Poetry is not Prose, and Thus Should Not be Devoured as Such

[ScribbleScribe]

The title for this thread, is my premise. I think i've discovered that I am unable to read poetry like I do prose, either for lack of reading it often, or the denser nature of it.

I read a poetry book once. It took me months. I'd keep it in my back-pack and drew it out every day, trying to decipher the meanings of individual poems one by one. There were 80 poems in that little book, but, you see, I was determined to read it because the father of my best friend who had passed away, gave it to me after my friend died. So, I took this poetry book quite seriously.

The name of it was Elegy by Mary Jo Bang if anyone is curious as to which poetry book I'm referring to.

Now I am slogging my way through a bit of Emily Dickinson, and I'm trying to read it like I would a prose book, one straight shot, right through. I'm finding it difficult to do, if not impossible. I'm going to have to read the wikipedia article on Emily to try and understand her poetry better. And, poke around the Dickinson section here on the forum.

But anyways, does anyone else find poetry harder to digest than prose? Am I the only one? If you, like me, find it difficult do you think it is because we arent exposed to poetry as much as prose?

[Patrick_Bateman]

Anyone who doesn't agree with you or who can relate to your problems to some extent is a filthy liar.
Poetry is difficult. But usually the hardest nuts to crack are usually the sweetest.

It always helps to have a context for a poem, know about who has written it and during what epoch. That is if you want to seriously analyse a work.

[ScribbleScribe]

It always helps to have a context for a poem, know about who has written it and during what epoch. That is if you want to seriously analyse a work.

I do this with prose (research it I mean, to get a deeper understanding of where it's coming from), and I knew what the poems in Elegy were about (grief, mourning and the aftermath of a suicide), so I guess that was easier than Emily seems to be.

Geh :sosp: Guess there's no time like the present to research her. Here I go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Dickinson




Anyone who doesn't agree with you or who can relate to your problems to some extent is a filthy liar.

Oh and I found this hilarious (the filthy liar part)! :D Thanks for the laugh.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I do the same with everything i read also.

If wikipedia or some other website has chapter by chapter analyses, then I usually review chapters I've just read on there (like with the master and margarita) for fear I have missed anything.

I hate the idea of having read something and possibly overlooked anything remotely important.

[ScribbleScribe]

I do the same with everything i read also.

If wikipedia or some other website has chapter by chapter analyses, then I usually review chapters I've just read on there (like with the master and margarita) for fear I have missed anything.

I hate the idea of having read something and possibly overlooked anything remotely important.

Some people would point out that wikipedia isnt reliable to research with but...it's a start, no?

Personally, I just hate the idea of having read something and not giving it the wholeness and roundness it deserves. You can read the words which the author has written, but until you understand things like history, literary movements and the author's own personal history, the words remain just that, words. Although words can touch you on their own, they can make you think, change your perspective on things, and make you feel validated if you come across a character who reminds you of yourself.

*shrug*

[JCamilo]

No, its a matter of trainning. Modern readers are exposed to simple forms of prose since day one. The same cannt be said about poetry.
There is no reason to believe Proust, Kafka, Joyce, Kant, etc are not difficult, demanding,etc than a couple of sonnets.

[Alexander III]

Yes poetry is harder, but for the mere reason that for the last thousand years it was the highest form of literature, all else was weaker and simply not as strong. prose being vulgar and common, any barbarian being able to speak or write it. In the 20th century prose was elevated to a new level were it was finally a worth rival to verse. Nonetheless most 20th century writers should be read such as verse, Proust and Fitzgerald off the top of my head, if you read them as prose not poesy most of it is lost.

[stlukesguild]

Poetry is not Prose, and Thus Should Not be Devoured as Such

The title for this thread, is my premise. I think i've discovered that I am unable to read poetry like I do prose, either for lack of reading it often, or the denser nature of it.

I read a poetry book once. It took me months. I'd keep it in my back-pack and drew it out every day, trying to decipher the meanings of individual poems one by one...

Now I am slogging my way through a bit of Emily Dickinson, and I'm trying to read it like I would a prose book, one straight shot, right through. I'm finding it difficult to do, if not impossible.

All art involves a vocabulary that must be learned. The idea of the play... humans pretending to be another character... baffled many (including entire cultures) long after the Greeks "invented" theater. The novel involved a degree of a suspension of disbelief that many found challenging at first. Poetry involves the use of language that is quite often far more dense... far more complex and carefully thought out than prose. Poets choose words not only for a very specific meaning, but also to fit the rhythm and the rhyme and simply for the sound. Poetry has an internal "music".

