Bad poetry, or not poetry at all?

[missmeadowsweet]

I was wondering what y'all think of this. I had a professor that raised the question that if a poem is a bad poem (of course there are differeing opinions on what is a bad poem) is it still poetry, or does the fact that it is bad poetry make it not even designated as poetry at all, of any kind?

One example my professor gave was the poem Ars Poetica by Archibald McLeash. In that poem it says, "A poem should not mean, but be." My professor said it was ridiculous for a poem to merely "be"; it would have to mean something, and that this view was relativistic. I would agree with this, but I'm not sure what the designation could be, if any, which would put a poem in a "bad poetry" group or in a group that haan't even achieved the status of poetry.

And as if to complicate things further, this raises the question, "What is the definition of poetry?" I guess that definition is foundational to a discussion on this because in order to say if a work is poetry or not, we will need to know what poetry [I]is[I] to begin with.

So, any thoughts?

[Armel P]

I think the most important thing is the intention of the writer (or "writer"). If a writer intends to write something that would be generally excepted as a poem then it is a poem. Just recently I was at a bar with a couple of friends and they were telling me a story about this weird guy that was trying to pick them up in a bar once. He would say, "Tell me something you want me to recite a poem about." And they would say something like, "Ok. This table." And inevitably his poem would begin with "Roses are, violets are blue..." and end with something inane like "... this table is made of wood and so is the chair." It's a stupid, bad poem. But it's a poem. Whether you say "good poem" or "bad poem" these fall under the implied category of "types of poems." It's unavoidable. If you say "that is a bad poem" then you are accepting that it is a poem. If it wasn't a poem you wouldn't have labeled it as such. That is because the critic would recognize the intention of the writer.

[JCamilo]

A poem still a poem if bad or not. It is a format, not a status and great poets wrote dreadfull poems.

[Ecurb]

I was wondering what y'all think of this. I had a professor that raised the question that if a poem is a bad poem (of course there are differeing opinions on what is a bad poem) is it still poetry, or does the fact that it is bad poetry make it not even designated as poetry at all, of any kind?

One example my professor gave was the poem Ars Poetica by Archibald McLeash. In that poem it says, "A poem should not mean, but be." My professor said it was ridiculous for a poem to merely "be"; it would have to mean something, and that this view was relativistic. I would agree with this, but I'm not sure what the designation could be, if any, which would put a poem in a "bad poetry" group or in a group that haan't even achieved the status of poetry.

And as if to complicate things further, this raises the question, "What is the definition of poetry?" I guess that definition is foundational to a discussion on this because in order to say if a work is poetry or not, we will need to know what poetry [I]is[I] to begin with.

So, any thoughts?

Your professor doesn't understand poetry. I recounted a Robert Frost anecdote in another thread recently. Frost was talking to a young woman, who said, "I love your poem, Mr. Frost -- but what does it mean?"

"Do you want me to say it over again in worser English?" asked Frost.

Poetry doesn't attain merit by its "meaning". If we want philosophy, we should read philosophy. If we want history, we should read history. Does MacCauley's "Horatius at the Bridge" attain poetic status because it recounts the legendary history of Horatius's fight against Lars Porsena? Is its "meaning" attainable by paraphrase? Of course not.

Poetry may be freighted with meaning, but it is not reducible to its meaning. To say it is would be equivalent to saying that painting is reducible to its colors, or music to its notes. True: poetry is made up of words, and words have meanings. Music is made up of notes which have no meaning -- the artistic performance only occurs when the notes are juxtaposed to each other in certain patterns. Poetry is like a combination of music and prose -- the "meaning" is made up of the words (which do have meaning), but also of the sound (which does not) and the pattern (which does not).

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods....

[Cunninglinguist]

"A poem should not mean, but be." Ostensibly, your professor is right. An absurd string of words meets the criteria of "being" no less than Shakespeare; yet it is clear that one is generally considered better.

Nevertheless, it seems to suggest a certain theory of art that asserts that art should document, in one way or another, the human mind, condition, etc., as opposed to speculate about it, which has mainly been the chore of philosophy. A piece of art, then, becomes a stage whereupon the viewer entertains ideas, emotions, etc. which she projects onto it.

Similarly, words and other symbols, in a certain manner of speaking, do not "have" meaning; we prescribe it. When an artist treats his symbols with too many of his own prejudiced prescriptions the piece of art usually ends up suffering; the artist ends up imposing a certain understanding of the work onto the viewer instead of giving her the liberty to find her own. In other words, when the artist has imposed too much meaning he has crippled the viewer's capacity to project herself, her emotions, ideas, etc. onto the piece of art and to let it be meaningful to her.

The author then must understand how his viewers will construe his words. In short, he must understand the limits of the semantic contracts, if you will, between him and his variegated multitude of readers. When his piece of art satisfies a large number of these contracts it will become meaningful to the largest population. How meaningful depends on how well he has satisfied the contracts.

Hopefully there's something useful in these words.

[missmeadowsweet]

Hmm . . . I enjoyed reading your thoughts of this.

Armel P, to belabor the issue further, I'm wondering, what makes us label the silly verses you gave as an example as a poem? Is it just our consensus on what we recognize as a poem, or are there truly good reasons to say these verses are a poem? I'm wondering why they aren't simply labeled as a failed attempt at poetry.

JCamillo, I agree that poetry is a format and consequently that one can use the format in a way that creates a bad poem. So, is there a standard definition of that format, or do you think that is subjective?

Ecurb, I like what you said about poetry not being reducible to its meaning. That's a good thought. It reminded me of something I once read in a book and really liked: "Poetry is fallen music, and prose is fallen poetry." It's interesting that poetry seems to be created when rhythm (sound, pattern) come together via the conduit of language (words). It's also interesting to note that Aristotle said "Poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history."

