature, but because the aesthetics employed most perfectly matches the content and themes. Now we can't all be Dantes. Of course the God given element to that is vital. But with awareness and knowledge we can approach it. Dante didn't by accident stumble upon the his form and themes. He thought, learned, and practiced, and inspiration came to put it together. But I think most can reach a middle level of art. Perhaps I'm wrong. I would like to think we can.

I think Virgil that we may agree?!! I don't think you can produce art without study, but I don't think study has to be formal - as in you don't necessarily have to have a teacher, but that you do need to experience and to practice, and you may or may not need guidance - this I think is down to the individual.



I am saying Art is subjective. Rest is details.

Lote, I agree that art is subjective, that effectively 'art is in the eye of the beholder', but is 'good' art subjective? I'm struggling to come to a landing on this one, as there does not appear to be an objective standard, and yet there appears to be some form of, perhaps loose, consensus of what is good art and what is not. So there's the quandry.

Consider an alternative example, if an accepted authority published a paper on quantum mechanics and it was generally accepted, then an unknown person published a paper on quantum mechanics, if the authoritative person said that the paper didn't stand up to scrutiny, that it was 'bad' science, then we would accept the judgement of said authoritative person even though on a personal level we didn't understand the science, and may not have a hope of understanding the science, ever. Does not a same situation apply with art? That if an authoritative person in the art world states something is 'bad' art, then it is bad? It could be argued that there should be a challenge as to what makes the art 'expert' an expert, but again isn't this true of science. It is possible that, in the scenario, the authoritative person is wrong, but the way it works with science is that the theory is right until proven wrong, so their judgement will be accepted until such time as their own theory is discredited. Can it not work the same way in art? Why do we feel that we have the skills, even though we may not have proven such skills, to challenge the 'experts'?

I think I'm coming to understand Virgil's comment here. In art everyone thinks they can be an expert, but they would not presume so in alternate fields, for example science, engineering, insurance, nursing, childcare, computer programming ( ;) ) etc.

[quasimodo1]

It is truly amazing to discover this thread still going strong. The strong feelings people have on this subject might give the publishers of new poetry new hope. It was worth it just for this part... "Well! we are all
condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of
death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve--les hommes sont tous
condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval,
and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval
in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among
"the children of this world," in art and song. For our one chance
lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as
possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this
quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various
forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which
come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion--that it
does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied
consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the
desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For
art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the
highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for
those moments' sake." ...quasi

[Lote-Tree]

Consider an alternative example, if an accepted authority published a paper on quantum mechanics and it was generally accepted, then an unknown person published a paper on quantum mechanics, if the authoritative person said that the paper didn't stand up to scrutiny, that it was 'bad' science, then we would accept the judgement of said authoritative person even though on a personal level we didn't understand the science, and may not have a hope of understanding the science, ever. Does not a same situation apply with art?


No. Science works on Objectively Verifiable Evidence.



In art everyone thinks they can be an expert, but they would not presume so in alternate fields, for example science, engineering, insurance, nursing, childcare, computer programming ( ;) ) etc.


Computer programming is logical. Science is objectively verifiable.

Art goes beyond logic and that is why it appeals to us.

Art either communicates or it does not. Either it resonates with us or it does not...

[quasimodo1]

To Lote-Tree: I agree with your statement except for the part about insurance...that is an art form within which a company in the practice of selling protection from known or unknown fears, then creates new fears, real or imaginary, get's in bed with the state and then chides the public if they do not buy their policies. quasi

[TheFifthElement]

Computer programming is logical. Science is objectively verifiable.

Computer programming may be logical, but yet computer programmmers will approach different tasks very differently, some with more innovation that others, some with more efficiency than others. Are all computer programmers the same, or are some 'better' than others?

Lets put the question a different way.

Can you claim yourself to be a scientist, without studying science?


Art either communicates or it does not. Either it resonates with us or it does not...

True, but isn't 'good' art that which has been critically judged by 'experts' and deemed to be of a particular quality. That doesn't mean to say that because it is deemed to be 'quality' that it is entertaining, or that because another piece of 'art' is not deemed to be quality that it is not entertaining, or doesn't communicate to people. So, for example, I wouldn't choose to buy a book because it has won the Booker Prize, and if I did I wouldn't enjoy it any better because it won the Booker Prize. As stlukesguild stated, I read for myself. But perhaps these standards, whilst not meaning much to the general populace overall, mean something to the author? Otherwise what you're saying is that there is no quality in any form of art at all.

I wonder Lote, do you not believe in 'craftsmen' (or crafts people, if you prefer)? Does that mean that in all art forms (effectively everything non-scientific) it is all the same and there is no point striving for quality because there is no such thing?


****edit****

Sorry, had another afterthought.

By 'quality' what I'm trying to state is that there must be some standard of judging art which goes beyond whether the individual 'likes' it or not. I don't like Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean it's not 'good'.


To Lote-Tree: I agree with your statement except for the part about insurance...that is an art form within which a company in the practice of selling protection from known or unknown fears, then creates new fears, real or imaginary, get's in bed with the state and then chides the public if they do not buy their policies. quasi

Quasi, some of us work in insurance you know.

[quasimodo1]

To TheFifthElement: Sorry about the wise crack. I have to buy the stuff like everybody else. quasi

[TheFifthElement]

To TheFifthElement: Sorry about the wise crack. I have to buy the stuff like everybody else. quasi

That's okay Quasi - I'm used to it :)

It's the Governments that are to blame, of course, if they covered the cost of accidents etc there would be no need for insurance.