Reading poetry, like reading any other genre, involves experience with the forms and the vocabulary. One might also do well to recognize that the goal of poetry is not to say something in a difficult manner (as if it were but a riddle). In other words, getting the "meaning" is not necessarily the goal of reading poetry. Quite often there is not a single "meaning", and even more frequently, one may discern multiple "meanings". Just as knowing the ingredients in a meal is not the same as appreciating the experience of eating that meal, "getting" what you suppose to be the "meaning" is not the same as truly appreciating the poem as a poem.

But anyways, does anyone else find poetry harder to digest than prose? Am I the only one? If you, like me, find it difficult do you think it is because we arent exposed to poetry as much as prose?

This is quite likely. As children we are exposed frequently to poetry through childrens' books: Dr Seuss, Lewis Carroll, etc... Sadly, as we grow older, the emphasis is placed upon a pragmatic approach to literacy as practical form of communication. Poetry, which stresses language as art is of far less concern. This combined with the dominance of the novel in our culture has resulted in very few who are literate when it comes to reading poetry (which is painfully all too obvious in threads such as the ones concerning the "poetry" of pop song lyrics).

Anyone who doesn't agree with you or who can relate to your problems to some extent is a filthy liar.

Not necessarily. I find that I am just as fluent in reading poetry as I am in reading prose... for the simple reason that my reading largely centers upon poetic writings. On my desk beside me I have three volumes of Dante's Comedia, The Gospels of Thomas, The Poems of Ryokan, the Tao te Ching, J.L. Borges' Dreamtigers, T.S. Eliot's Selected Poems, Richard Howard's Inner Voices: Selected Poems, The Poems of Robert Herrick, and Tangled Hair: Selected Tanka from Akiko Yosano. Almost all of these books are collections of poetry... or poetic writings. Again, it is like learning any language. Reading French or reading music is difficult when you are inexperienced... yet you become increasingly fluent with time and experience.

[ScribbleScribe]

Yes poetry is harder, but for the mere reason that for the last thousand years it was the highest form of literature, all else was weaker and simply not as strong. prose being vulgar and common

Was there a bestseller list for poetry? o.o

This reminds me of when I was forced to read epic poetry in english lit classes (Beowulf, The Odessy [sp?] )

Did literature start to change once Shakespeare began to write plays in prose you think?

[JCamilo]

Shakespeare did not wrote plays in prose. He wrote as dramatic poetry. And no. The change starts with Cervantes, technology and journalism that was the first form to satisfy the flux of new readers not coming from noble or clerical class.

[ScribbleScribe]

Shakespeare did not wrote plays in prose. He wrote as dramatic poetry. And no. The change starts with Cervantes, technology and journalism that was the first form to satisfy the flux of new readers not coming from noble or clerical class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Cervantes

Oh so that's who wrote Don Quixote.

I had to look up who Cervantes was. :rolleyes:

[stlukesguild]

I must agree. The change really starts with Cervantes and the birth of the novel in Europe. Into the 18th and 19th century poetry still dominates. Samuel Johnson, Swift (in spite of Gulliver's Travels), Pope, and others looked down upon the novel as the bastard child... perhaps not unlike the theater of Shakespeare's time, and TV in our own era. The novel doesn't begin to challenge poetry until the mid/late 19th century and the great novelists: Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, James, Melville, Flaubert, etc... and in some instances one recognizes that the greatest prose takes on elements of poetic language (Melville, Flaubert, Joyce, Faulkner, Proust, etc...)

[stlukesguild]

I had to look up who Cervantes was.:yikes:

That reminds me of my first year in art school. I was sitting behind a couple of less studious guys in the 8:00 AM art history class. One turned to the other and asked, "Did you read the chapter in the textbook?" The other replied, "Yeah, It was all about that Raphael guy. I don't know who he was, but he must be kinda important; he's got like 20 or so pages in the book.":yikes::smilielol5:

[JCamilo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Cervantes

Oh so that's who wrote Don Quixote.

I had to look up who Cervantes was. :rolleyes:

OK, Godbless wikipedia. Without it nobody would know who Cervantes was.

[stlukesguild]

Makes for a great new thread: "How did you first discover Cervantes?":D

[JCamilo]

Lets help wikipeadia to increase the number of access in their site. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, I think your problem is extremely common. I think it is for nearly everyone who isn't an avid reader of poetry, and just like StLukes points out, it takes practice. Add to this that many English classes don't teach as much poetry as should be taught (a teacher at the school I student taught at only had one week of poetry for her whole year in her sophomore English class--one week--because she said she found it "boring;" outrageous). This is truly a travesty.