Cunninglinguist . . . so I'm wondering, would you say that when one writes a poem, paints a picture, etc. that what the author intended for the picture to mean, or what he/she projected into their work can be something completely different from what the author's readers or viewers see upon reading or seeing the same piece of work? Or rather, I suppose the reader's or viewers can interpret the work differently from the author, but should they? While I think it enriches a work when it has the ability to speak to different people in a multifaceted way, I also think it is important to keep the author's intention for the work in mind, otherwise everything becomes subjective and an author's ability to portray what he/she wants to portray can be misconstrued.

[JCamilo]

It is not subjective (as if anyone can say what is a poem, If I claim this is a poem, it is a joke.), basically a format in verses, written with with rhytimic intention. Of course, we have the genre prose poems, but that should be more prose poetry.
And poetry is how the use of language happens - When we get a bad poem of a great author - we see he is using the same of his good poems. He is using the language in a symbolic way, crafting the words, etc. But it does not work as an unity.

Anyways, the proposition is illogical from the begining. It does not matter if it is a poem or poetry. Let's say Food. To say if food is good - you must consider this food first.

To say a poem or poetry is bad, you must analyse as poetry and poem first. Therefore, you can not conclude: this poem I analysed is not a poem, because it is a bad poem. It would be like analysing Michael Jordan as a baseball player and concluing he is a bad basketbal player.

[AuntShecky]

Archibald MacLeish may have been right when he wrote "A poem must not mean but be." That notion may have sprung from the influence of the New Critics who maintained that the only thing that matters about a poem is what appears on the page.

The author's intention may be more or less irrelevant; moreover, Northrop Frye, whom some categorize as a New Critic wrote that individual authors aren't really qualified to assess their own work. The recently much-improved "Wikipedia" offers this quote from Frye's seminal work, The Anatomy of Criticism:

Claiming with John Stuart Mill that "the artist . . . is not heard but overheard," Frye insists that 'The axiom of criticism must be, not that the poet does not know what he is talking about, but that he cannot talk about what he knows'.

Believe it or not, this attitude is not uncommon among poets themselves, even one as far back as the 19th century with the great Robert Browning: “When I wrote that, God and I knew what it meant, but now God alone knows.”

Attempts to discover/uncover the "meaning" of a poem has kept English departments and literary journals humming for years. We have to keep in mind, though, that the text is primary. The very best poetry is a perfect wedding of form and content; the difficulty arises when trying to split the two asunder.

As far as "bad poetry" goes, civilization has a ever- increasing surplus, needless to say. A verse that is banal or pretentious or technically inept (such as doggerel) can be characterized as "bad." There isn't a hard and fast definition of "bad poetry," but just as the Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward once said about pornography, "I can't define it. But I know it when I see it."

If you're still confused about what bad poetry is, you could always click here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=747627#post747627). (Oh, I kid. On second thought, maybe not.)

[Armel P]

Armel P, to belabor the issue further, I'm wondering, what makes us label the silly verses you gave as an example as a poem? Is it just our consensus on what we recognize as a poem, or are there truly good reasons to say these verses are a poem? I'm wondering why they aren't simply labeled as a failed attempt at poetry.

Well, let's see... The first thing that comes to mind is that if one labels it as a failed attempt at poetry, the burden of defining the boundaries of poetry would be with them.

There is also the issue of the judgment. One can say that a bad poem is not a poem. However, what is a poem that has yet to be judged? Is it in limbo? If I write a poem and nobody reads it but me is it a poem until someone reads it and determines it is bad? Is it not a poem until someone reads it and determines it's good? I think that further illustrates the importance of intent.

The topic is similar to a question I've struggled with before about what art is. It's the same idea. It is generally accepted, for example, that Duchamp's ready-mades are included in the narrative of art history because of the intent behind them rather than the craft behind them. This goes for installation peices one sees or would have seen in post-war art such as miscellaneous objects being placed in the middle of the room, as well. Or for that matter drawings done by children.

[JCamilo]

Armel P, one cann't say a bad poem is not a poem. It is is illogical.

The only form to analyse a poem is following a critery that defines what a good poem is. Therefore we have to localize those traits in the text. If there is such traits, it is poem. If there is no such trait, it is not a poem.

Let's say: Monalisa. It is a good poem? No rythim, no use of language, no metric... Of course it is a bad poem. Simple because it is no poem. I cannt analyse it as a poem.

But

From the grave they raise
the fair scented daises
to haunt my dreamming
with their lovely blossoming -
alas, poor is my garden!

Is a crap poem. you can see several mistakes there. You apply all is necessary to analyse here.

[Armel P]

Armel P, one cann't say a bad poem is not a poem. It is is illogical.

The only form to analyse a poem is following a critery that defines what a good poem is. Therefore we have to localize those traits in the text. If there is such traits, it is poem. If there is no such trait, it is not a poem.

Let's say: Monalisa. It is a good poem? No rythim, no use of language, no metric... Of course it is a bad poem. Simple because it is no poem. I cannt analyse it as a poem.

But

From the grave they raise
the fair scented daises
to haunt my dreamming
with their lovely blossoming -
alas, poor is my garden!

Is a crap poem. you can see several mistakes there. You apply all is necessary to analyse here.

Of course it isn't logical. That poem may not be viewed as good but it is still a poem.

[Delta40]

I agree. To say a painting is bad therefore not a painting at all is not reasonable. The human condition demands that we rate the arts. Bad music, poetry, art, literature like the under class, still fall under their respective categories. We even have prizes for them! check out this link.

http://www.mopba.org/

[Cunninglinguist]

Cunninglinguist . . . so I'm wondering, would you say that when one writes a poem, paints a picture, etc. that what the author intended for the picture to mean, or what he/she projected into their work can be something completely different from what the author's readers or viewers see upon reading or seeing the same piece of work? Or rather, I suppose the reader's or viewers can interpret the work differently from the author, but should they? While I think it enriches a work when it has the ability to speak to different people in a multifaceted way, I also think it is important to keep the author's intention for the work in mind, otherwise everything becomes subjective and an author's ability to portray what he/she wants to portray can be misconstrued.