[Lote-Tree]

Computer programming may be logical, but yet computer programmmers will approach different tasks very differently, some with more innovation that others, some with more efficiency than others. Are all computer programmers the same, or are some 'better' than others?


But you don't get it Supreme. We can quantify how a piece of code performs. We can measure it's efficiency.

Can you say this of Art?

If so give me the "peformance counters" and lets put numerical value to all piece of art shall we? Shall go around all the Art museums of the world and put numerical value to efficiency of Art? :D It does not work does it? :D

[TheFifthElement]

At the risk of repeating myself:


... or are some 'better' than others?

Lets put the question a different way.

Can you claim yourself to be a scientist, without studying science?

I wonder Lote, do you not believe in 'craftsmen' (or crafts people, if you prefer)? Does that mean that in all art forms (effectively everything non-scientific) it is all the same and there is no point striving for quality because there is no such thing?


****edit****

Sorry, had another afterthought.

By 'quality' what I'm trying to state is that there must be some standard of judging art which goes beyond whether the individual 'likes' it or not. I don't like Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean it's not 'good'.

[Lote-Tree]

By 'quality' what I'm trying to state is that there must be some standard of judging art which goes beyond whether the individual 'likes' it or not.


And Supreme Being what is this Standard?
In Science it is the Scientific Method - in Art?

[quasimodo1]

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/psychology/downloads/artjudgement2.pdf

[TheFifthElement]

And Supreme Being what is this Standard?
In Science it is the Scientific Method - in Art?

Aah Lote, always answering a question with a question, but if you go back to the OP you'll see I asked this first ;)

Where there is no 'objective' (and I question how absolutely the objectivity of science is - in principle objective, but in practice less so) the only way lies with the judge and jury method, much like our unscientific legal system.

However, you have yet to answer my questions. Avoidance will not let you off the hook!

[AuntShecky]

The notion that art must "communicate" does not sit well with me. It's like the ol' question: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it, does it still make a sound?"
If a composer creates a symphony, and it's never performed, does that mean it is no longer a symphony?
Same with any work of art.
As I've said before, art can and often does communicate, but that is not its raison d'&#234;tre. And yes, "good," "great"
art does "resonate" but only to eyes willing to see and ears willing to hear. Here's an analogy: the quality of Hamlet does not diminish merely because a bunch of high school mooks don't get it, don't "like" it.

[Virgil]

The notion that art must "communicate" does not sit well with me. It's like the ol' question: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it, does it still make a sound?"
If a composer creates a symphony, and it's never performed, does that mean it is no longer a symphony?
Same with any work of art.
As I've said before, art can and often does communicate, but that is not its raison d'être. And yes, "good," "great"
art does "resonate" but only to eyes willing to see and ears willing to hear. Here's an analogy: the quality of Hamlet does not diminish merely because a bunch of high school mooks don't get it, don't "like" it.

I absolutely agree with Aunty. Some art communicates, some art represents, some art is a cultural artifact.

[Lote-Tree]

Some art communicates, some art represents, some art is a cultural artifact.

All these are a form of communications.

If Art does not have to communicate then you and I are and everyone else are greatest artists ever :D

[Virgil]

All these are a form of communications.

If Art does not have to communicate then you and I are and everyone else are greatest artists ever :D

May I ask what Beethoven's 5th symphony communicates?

[Lote-Tree]

May I ask what Beethoven's 5th symphony communicates?

Emotions?

[AuntShecky]

Every poem -- every good poem is about TWO things:
1. Its chosen subject
2. Language

Every poem, play, or so-called "literary novel" is only worth its salt in its use of language. Let me explain.
(Well, whether you let me or not, you know I will.):

If someone should say that his poem is "putting his thoughts and emotions down on paper", I would like to see that. How can thoughts and emotions be seen, let alone be read? What a poet does is translates those thoughts and emotions into the only medium available in poetry and that is language.

This is true of every poem, but especially true of subject matter that has already been covered -- done to death, so to speak -- for the past several centuries of Western civilization. In other words, let's say a poet wanted to write about Love. Fine. The only thing: what does the poem have to say about love that hasn't been already said before?

Or-- if the poem wants to reiterate what has already been written about love, then HOW is this poem unique? What does it add? The new poem about love is different because
it examines the subject in a whole new way. And how does it do it?

all together now: with words!

So I repeat: every poem is about two things-- the chosen subject matter and language.

[Virgil]

I like that post a lot, Aunty.

[Granny5]

Excellent, Auntie. Thank you.

[quasimodo1]

to AuntShecky: Mostly I agree with your postings but on this one, let me disagree in a slightly more than semantic way. Your definition would cover almost all forms of writing, ergo, poetry most have an elemental difference. More than just subject and language, poetry must have a degree of intensity and "very special use of language" that communicates that subject. It must also have a degree of "anima" that exceeds that of most if not all prose. Also it must have a higher element of author "personna" which you will not find in most prose. The few exceptions to this would only prove a more general "rule". If these concepts were not true, why would a person need what has been called "poetic license"?. Respectfully, quasi

[AuntShecky]

Hi Quasi,
Yes you are right. In addition to poetry, other media of "serious" literature (although it may include some humor) should also be concerned with language. The language of poetry, even long poems or epics, such as The Illiad, is more distilled or "compressed" than prose works.
"Anima" may be the same as "voice" in poetry, and the persona (one "n?") may refer to the speaker, which -- as I've said until my face has turned indigo -- is not necessarily the poet himself. Cf. T. S. Eliot's "Tradition and Individual Talent," and other critical works on the subj.