As for reading poetry like prose, no, I don't think one should go about it like that (again, unless you're very well-read with poetry). Poetry is a completely different read. With prose, you can usually read it once, understand what's going on, and then move on. With a poem, I always try to read it at least five times, each time slowly, maybe a couple times out-loud, and than think about it. After five poems where I really read them, my brain is shot. Going through a whole book night after night would be grueling. To me, the only poetry to be read similarly to prose would be epic poetry.

P.S. I had to look up who Cervantes was a couple months ago because I never heard of him, either. After public education and five years of college, not once was Cervantes even mentioned. I of course had heard of Don Quixote, but wouldn't have been able to tell you who the author was if my life depended on it.

Also, many sections of Shakespeare's plays' dialogue are written in prose form.

[ScribbleScribe]

Hey, I learned something today (who cervantes was), I'm happy. ^_^;

[stlukesguild]

Of corse JBI, JCamillo, and I NEVER EVER use Wikipedia.:blush::rolleyes5:

[ScribbleScribe]

P.S. I had to look up who Cervantes was a couple months ago because I never heard of him, either. After public education and five years of college, not once was Cervantes even mentioned. I of course had heard of Don Quixote, but wouldn't have been able to tell you who the author was if my life depended on it.



Same so far here in college and high school he hasnt been mentioned.

[JCamilo]

Same so far here in college and high school he hasnt been mentioned.

They may have changed his name to "Hyspanic-American" to not offende the new chicanos and make easier for people to understand.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Same so far here in college and high school he hasnt been mentioned.

Quite amazing, him being the father of the modern novel and all.

[JCamilo]

Of corse JBI, JCamillo, and I NEVER EVER use Wikipedia.:blush::rolleyes5:

I use Wikileaks. :D

[kelby_lake]

Personally, I just hate the idea of having read something and not giving it the wholeness and roundness it deserves. You can read the words which the author has written, but until you understand things like history, literary movements and the author's own personal history, the words remain just that, words.

So glad that I'm not the only person who after finishing a books rushes off to do more research on it :) Context adds a whole new layer.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Of corse JBI, JCamillo, and I NEVER EVER use Wikipedia.:blush::rolleyes5:

I expected this to be the case to be honest :p

For all its purported shortcomings, it is an extremely useful launching pad. Especially if you have absolutely no previous knowledge of a topic or author you are researching.

It's like if you want to learn about the Russian Revolutions YOU DO NOT BEGIN WITH LEON TROTSKY'S MAMMOTH CHRONICLE. You start with something succinct and clear. (Sheila Fitzpatrick would be the wikipedia for the Russian Revolution for example.)

[kasie]

.... With a poem, I always try to read it at least five times, each time slowly, maybe a couple times out-loud, and than think about it......

I think this is an excellent suggestion, MM - often the sound of the words is as important as the meaning. Thinking about the phrasing required to convey the sense of the line often helps to elucidate the meaning.

[ScribbleScribe]

They may have changed his name to "Hyspanic-American" to not offende the new chicanos and make easier for people to understand.

No. He just hasnt been mentioned at all in any form.

[ScribbleScribe]

Quite amazing, him being the father of the modern novel and all.

I guess if you think about it, maybe they dont focus on him because he is SPANISH. Theyre mostly teaching american lit and english lit these days, not spanish lit translated into english.

[JCamilo]

I expected this to be the case to be honest :p

For all its purported shortcomings, it is an extremely useful launching pad. Especially if you have absolutely no previous knowledge of a topic or author you are researching.

It's like if you want to learn about the Russian Revolutions YOU DO NOT BEGIN WITH LEON TROTSKY'S MAMMOTH CHRONICLE. You start with something succinct and clear. (Sheila Fitzpatrick would be the wikipedia for the Russian Revolution for example.)

There is no problem on using Wikipedia. Encyclopedias are a form of literature after all. When I was a kid I used to sit and read them. Anyways, Wikipedia is an easy source for correct names, dates, maybe a quick text source. And In my case, it is useful for me to find the english name of some books, when I do not feel lazy and wnat to written them.

Anyways, any literature teaching who does not mention Cervantes every now and them is just unworth of being called teaching. Perhaps people in Canada know Cervantes.

[stlukesguild]

...any literature teaching (which) does not mention Cervantes every now and them is just unworth(y) of being called teaching.

I must agree. There are certain figures you cannot avoid: Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Chaucer, Montaigne, Racine, Moliere, Hugo, Baudelaire, Goethe, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, the Bible, Tolstoy, Joyce, Cervantes... and a good many more. Skipping over any of these writers is a travesty.