I think so; the recipient can extrapolate something much different from what was intended. Whether or not the viewer should try to find the author's original meaning is a good question; the answer, I think, varies from work to work. In some pieces of art the meaning is intentionally left open ended; in others (perhaps something like War and Peace comes to mind) the author has woven meaning and moral(s) into his works.

In my bubble, a piece of art--or any symbol in general--is a conduit for a conversation between the artist and the viewer. The piece of art has captured some part of the artist and it expresses this in a certain language. The artist and the viewer, then, can only understand each other though a mutual understanding of the language (that is, they both project similarly onto the symbols). Yet, since the very nature of any language is evolving and people's understanding of it is always changing (even varies on a personal basis), so too the meaning within the piece of art must exist sui generis. In this respect, a piece of art can never be an accurate representation of the artist's intentions. This seems to be more or less a reiteration of what AuntShecky's said.

Moreover, to digress for a moment, the artist cannot go start with only what he means to say in mind. He must be cognizant of how his work will be interpreted. In other words, it does not matter what the artist means to say; what matters is how his art is viewed. I think this is what is meant by: "the only thing that matters about a poem is what appears on the page."

To get back on topic. On the one hand, we can treat these intrinsic limitations as guidelines and start to eschew meaning from our symbols, yet give them some sort of consistent or somehow logical semantic structure to them. Then, the piece of art becomes the stage. On the other hand, we can look at these limitations just as limitations and notwithstanding try to impose unequivocal meaning on them.

If we only do the former then we loose the capacity to have a meaningful conversation, a purposeful influence on others, or any exchange of ideas; if we only do the latter then we loose the capacity of depth. Thus, most art falls somewhere in between the two ends of this spectrum; "pure" philosophy ends up at the latter point; and nature itself ends up at the former.

Hopefully this has answered some questions.

[JCamilo]

I think so; the recipient can extrapolate something much different from what was intended. Whether or not the viewer should try to find the author's original meaning is a good question; the answer, I think, varies from work to work. In some pieces of art the meaning is intentionally left open ended; in others (perhaps something like War and Peace comes to mind) the author has woven meaning and moral(s) into his works.

I think it is all about a matter of language, when someone argues the topic "poems mean or poems are" , they are trying to be literal. In the end both would have to answer "Mean what" Or "be what".
But in the end, this is a way to quote Yaweh, I am the one who is, meaning poems are a end on itself. They are not their social use, meaning etc. I do not know how the teach transformed it in bad or good, it is poetry or not.


In my bubble, a piece of art--or any symbol in general--is a conduit for a conversation between the artist and the viewer. The piece of art has captured some part of the artist and it expresses this in a certain language. The artist and the viewer, then, can only understand each other though a mutual understanding of the language (that is, they both project similarly onto the symbols). Yet, since the very nature of any language is evolving and people's understanding of it is always changing (even varies on a personal basis), so too the meaning within the piece of art must exist sui generis. In this respect, a piece of art can never be an accurate representation of the artist's intentions. This seems to be more or less a reiteration of what AuntShecky's said.

I would say, lets say, that you know well what you want to say, that poetry is a solution for the lack of efficiety of language. So, you must construct texts that not only "explain" as also texts that provoke the reaction of reader. This goes for painting, music,etc. Most people have no control of language of colors, but they can cause an expression (so they mean something or are something?). But language is always clusmy, A talks to B, but A has not the same references as B, in a world A and B are apart by kilometers and centuries, this is even more true. The artist cann't control the life of his work. And art is always foggy.




Moreover, to digress for a moment, the artist cannot go start with only what he means to say in mind. He must be cognizant of how his work will be interpreted. In other words, it does not matter what the artist means to say; what matters is how his art is viewed. I think this is what is meant by: "the only thing that matters about a poem is what appears on the page."

I disagree. I mean, of course it happens, but many times the artist is improvising. He may get what he meant foremost. How good it can be is another hundred. But indeed, good artists can play this game. Manipulate, direct the eye of the viewer. But not the interpretation. This is impossible (not saying some didnt try).
I think the idea is that the poem has vallue due to its merits. Take it as a bloomesque go against the school of resentment. Even the true meaning - we know the Aeneid glorifies August an the new empire - is less important than the priting in the papper. In this case, it is not the right interpretation or the other interpretation, a poem will be good due to the elements of the text. Like Virginia Woolf is relevant not because she was a feminist, but because her quality as a writer.

[Cunninglinguist]

I think it is all about a matter of language, when someone argues the topic "poems mean or poems are" , they are trying to be literal. In the end both would have to answer "Mean what" Or "be what".
But in the end, this is a way to quote Yaweh, I am the one who is, meaning poems are a end on itself. They are not their social use, meaning etc. I do not know how the teach transformed it in bad or good, it is poetry or not.

In short, what a work of art means can be considered what the artist intended it to mean. What a work of art is can be considered how the piece of art is received. I'm not sure what the latter half of your paragraph means. If I have read it correctly - I think art as an end in itself is a very narrow definition that arises out of a very recent philosophy (perhaps starting with Baumgarten). Art has its power to change; at least the art I'm referring to does.


I disagree. I mean, of course it happens, but many times the artist is improvising. He may get what he meant foremost. How good it can be is another hundred. But indeed, good artists can play this game. Manipulate, direct the eye of the viewer. But not the interpretation. This is impossible (not saying some didnt try).
I think the idea is that the poem has vallue due to its merits. Take it as a bloomesque go against the school of resentment. Even the true meaning - we know the Aeneid glorifies August an the new empire - is less important than the priting in the papper. In this case, it is not the right interpretation or the other interpretation, a poem will be good due to the elements of the text. Like Virginia Woolf is relevant not because she was a feminist, but because her quality as a writer.