[JCamilo]

To be honest, a very general teaching could jump by Hugo, Chaucer, Racine and even Baudelaire simple because you can replace them by similar great names or because they are much specific (too freench, too english, too classical, too drunk, etc) but even a general, the most general of all, cannt skip Cervantes. He is like the main name of fictional prose, he is the chapter of fictional prose. And Quixote and Pancho, are like that thread about memorable characters, the real one that should be a greek myth or be in the bible.
It would be akim of teaching physics without teaching matemathics in the process.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Anyways, any literature teaching who does not mention Cervantes every now and them is just unworth of being called teaching. Perhaps people in Canada know Cervantes.

Well, I guess I've never had an English teacher, then. :sosp:


...any literature teaching (which) does not mention Cervantes every now and them is just unworth(y) of being called teaching.

I must agree. There are certain figures you cannot avoid: Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Chaucer, Montaigne, Racine, Moliere, Hugo, Baudelaire, Goethe, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, the Bible, Tolstoy, Joyce, Cervantes... and a good many more. Skipping over any of these writers is a travesty.

And, there's only so much time a teacher has in a school year/semester. Good luck getting to all those authors you listed while still sticking to the curriculum.

[cyberbob]

Personally I find poetry to be self-indulgent and silly.

In the words of Paul Dirac: The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way.

[JCamilo]

Paul Dirac looking at a Schrodinger equation

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/1242266_f496.jpg

and trying to convice me It is more simple than


GIVE me women, wine, and snuff
Untill I cry out "hold, enough!"
You may do so sans objection
Till the day of resurrection:
For, bless my beard, they aye shall be
My beloved Trinity.

by John Keats.

[stlukesguild]

In the words of Paul Dirac: The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way.

Why would anyone give the least concern as to what a physicist had to say about poetry? It would seem as inane as listening to a poet concerning physics.
Dirac completely misses the point of poetry... of art in general... which is not to convey the "meaning" as simply and clearly as possible. If that were all art were about then there would be no need for it at all as surely one can convey an idea or a "meaning" far more succinctly without ever resorting to poetry, fiction, painting, music, etc... The point of art lies in the experience of the art itself.

AS J.L. Borges (who certainly knew far more about poetry than your physicist) suggested in his short fiction, The Yellow Rose:

Neither that afternoon nor the next did the illustrious Giambattista Marino die, he whom the unanimous mouths of Fame — to use an image dear to him — proclaimed as the new Homer and the new Dante. But still, the noiseless fact that took place then was in reality the last event of his life. Laden with years and with glory, he lay dying in a huge Spanish bed with carved bedposts. It is not hard to imagine a serene balcony a few steps away, facing the west, and, below, marble and laurels and a garden whose various levels are duplicated in a rectangle of water. A woman has placed in a goblet a yellow rose. The man murmurs the inevitable lines that now, to tell the truth, bore even him a little:

Purple of the garden, pomp of the meadow,
Gem of the spring, April’s eye . . .

Then the revelation occurred: Marino saw the rose as Adam might have seen it in Paradise, and he thought that the rose was to be found in its own eternity and not in his words; and that we may mention or allude to a thing, but not express it; and that the tall, proud volumes casting a golden shadow in a corner were not — as his vanity had dreamed — a mirror of the world, but rather one thing more added to the world.

Marino achieved this illumination on the eve of his death, and Homer and Dante may have achieved it as well.

[cyberbob]

Well you wouldn't very well expect a poet to denounce poetry would you? Or a physicist to denounce physics? Keats was the one who said Isaac Newton destroyed the beauty of rainbows by explaining them.

I do enjoy music and prose. I don't like art either, especially abstract art. I have written a couple of lymericks, but those are more humorous and not obtuse.

[JCamilo]

Well, poets are often specialists in uderstanding poetry. If we are not take account on specialists... Who we will?

But the truth, is that Philosophers would laught at Dirac too. Like I showed, the aim of science is not making anythin simple. It is too understand. And some of the things are complicated and to understand you cann't have simplified ideas.

[Paulclem]

But anyways, does anyone else find poetry harder to digest than prose? Am I the only one? If you, like me, find it difficult do you think it is because we arent exposed to poetry as much as prose?

The thing with poetry is, that the understanding of it may well grow and develop as you do over time. There are, of course, simpler poems that can be understood with a few readings. More complex poetry needs time to digest - such as Eliot's The Wasteland - without there being a final understanding. Often it's just a deepening of understanding.

Older poetry often needs a bit of study to accommodate context and the use of language. The idea that you can read a book of poetry and understand most of the nuances - as you usually can a novel - is optimistic unless you are already experienced with the poet/ their poetic genre. The best way forward is often discussion.

Another thing is that you can dip in and chew over poems over a period of time. It's worth the thinking time.

[Seasider]

One of the differences between poetry and prose is that prose has a licence to ramble, to be diffuse, to explain the point in different ways....but poetry has to make its effect economically, to make each word work without unnecessary padding. I think that is why it takes more effort.

For someone who is coming to poetry without much experience I would recommend an anthology rather than the complete works of whoever. Variety of author, subject, time, milieu etc can be a good introduction to the more serious study of poetry as a genre and from there to individual poets.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Personally I find poetry to be self-indulgent and silly.


I don't like art either, especially abstract art.

:smilielol5: You may have a tough time here, cyberbob.

One thing I forgot to mention about poetry, also, is it's not always just about finding the meaning in a poem, but just enjoying the words; the sound, the structure, the feeling a poem gives you. That's what I read poetry for mostly.

[OrphanPip]

But the truth, is that Philosophers would laught at Dirac too. Like I showed, the aim of science is not making anythin simple. It is too understand. And some of the things are complicated and to understand you cann't have simplified ideas.

To be fair to Dirac, the quote was directed at Oppenheimer's tendency to romanticize science in artistic terms. The sentence that follows is "The two are incompatable." I disagree with his assessment of poetry, however depending on how you look at it, science's goal indeed is to make things understandable. The explanation may not be simple, but I think it may indeed be simpler than outright mystery. Also, reaching for the most concise and direct explanation possible is definitely cherished in modern science.

Dirac was a quirky fellow anyway, he had a tendency to take things literally, likely related to his autism.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, I suppose in the end, all make things simple, the path that takes is always complicated.



One of the differences between poetry and prose is that prose has a licence to ramble, to be diffuse, to explain the point in different ways....but poetry has to make its effect economically, to make each word work without unnecessary padding. I think that is why it takes more effort.

What?

[ScribbleScribe]

Hey I dont like abstract art either. Because I look at it and think to myself "I could do that!":sosp: Just give me some paint and i'll splatter it onto the canvas and voila! Abstract art.

[stlukesguild]

Hey I dont like abstract art either. Because I look at it and think to myself "I could do that!" Just give me some paint and i'll splatter it onto the canvas and voila! Abstract art.

Give me a pen and paper and I could copy Shakespeare's plays. Does that make me as good of a writer as Shakespeare? Of course not.

There is a huge gap between invention and copying. I could copy Shakespeare and you could copy Jackson Pollock... but to what avail? The challenge lies in having come up with what they achieved in the first place.

[ShoutGrace]

Hey I dont like abstract art either. Because I look at it and think to myself "I could do that!" Just give me some paint and i'll splatter it onto the canvas and voila! Abstract art.

Give me a pen and paper and I could copy Shakespeare's plays. Does that make me as good of a writer as Shakespeare? Of course not.

There is a huge gap between invention and copying. I could copy Shakespeare and you could copy Jackson Pollock... but to what avail? The challenge lies in having come up with what they achieved in the first place.

I think this misses the thrust of ScribbleScribe's post. I've previously encountered sentiment similar to what he expressed; i.e. abstract art is so easy, so devoid of technical skill, so lacking in meaningful structure, it seems that in order to be a great in the field, you'd merely have to splash some paint randomly on canvas, and you'd achieve star status.

I sometimes share the same sentiment, when thinking of the painting of pure black, which sold for so much (I forget the specifics), and the hoax where a child's scribbles where submitted to a meaningful abstract art contest, and won.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on modern, abstract art from this perspective.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hey I dont like abstract art either. Because I look at it and think to myself "I could do that!" Just give me some paint and i'll splatter it onto the canvas and voila! Abstract art.

Give me a pen and paper and I could copy Shakespeare's plays. Does that make me as good of a writer as Shakespeare? Of course not.

There is a huge gap between invention and copying. I could copy Shakespeare and you could copy Jackson Pollock... but to what avail? The challenge lies in having come up with what they achieved in the first place.

Bingo. I, too, am not a huge fan of abstract art where one throws paint at a canvas, not because I say to myself "I could do that," but because it doesn't appeal to me. Art isn't just about "skill" (though, it doesn't usually hurt). Like StLukes said, it's about invention. That you could do it is a moot point, because you didn't do it. The artist did, and had the balls to do it.

[stlukesguild]

I think this misses the thrust of ScribbleScribe's post. I've previously encountered sentiment similar to what he expressed; i.e. abstract art is so easy, so devoid of technical skill, so lacking in meaningful structure, it seems that in order to be a great in the field, you'd merely have to splash some paint randomly on canvas, and you'd achieve star status.

I sometimes share the same sentiment, when thinking of the painting of pure black, which sold for so much (I forget the specifics), and the hoax where a child's scribbles where submitted to a meaningful abstract art contest, and won.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on modern, abstract art from this perspective.

No. What you and ScribbleScribe are missing is the fact that you are confusing the craft with art. I am saying this from the perspective of an artist who has made abstract work in the past, but whose current work is both figurative and labor intensive. In spite of this I recognize that neither the difficulty nor the labor involved are a measure of artistic merit.