Then good improvised art happens when the artist has a latent, intuitive understanding of the semantic contract. In fact, this seems to be the only way to do good art since actually thinking about how the piece will be interpreted would be a herculean labor. Moreover, it's still possible to understand how your piece will be understood, up to a certain point.

I'm not sure how saying "I think the idea is that the poem has value due to its merits" isn't exactly redundant. A work of art has merits when it carries meaning. Meaning being subjective, there is no objective standard whereby we can measure the value of a work. That said, the printing on the paper is important because it has meaning - so one can't really say that the printing is more or less important that what it signifies. As said before, form and content are forever entangled.

[JCamilo]

In short, what a work of art means can be considered what the artist intended it to mean. What a work of art is can be considered how the piece of art is received. I'm not sure what the latter half of your paragraph means. If I have read it correctly - I think art as an end in itself is a very narrow definition that arises out of a very recent philosophy (perhaps starting with Baumgarten). Art has its power to change; at least the art I'm referring to does.

More like, a work of art is what its means. I think it is not narrow, as it is spefic to the aesthetic merits. Those aesthetic merits are the power that moves the interpretation, keeping it alive.
But of course, Art (not the artwork) must include all exterior effects that it caused, as it is the story of its interpretation, renew of meanings, etc.




Then good improvised art happens when the artist has a latent, intuitive understanding of the semantic contract. In fact, this seems to be the only way to do good art since actually thinking about how the piece will be interpreted would be a herculean labor. Moreover, it's still possible to understand how your piece will be understood, up to a certain point.

I would say improvised art happens. If it is good or not, then it is something else. A good author do have some control, but it is often limited to the other. Hell is other, reading too. Today I saw something very funny, not exactly related to the topic, but worth.

Read the comments, http://booksandpals.blogspot.com/2011/03/greek-seaman-jacqueline-howett.html


I'm not sure how saying "I think the idea is that the poem has value due to its merits" isn't exactly redundant. A work of art has merits when it carries meaning. Meaning being subjective, there is no objective standard whereby we can measure the value of a work. That said, the printing on the paper is important because it has meaning - so one can't really say that the printing is more or less important that what it signifies. As said before, form and content are forever entangled.

Aesthetic merits. A bad piece can have meaning. Meanings even, but it does not imply aesthetic merits. I may have forgot the word.

But meaning is not subjective. If I write a poem and tell you : It means that world is round. No matter if 777 readers tell me it was about my relationship with my father, the rebelion in Libia, the brown color - there is an objetive meaning. Obviously, i will be annoying - objectivelly a text is interpreted according the words and the referencial of the reader, not of the writer (does not exclude the reader that studies after my referencial), the object is the text + reader, not just text. I know in the end it is semantics, but when someone says subjective, some people can bring as if anything is equally possible. I would say interpretation is subjective, the meanings not.

[Ecurb]

Does a piece of wordless music "mean" anything? It seems to me that "meanings" can be expressed in prose paraphrases. A word's "meaning" can be defined by the dictionary, using other words. Can a poem's "meaning" be so defined?

[OrphanPip]

Meh, something is poetry if we choose to treat it as poetry.

Take a section from Gertrude Stein's Tender Buttons

"A DOG.

A little monkey goes like a donkey that means to say that means to say that more sighs last goes. Leave with it. A little monkey goes like a donkey."

We could say this is a prose poem and treat it as art, or we could say it's just prose gibberish.

[Cunninglinguist]

I'm not sure what "aesthetic merits" means. Are you getting at prettiness and ugliness with "aesthetic merits"? In that case, I'm hardly measuring the value of art according to these criteria. Moreover, prettiness and ugliness are ultimately meanings in themselves. Certain proportions (especially in the body), color combinations (especially in nature), shapes, etc. we either by nature or by convention associate with certain things (like fertility; green as lush, brown as rotten or poop, blue as the sky or ocean) that happen to be pleasurable or unpleasurable. So then, if I'm reading this correctly, if something is ugly, while it may be loaded with other meaning, then it is bad. This is, again, a pretty narrow view of art and follows that grievous philosophical tradition which I was condemning earlier. In my book, a good piece of art is anything that gets you talking (don't take this too literally), pretty or ugly - not just something that may flatter the senses.


Meaning is subjective - a fact is not. A symbol can mean a fact; but the meaning of the symbol is created exclusively by the mind (whereas the fact may not be). Here we're really only in disagreement over definitions.

[JCamilo]

Because subjective is not having many meanings. The word "fish" has many meanings, but all are objective, as their meaning depends on external rules, norms and not the individual perception.

Anyways, aesthetics merits does not means pretty-beauty merits for while. It means the internal rules of an artistic piece (as: the use of perspective in the paint is correctly applied; the symbols used as refference ot a certain object are correct, etc). The Divine Comedy has aesthetic merits, the regilious philosophy of it do not (they may have other merits).

I think we disagree because it is possible to express and communicate something without any understandment. I didnt need to understand the Sistine Chappel to communicate with it. I did not knew what Mike did with me.

[missmeadowsweet]

I didn't mean to start an argument. haha, jk.

I agree with you, JCamillo when you said, "interpretation is subjective, the meanings not". It seems inevitable that a poem may be interpreted differently from what the author had in mind; however, its true meaning which the author had in mind when he/she wrote it still remains, and is not negated just because a different meaning can be applied or extracted from the poem by a reader. I suppose, though, that if a poem is about, say, a haunted house, even the author him/herself doesn't have the right to claim it is about, say, a spring day, and that is because of the medium used to write a poem; namely, words, or language. When we read the said poem about the haunted house, we recognize what the words are communicating to us. And what we have accepted words to mean (as defined by a dictionary) make it impossible for an author to hold in good faith that his/her poem is about something the words deny. That is why language works, and why we can communicate. It's also why it's important to consider one's words carefully.