If I shift the context for a minute to music I might suggest one listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7DBoiyBoJ8

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgaxYEsEVVY&feature=related

Both of these works are incredibly simple. So much so that I could play either of them in spite of my stunted musical abilities... and almost anyone could have written them. There is nothing in either piece demanding of any virtuoso abilities as a composer. But I'd challenge anyone to show me just how easy it is to compose a piece of music such as this that continues to resonate generations after the fact.

The same holds true in the visual arts. I am fully of the belief that a mastery of the basic skills, especially of drawing, is of the greatest worth. Renoir suggested that one "become a good craftsman first, it never prevented anyone from becoming a genius," and I fully concur. The greater an artist's abilities, the more possibilities are open to him or her. But at the same time it must be recognized that

A. Mastery of craft is no assurance of artistic mastery
B. The skills need for different works of art are not all the same

This artist:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5342271338_f6405d0185_b.jpg

clearly has a far greater mastery of the traditional skills of drawing and painting than does this artist:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5341660457_682e570d75_b.jpg

Yet there is little doubt as to who is the greater artist. In spite of what might be seen as "limited abilities" Van Gogh was able to produce a body of art that was revolutionary, unique to the point of being immediately recognizable... and that resonated (and still resonates) with subsequent generations of artists and art lovers. The baroque painter, on the other hand, is virtually an unknown figure... just one of endless equally skillful painters of the time his work has largely faded from the history books.

Addressing the second point, I would point out that no one would fault the artist who created this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5163/5342265984_3aa8e6b261_z.jpg

or this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5342266180_9cdd6de9a8_z.jpg

or this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5002/5341674757_94ca8e80be_z.jpg

... if it were discovered that he or she lacked a mastery of the traditional skills of drawing and painting. After all... how are these skills necessary to the art in question? And yet many assume that the painter of this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5342297994_dd4e778b8f_z.jpg

or this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5341687947_63bb1d93e9_z.jpg

or this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5342298330_870d0492f4.jpg

... must be frauds for the simple reason that they cannot discern any traditional drawing of painting skills. In reality, many abstract artists were and are well trained in the academic sense. The artists of the first two of the above paintings, Paul Klee and Philip Guston, were both masterful draftsmen. The last artist, Jackson Pollock, admittedly was not. But does it matter? How are these skills necessary to his work? The reality is that he is employing skills well removed from those of the masterful academic artist.

The usual criticism of Pollock and other such artists is that "anyone could do it"... and on the surface that is true. Anyone could throw paint on the canvas... although Pollock did it first and to do it after him misses out on the fact that he developed a visual language that had never been seen before (and yes, what Pollack did was develop a visual "language" rooted in the innovations of Kandinsky, Picasso, Monet's late water-lily paintings, Indian sandpainting, Asian calligraphy, and Rorschach ink blots). Pollack also did it better than anyone who followed him. Having seen these paintings in person I am always struck by the "openness"... the "fluidity"... the sense of rhythm and the joy. Manet noted that he was always impressed by Velasquez portraits of the lone individual for the simple reason that these paintings continued to hold your interest in spite of being limited in subject. Paintings with multiple figures fighting and flirting may be difficult to orchestrate... but if successful they easily grab our attention. To be able to hold one's attention... and continue to do so with the most reduced of means is a real challenge.

I am always struck by Richard Wilbur's poem, Piazza di Spagna, Early Morning:

I can't forget
How she stood at the top of that long marble stair
Amazed, and then with a sleepy pirouette
Went dancing slowly down to the fountain-quieted square;

Nothing upon her face
But some impersonal loneliness,- not then a girl
But as it were a reverie of the place,
A called-for falling glide and whirl;

As when a leaf, petal, or thin chip
Is drawn to the falls of a pool and, circling a moment above it,
Rides on over the lip-
Perfectly beautiful, perfectly ignorant of it.

Wilbur takes virtually nothing... the pirouette of a girl down the steps... and turns it it to an image that imprints itself upon us... must as the Abstract artists take simple elements of color, line, and paint itself and create an image that continues to resonate.

Of course some don't "get it"... some are left baffled... some imagine it to be a fraud... but the same can be said of a great deal of art and literature and music.

By the way... most of the anecdotes concerning a child's scribbles or a monkey's paintings winning the awards at an art show are simple hoaxes in themselves... perpetuated by those who dislike abstract art but cannot critically challenge it fairly and logically, but rather need to resort to falsehoods and outright fabrications.