P.S. I just wanted to say that this discussion is really great, and I haven't had one like it in too long of a time since I came back from school last semester and all my friends who enjoyed discussing this sort of thing went their separate ways.

[Cunninglinguist]

Because subjective is not having many meanings. The word "fish" has many meanings, but all are objective, as their meaning depends on external rules, norms and not the individual perception.

Let me reiterate in different words. The meaning is nonetheless held in the mind which makes it, by definition, subjective. The idea of a fish is not objective merely because it is the idea of something objective. It remains an idea of a fish, not a real fish.

So it gets back to what I was saying - how a symbol expresses is subjective; what it denotes may not be. The meaning is ultimately subjective in its nature, although it may be about something objective.

Then, I think the error is this: the word "fish," strictly speaking, does not have by itself any meaning. The mind has the meanings, which it projects onto the symbol. And, in that, the meaning is ultimately subjective in its nature.


Anyways, aesthetics merits does not means pretty-beauty merits for while. It means the internal rules of an artistic piece (as: the use of perspective in the paint is correctly applied; the symbols used as refference ot a certain object are correct, etc). The Divine Comedy has aesthetic merits, the regilious philosophy of it do not (they may have other merits).

I'm still not understanding how you're defining aesthetic merits - but nonetheless, you're still measuring the value of art with a narrow class of merits that, once again, seems to more or less follow the Baumgartenian philosophical tradition which I was denouncing.

The Comedy has its formal elements, yet these formal elements are inseparable with its content; this is why it's better to measure art simultaneously by it's form (aesthetic merits?) and its content.

At any rate, what are these rules? Where do they come from and what decides them?


I think we disagree because it is possible to express and communicate something without any understandment. I didnt need to understand the Sistine Chappel to communicate with it. I did not knew what Mike did with me.

I'm not sure what you're saying here either. If you projected no understanding onto the Sistine Chapel then it would be as meaningful as a rock. Yes, you don't have to understand what Michelangelo intended to express in order to have some understanding of the Chapel - nowhere have I implied that you do - but you have to have project something on it in order for it to be meaningful.

[JCamilo]

Let me reiterate in different words. The meaning is nonetheless held in the mind which makes it, by definition, subjective. The idea of a fish is not objective merely because it is the idea of something objective. It remains an idea of a fish, not a real fish.

So it gets back to what I was saying - how a symbol expresses is subjective; what it denotes may not be. The meaning is ultimately subjective in its nature, although it may be about something objective.


Again, I know we are talking about the samething, but semiotics will point meanings are inherent to the symbol, not to us, are imposed on us, we do not change it, rather there is a relationship that must be validy between different readers. But since this is not a source of content- but a small nitpick, it goes unecessary to make this conversation be about the meanings of meaning.




I'm still not understanding how you're defining aesthetic merits - but nonetheless, you're still measuring the value of art with a narrow class of merits that, once again, seems to more or less follow the Baumgartenian philosophical tradition which I was denouncing.

I did not separate content (neither Buamgartenian, which major problem is the narrow definition of beauty). He may go for the validation of what is true as a moral objective, but definition the vallue of an artwork and the definition of art are not the samething.


The Comedy has its formal elements, yet these formal elements are inseparable with its content; this is why it's better to measure art simultaneously by it's form (aesthetic merits?) and its content.

No denial. The user of proper language, symbolism and format from Dante is related to his content. But the content of an artwork is also an internal trait of this artwork, not variable due to time-cultural changes or interpretation, because after all Dante could not write anything beyond his actual time-limitation, any interpretation added (be it the divine) may became true, but it is not found in the work.


At any rate, what are these rules? Where do they come from and what decides them?

Tradition, culture, efficiency, domain...




I'm not sure what you're saying here either. If you projected no understanding onto the Sistine Chapel then it would be as meaningful as a rock. Yes, you don't have to understand what Michelangelo intended to express in order to have some understanding of the Chapel - nowhere have I implied that you do - but you have to have project something on it in order for it to be meaningful.


You have me the impression on focus of understandment as the communication process:

"Yet, since the very nature of any language is evolving and people's understanding of it is always changing (even varies on a personal basis), so too the meaning within the piece of art must exist sui generis. "

of course, you may not belive it is the only thing that can be passed by the artists to the viewer/reader/audience, art can just provoke feelings, which are not necessary understandable. Which returning to the initial post, is how the "Poem mean, poem be" seems more an attempt to reduce poetry or art to either the cathegory meaning or expression, when it can be both (or just one or another, equally valid).


Missmeadowsweet:


I agree with you, JCamillo when you said, "interpretation is subjective, the meanings not". It seems inevitable that a poem may be interpreted differently from what the author had in mind; however, its true meaning which the author had in mind when he/she wrote it still remains, and is not negated just because a different meaning can be applied or extracted from the poem by a reader. I suppose, though, that if a poem is about, say, a haunted house, even the author him/herself doesn't have the right to claim it is about, say, a spring day, and that is because of the medium used to write a poem; namely, words, or language. When we read the said poem about the haunted house, we recognize what the words are communicating to us. And what we have accepted words to mean (as defined by a dictionary) make it impossible for an author to hold in good faith that his/her poem is about something the words deny. That is why language works, and why we can communicate. It's also why it's important to consider one's words carefully.

Yes, in all communication something is lost, something is gained. No modern theory admits perfection between A and B, even if B is the same as A, 20 years in the future. Anyways, your example is a bit radical. Of course, nobody can deny - or if they do, they better show that is a satyre or a heavy allegory - when the text is so explicty. But this rarelly happens, as artists that provoke great debates rarelly explain themselves so freely. After all, they went to great lengths to create something with the best language possible to return it to a primordial level just because we have doubts. :)

[MorpheusSandman]

This is a very interesting discussion.

I don't think poems, or any literature, can BE in the same way that the other arts like painting, film, and music can. Literature is based around the symbols we use to section off the reality that we experience. We can see a painting or a film or listen to music without sectioning off parts of its existence in representative strings of text. To put it another way, literature is not a universal form of expression. Anyone from any time or place can look at a film, or listen to a piece of music and experience it. But you can't experience a poem by looking at strings of text you don't understand. The words have to trigger the relationship between the signifier (the word), the referrent (the extensional thing the word refers to), and the signified (the intensional/subjective "meaning" or "significance" of the word). Here's (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nh/extensions_and_intensions) a great primer on intension VS extension.

As for meaning, I think it's a loaded word as in the context of art it can refer to several different things:

1. The author's intent
2. The work as-is (regardless of intent)
3. The reader's understanding

I think to really unravel the tangled issue that is "meaning" in art requires a broader understanding of why we need and create art in the first place. If you think about it, language is the clearest mode of expression we have, at least to the extent that you can read what I'm writing and (hopefully) understand what I'm trying to express to you. So, assuming that language has this built in clarity, what does art offer that language does it? What art offers is an experience more closely similar to how we experience life and being as opposed to how we intellectually understand our symbolization of reality. This is something Lacaan was famous for discussing, the relationship between the real and the symbolic. One of his famous theories was that the real most frequently breaks through in our failures to symbolize it, and I think art is the means by which we can use the ambiguity of structured symbols to create a bridge between the experience of life and being and the symbolization of life and being.

I think art, by necessity, must cultivate this ambiguity of meaning. A certain undefined relationship between the semiotic means of the artist's expression and the reaction/understanding of the audience who may or may not be familiar with that particular system of signs. That's not to say that art is inherently meaningless, but merely that I think it manifests in that relationship between intent, creation, and reaction. Sometimes all three are the same, sometimes all three are different. I don't think there's any consistent more/less valid and/or important in the relationship either, unless you DO start arguing that the author intended something or that they tried to express it in the work a certain way. In such cases interpretation is built on a combination of facts culled from the work itself and the logically connecting of those facts into some kind of coherent category of meaning.

But there should also be an implicit understanding that there's always more in art than intent. The unconsciousness is inarguably the greater repository of creative impulses, and most art comes from an unleashing of that unconscious rather than some highly conscious ordering of it. Of course there's frequently a mix. You might call it the difference between craft and inspiration, the conscious molding of that unconscious chaos. But in such instances I think people undervalue the validity of that unconscious creation, as if the unintentional in art is any less present or significant than the intentional. I think this is a carry over from language where we recognize that people often accidentally express more than what they meant or something slightly different than what they meant. We're usually more inclined to forgive and understand, writing it off as "unintentional". But I think there's more value to those kind of "Freudian slips" in art, if only because that unconscious IS what the artist is usually trying to express anyway.

That's not to say that I don't think interpretation can become too subjective. I think when you completely ignore intent and twist works to fit into Procrustean beds of meaning then the results can be ugly. I see this frequently with religious people who constantly read their religion into art that clearly had no religious intention and is only related by the pervasiveness of archetypes, which are just as present in art/mythologies that preceded their religions. So I certainly think a certain analytically critical eye must be used in all interpretation, unless the individual is making it clear they're just relating what the work evoked in them, which has value in and of itself if only because it can teach you about yourself and your own mental filters and symbolic systems.

[Cunninglinguist]

Again, I know we are talking about the samething, but semiotics will point meanings are inherent to the symbol, not to us, are imposed on us, we do not change it, rather there is a relationship that must be validy between different readers. But since this is not a source of content- but a small nitpick, it goes unecessary to make this conversation be about the meanings of meaning.

The conversation is a bit ironic. Semiotics will say what I have said, more or less. If meanings (contents) were strictly inherent in symbols we'd be able to deduce meaning from the symbols themselves. Then the meaning of formerly unknown languages would be deducible through logical principles, which is clearly not the case. The meaning, however, as alluded to before, I will assert does exist sui generis (with a life of its own) separate from any one individual. But this life is still based in inter-subjectivity.

What is, however, inherent in a language is a syntax, which is a type of form. I alluded to this in a previous post: "some sort of consistent or somehow logical semantic structure." But while the syntax is an inherent structure, the syntax is not content. The syntax (and its syntactical principles) can suggest content if one already has some, in the exact same way that one can arrive at a conclusion through a set of premises using logical principles. But syntax cannot provide the reader with content on its own. In this, meaning must at least start with a prescription, and from that the rest must be based on it.

What I was saying before, in a nutshell, however, is that a representation exists in the mind, while it may represent something outside of the mind. When we ask what a symbol represents, the what and the representation are two very distinct things. The former is objective, the latter subjective.



No denial. The user of proper language, symbolism and format from Dante is related to his content. But the content of an artwork is also an internal trait of this artwork, not variable due to time-cultural changes or interpretation, because after all Dante could not write anything beyond his actual time-limitation, any interpretation added (be it the divine) may became true, but it is not found in the work.

With what's been said above, I will argue that there is a syntax internal and inherent to it, but no content can be derived from it alone. When times have passed and Italian becomes a forever lost language, so too will the content of the comedy be forever lost. If it was inherent, this would not be the case, and we would be able to derive it using certain principles. The content, then, starts with a prescription and is therefore completely based on prescriptions.


Tradition, culture, efficiency, domain...

Tradition and culture will give a piece of art a formal "style," but what this style means is based in the prescription. So the first two of these things do not contribute anything to the art in terms of content. Without the prescription and therefore without content nothing can be efficiently expressed. Not sure what domain is.