[JCamilo]

You do not need to go further, Pope is not a better poet than Emily Dickinson, however, if we roam by the internet, we will find more imitadors of Dickinson (that however never got near her capacity of expression) than Pope. It is not because Dickinson is apparently smaller, with less care for the form than Pope, she is inferior or even has less effort than Pope.
Another example, is Haikus. So simple. Anyone can find 3 lines that say nothing. But not anyone can actually express in 3 lines like the best haiku masters.

If you go to music, all kind of popular music is apparently simplistic, after all most are playing for ear, there is improvisation, etc. Samba here in Brazil, Rock and Roll elsewhere (who is supposed to be democratic, anyone can have his own garage band, the punk legend of people who did not know how to play, playing) but there is no reason to believe a band like Ramones, simplistic and crude like they were, had no imense effort to produce their music as much as could have Pink Floyd.

Or in Movies, the 50 and 60's european cinema that anyone could do it, act naturally, and here in brazil simplified by "One camera in the hand, one idea in the mind", and anyone could it, yet, how many Glauber Rochas are out of there?

p.s. Anywas, Pollock and his peers pay for their own propaganda, them and all "spontaneous" creators (even people like Bataille) always forgot to mention that being spontaneous did not mean "I forgot all I know, my mind is fully able to put apart insticts and technique" and it did not meant mindlessy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well said, StLukes.

I know you went over the reasons Van Gogh is the better artist, and I agree, but I still love this painting. So awesome.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5342271338_f6405d0185_b.jpg

Also, is it true that most abstract artists usually establish themselves as artists with good technical ability before turning to abstract works? I know you said most of them are well trained, but I've always heard that an artist kind of needs to prove his skill before moving on to the abstract (with exceptions like Polluck, of course). Is this true?



P.S. I know this has gone of the OP's topic, but I'm asking for this not to be closed, as the current conversation is very interesting :).

[ShoutGrace]

stlukesguild,

I want to point out that while I stated that I sometimes share the same sentiment, I certainly wouldn’t consider myself qualified to make a considered comment on any visual arts, whether they be “abstract,” “modern,” or any other kind. I recognize my ignorance in these regions, and so usually refrain from contributing to the discussion of them.

I also meant it when I said I’d appreciate your thoughts on the topic; from what I can tell you’ve spent a lot of time creating and thinking about art generally, and so much artistic substratum specifically.

I have a broad question for you. I believe I grasp the distinction between craft and art – there are plenty of virtuosos who don’t compose, typists who don’t generate original literature, etc. So something regarding creativity must be at play here. Technical skill is craft, and art . . . is something else. I get the impression, though, that you tie some of the distinction to “who did it first,” especially with your comments on Pollack. How does that factor into the discussion? The idea that (to be crass and unenlightened) Pollack first “randomly threw paint on canvas” and so deserves pride of place? (For, in your words, “develop[ing] a visual language that had never been seen before.”)

I wonder how this concept of creating it first, and originally, factors in. Can you expatiate?




A. Mastery of craft is no assurance of artistic mastery
B. The skills need for different works of art are not all the same


I don’t dispute these points. The second is evident. Is it fair to say that the first delves into “Art Theory 101?” This distinction between craft and art seems fundamental, but “artistic mastery” is more vague and difficult to define, no?



Of course some don't "get it"... some are left baffled... some imagine it to be a fraud... but the same can be said of a great deal of art and literature and music.


I agree with this as well. This touches on much of why I avoid the more subjective arts and gravitate towards more direct and defined value and merit. I can “get it” for myself, but I can’t talk meaningfully with others about it, understand why they disagree, or articulate myself properly so that they can understand me. I’d like to note here that I appreciate the pieces you posted, and liked some, and disliked others. I actually most like a few of the ones I would ignorantly describe as “less traditional.”



By the way... most of the anecdotes concerning a child's scribbles or a monkey's paintings winning the awards at an art show are simple hoaxes in themselves... perpetuated by those who dislike abstract art but cannot critically challenge it fairly and logically, but rather need to resort to falsehoods and outright fabrications.

I’m sure this is true, and it is sensible, at any rate. Abstract art draws a lot of ire. Are there occasions where they haven’t been hoaxes, but legitimate? What inferences can we draw from that, or how are we to interpret that, to your mind?



In spite of this I recognize that neither the difficulty nor the labor involved are a measure of artistic merit.


This is slightly different than point A, above. It seems intuitive to me that difficulty, labor, and generally the amount of exquisite technical skill that goes into a piece may account for . . . merit only perhaps, and not artistic merit? I can certainly appreciate the skill necessary, and the work involved!

[stlukesguild]

...is it true that most abstract artists usually establish themselves as artists with good technical ability before turning to abstract works? I know you said most of them are well trained, but I've always heard that an artist kind of needs to prove his skill before moving on to the abstract (with exceptions like Pollock, of course). Is this true?