You have me the impression on focus of understandment as the communication process:

"Yet, since the very nature of any language is evolving and people's understanding of it is always changing (even varies on a personal basis), so too the meaning within the piece of art must exist sui generis. "

of course, you may not belive it is the only thing that can be passed by the artists to the viewer/reader/audience, art can just provoke feelings, which are not necessary understandable. Which returning to the initial post, is how the "Poem mean, poem be" seems more an attempt to reduce poetry or art to either the cathegory meaning or expression, when it can be both (or just one or another, equally valid).

I think to say: "art can just provoke feelings, which are not necessary understandable" is an equivocation on the word understand; either you did not understand my argument or you're presenting a straw-man. All feelings, however qualified, are understandable as feelings (how else would we be able to classify them as such? If they were not we'd be caught in a logical paradox); even if we cannot understand what to do with them, where they came from, etc.. So the audience understands a feeling, however qualified, in/from the piece of art.

If you've noticed, I've avoided answering the original question directly since the categories are themselves obscure - but I'm not sure if we've made anything clearer anyways. Art and language are almost too complex to give a satisfactory description of here. We leave that to the cool-headed semioticians. Well, at least the debate is fun.



Will reply to MS's post in a future edit

[JCamilo]

The conversation is a bit ironic. Semiotics will say what I have said, more or less. If meanings (contents) were strictly inherent in symbols we'd be able to deduce meaning from the symbols themselves. Then the meaning of formerly unknown languages would be deducible through logical principles, which is clearly not the case. The meaning, however, as alluded to before, I will assert does exist sui generis (with a life of its own) separate from any one individual. But this life is still based in inter-subjectivity

In semiotics, symbol and significance are always together. Meaning come from them. Anyways, I curious to know what you mean as language being not deducible by logical principles? Do you mean without a group of proper referencial to allow some correspondence? (Because in a simple minded example, just observing the place where the word inshallah was often used and the presence of word allah, i come to the meaning, because in portuguese or english we have similar construction, and this is obviously a logical reasoning to deduce the meaning of a word in a different language).


What is, however, inherent in a language is a syntax, which is a type of form. I alluded to this in a previous post: "some sort of consistent or somehow logical semantic structure." But while the syntax is an inherent structure, the syntax is not content. The syntax (and its syntactical principles) can suggest content if one already has some, in the exact same way that one can arrive at a conclusion through a set of premises using logical principles. But syntax cannot provide the reader with content on its own. In this, meaning must at least start with a prescription, and from that the rest must be based on it.

That is not what Saussure for example defines. Symbols has both meaning and form (I have no idea what specific term is used in english) both linked. And the interpretation of a symbol depends on his usage. There is need of referencial, but then again, I think there is no real disagreement here, we just not fix the vocabulary between us.


With what's been said above, I will argue that there is a syntax internal and inherent to it, but no content can be derived from it alone. When times have passed and Italian becomes a forever lost language, so too will the content of the comedy be forever lost. If it was inherent, this would not be the case, and we would be able to derive it using certain principles. The content, then, starts with a prescription and is therefore completely based on prescriptions.

No, because the meaning of a symbol is not static, albeit based on conventions. It is possible to be interpreted even if the original meaning of the symbol is lost. But the example is not good - the content of Divine Comedy is not only the italian dialect, otherwise this content could not be translated. I supposed when you talked about the context affecting form and vice-versa, would include the terza rima, the use of epic structure, etc beyond the use of the idiom.




Tradition and culture will give a piece of art a formal "style," but what this style means is based in the prescription. So the first two of these things do not contribute anything to the art in terms of content. Without the prescription and therefore without content nothing can be efficiently expressed. Not sure what domain is.

In art, style is substance in my opinion. But I understood your question as who elaborate the rules of compositions of a style.




I think to say: "art can just provoke feelings, which are not necessary understandable" is an equivocation on the word understand; either you did not understand my argument or you're presenting a straw-man. All feelings, however qualified, are understandable as feelings (how else would we be able to classify them as such? If they were not we'd be caught in a logical paradox); even if we cannot understand what to do with them, where they came from, etc.. So the audience understands a feeling, however qualified, in/from the piece of art.

I mean exactly understand what someone feel, not that someone feels.
And the word understandment implies correspondence of interpretation. Which is not true. I have seen people laughing at sad pieces or horror movies. They do not have a correspondence. While sometimes it is about the artist failing to transmit his original intent, sometimes the artwork is presented under a context which takes away any referencial. So, the word understandment is bad, maybe provocted could be better.


If you've noticed, I've avoided answering the original question directly since the categories are themselves obscure - but I'm not sure if we've made anything clearer anyways. Art and language are almost too complex to give a satisfactory description of here. We leave that to the cool-headed semioticians. Well, at least the debate is fun.

In my opinion, artworks teach better about art than essays.

[missmeadowsweet]

Missmeadowsweet:



Yes, in all communication something is lost, something is gained. No modern theory admits perfection between A and B, even if B is the same as A, 20 years in the future. Anyways, your example is a bit radical. Of course, nobody can deny - or if they do, they better show that is a satyre or a heavy allegory - when the text is so explicty. But this rarelly happens, as artists that provoke great debates rarelly explain themselves so freely. After all, they went to great lengths to create something with the best language possible to return it to a primordial level just because we have doubts. :)

Yes, the example is rather extreme, but it makes the point that what words say (and how the author assumes the readers will interpret those words) does matter. I have written things that make sense to me, and then when someone else reads them they interpret it differently and question me on it, and then I realize that the word(s) had multiple meanings that I hadn't considered when I put them on paper. In cases like this, I can't legitimately say that the words mean what I say they mean, because if they do have an alternate interpretation, who's to say that is not the right interpretation, even if that interpretation is not what I (the author) originally intended? Obviously, I can't be there to explain what I really meant by what I wrote to every person who may read it. I guess this goes along with the discussion that the word "fish" has multiple objective meanings, but the intangible entity of thinking about the word or concept "fish" in one's mind is subjective.