Well, you can't really make any sweeping generalizations about the training of artists. I would say that a good many of the masters of Modernism and Abstraction were quite competent in the traditional skills of painting:

Picasso (age 13?):

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5242/5344928829_8373b30873_b.jpg

Picasso's father was a painting teacher at the college level. As his student, the younger Picasso soon mastered the academic skills of traditional painting. He didn't wish to continue in this direction, however, and dropped out of art school and began to travel to the big art centers, arriving eventually in Paris, where he was exposed to the latest trends in painting. Along with George Braque, he made the innovations that led to Modernism and ultimately Abstraction.

It has been said of Paul Klee that he invented the whole of Modern art in miniature. Klee's diminutive paintings certainly had a profound impact upon artists in Europe and America. In spite of the deceptively simple and child-like nature of his work...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5345565714_a29d24998d_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5345565772_729db73b50_z.jpg

Klee's early etching show an artist with a mastery of detail and a solid grasp of form... in spite of his obvious use of expressive distortions:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5345541800_b9e72c9dbd_z.jpg

In America we find among the leading Abstract Expressionists that Philip Guston began as a talented figurative painter... even working on large murals in Fresco under the great Mexican muralist, David Siquieros:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5344928537_92164b3b3c_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5344964725_feb5333479_b.jpg

Guston eventually moved toward a shimmering almost Impressionistic manner of abstraction that suggested passages of Monet:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5341687947_63bb1d93e9_b.jpg

In the late 1960s he rejected abstraction and returned to figuration... but a figuration that was crude and cartoonish... inspired by his love of comic books, German Expressionism (especially Max Beckmann) and ealy Renaissance painters such as Giotto. These works often confronted the mindless violence of the era:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5344979463_40d20266ca_b.jpg

William DeKooning, who rivaled Pollack in influence, began with a traditional academic training:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5345539878_3d90dfac30_b.jpg

His first mature works explored the fragmented figuration of Picasso... the elegant line of Ingres... and the gestural brush work of Rubens and Soutine:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5129/5345539830_e8c9ffed82_b.jpg

His paintings only slowly headed into abstraction...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5345539926_4d3652e6e3_z.jpg

until all the figurative elements were gone:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5163/5344990643_25f412d11b_b.jpg

Pollock and Rothko began painting in a figurative manner... but they were admittedly limited in their abilities and only slowly came into their own through the abstract vocabulary. Robert Motherwell never painted figuratively. On the other hand, he was the best educated of the Abstract Expressionists, having taken degrees (including a PhD.) in French literature, philosophy and art history at Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, and the Sorbonne, in Paris.

Following in the wake of Abstract Expressionism, many American art schools and art departments gutted the drawing departments and focused solely upon abstract and conceptual theory. As a result, the subsequent generation struggled as a result of inadequate training, as they returned to "realism". Only now have many of the major art schools and art departments begun to take notice as many young artists have turned away toward figurative schools such as the New York Academy of Fine Arts, the Pennsylvania Academy, etc... as well as independent ateliers.

[stlukesguild]

I have a broad question for you. I believe I grasp the distinction between craft and art – there are plenty of virtuosos who don’t compose, typists who don’t generate original literature, etc. So something regarding creativity must be at play here. Technical skill is craft, and art . . . is something else. I get the impression, though, that you tie some of the distinction to “who did it first,” especially with your comments on Pollack. How does that factor into the discussion? The idea that (to be crass and unenlightened) Pollack first “randomly threw paint on canvas” and so deserves pride of place? (For, in your words, “develop[ing] a visual language that had never been seen before.”)

I wonder how this concept of creating it first, and originally, factors in. Can you expatiate?

Think how this applies to the other arts. Cervantes hold a certain status as the father of the modern novel, Joyce as the father of Modernism. Neither can survive upon this alone. If Cervantes had written the first novel... but it had largely been as bad as his poetry, he would be but a historical footnote. By the same token, Pollock has not survived merely on his innovation of drip painting, but rather because the resulting paintings are good. He built upon the innovations of Monet... whose "all-over" compositions...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5345635664_447d998eb4_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5345024373_a4fa90737e_z.jpg

prefigure Pollock's major "field paintings":

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5244/5345648198_b5c6b2c158_b.jpg

while the calligraphic nature of Pollock's drips built upon Indian sand-painting as well as the Asian calligraphy that was just coming into vogue among artists:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5208/5345638752_d88b76a25b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5345638786_ebc715128e_z.jpg

Pollock continued to impact artists after him... although certainly not at the level of the heated rhetoric that accompanied the peak of Abstract Expressionism. Like any artist, time will sort out just how important he remains.