As for art . . . I was thinking about Marcel Duchamp and his "readymades". I found a quote from him which says, "Whether Mr. Mutt [the name on Duchamp's "Fountain"] has made the fountain with his own hands or not is without importance. He chose it . . . he created a new thought for this object." I am wondering why this "new thought" is at all valuable, and what (do I really want to know?) is it? The book in which I found the quote also said, "For Duchamp, an artist's ideas mattered more than his actual art." This seems to me extremely selfish. True, art is valuable for a personal reason: it is often beneficial or enlightening for an artist to engage in his/her art because it will teach him/her something about the world and/or about him/herself. However, something like Duchamp's "Fountain" does not provide any enlightenment or value of any kind to anyone other than possibly Duchamp himself (and that is probably debatable). I like the assertion by Philip Sydney that art or poetry should "teach while delighting". To go back to the quote, why should the world be made to consider Duchamp's ideas something of significance? If all they result in is a urinial tipped on its side, I have serious doubts that they are worth a whole lot, and they certainly don't "teach while delighting".

[JCamilo]

Yes, the example is rather extreme, but it makes the point that what words say (and how the author assumes the readers will interpret those words) does matter. I have written things that make sense to me, and then when someone else reads them they interpret it differently and question me on it, and then I realize that the word(s) had multiple meanings that I hadn't considered when I put them on paper. In cases like this, I can't legitimately say that the words mean what I say they mean, because if they do have an alternate interpretation, who's to say that is not the right interpretation, even if that interpretation is not what I (the author) originally intended? Obviously, I can't be there to explain what I really meant by what I wrote to every person who may read it. I guess this goes along with the discussion that the word "fish" has multiple objective meanings, but the intangible entity of thinking about the word or concept "fish" in one's mind is subjective.

Yes, a bit of the semiotic blablabla between me and cunningliguinst is pretty much about that. Symbols do have a meaning prior to the reception (or even use of the artist). They are however modified by circustances, the combination with other symbols, the context, etc. to form a intepretation that add more potential meanings. But of course, if, lets say, Hans Christian Andersen came here and say "My story is not about an emperor and a bird", you can point "then why it talks about an emperor and a bird." If he says "Emperor to me is a baker, a bird to me is a soldier". Of course, Andersen went nuts. He can however come and say "My nightingale is not Ovid's feminine nightingale, it is more close to Keats's nightingale, your reference as it as a love story, because it is a woman, because it is Philomel in Ovid is wrong. In fact, I never read Ovid.", but he will be more discussing the combination of one symbol with others.

Anyways, I do not know much authors who deny much obvious use of language, I know some who denied some interpretations. In this case, they are right, they know better. But that is all. Misreadings is also a form of reading, it is very bad if you are in school, but very nice in life. Of course, some misreadings are absurd, the best example I can think is when someone told me Voltaire's Candide was a defense of ignorance. It is possible to see it. But the person would have to ignore the form (a satire) and the use of irony (so they would read it very badly, at an absurd level of literality that cann't dscern subtle levels of language manipulation) to come there. Even this, it is life. He would never understand Voltaire or get a A grade, but he could produce something interesting on his own.



As for art . . . I was thinking about Marcel Duchamp and his "readymades". I found a quote from him which says, "Whether Mr. Mutt [the name on Duchamp's "Fountain"] has made the fountain with his own hands or not is without importance. He chose it . . . he created a new thought for this object." I am wondering why this "new thought" is at all valuable, and what (do I really want to know?) is it? The book in which I found the quote also said, "For Duchamp, an artist's ideas mattered more than his actual art." This seems to me extremely selfish. True, art is valuable for a personal reason: it is often beneficial or enlightening for an artist to engage in his/her art because it will teach him/her something about the world and/or about him/herself. However, something like Duchamp's "Fountain" does not provide any enlightenment or value of any kind to anyone other than possibly Duchamp himself (and that is probably debatable). I like the assertion by Philip Sydney that art or poetry should "teach while delighting". To go back to the quote, why should the world be made to consider Duchamp's ideas something of significance? If all they result in is a urinial tipped on its side, I have serious doubts that they are worth a whole lot, and they certainly don't "teach while delighting".

One thing, we say symbols or an artwork, it is not the same as art. Art is much more than artists, artwork, public view, it is more the entire process. Of course, Duchamps needed just a small insight, a cleaver humor, some irony with the naming and gutts. He is not a Picasso when he reggard technique. But he was very cleaver to notice the "delight" of Sidney (obviously reduced as delight because at Sidney time Art was related to pleasant feelings, at Duchamps we already know, it is not always what we all need to know) could be also produced with a manipulation of the context where the art work is produced and viewed. That was the great deal. Duchamps is not saying that anything is art, anything goes, he is saying that even Picasso had to use his image to change the viewing of his art, even Byron with his attitude, even Beethooven, everyone.

A sidenote, this is not so false in literature. The reaction to Lyrical Ballads were very similar, because Wordsworth swifted the object of "art" (of course, wordsworth is a craftsman, Duchamps is nowhere close). We can see with appreciation of haikus. Or popular forms of poetry. Rock and roll. Duchamps may not teach, but his impact was certainly a question on the need of challenging boundanries of art definition and deal with its production. The result is not the urinol (as much Dickens result is dan brown) but a change of view on culture, art, more appropriate to this word. (Or that). Of course, it ended in the art is anything, duchamps wannabe (Which mostly forgot the impact of duchamps to ignore the copy of modernity is making something unworth to be copied, so they undermine even duchamp irony or question mark).

[MorpheusSandman]

I think to say: "art can just provoke feelings, which are not necessary understandable" is an equivocation on the word understand; I'm of two minds on this concept because it really relates back to what I said about symbolizing VS experiencing. Naming or categorizing a feeling doesn't recreate or necessarily capture the feeling. It's a bit like the difference between saying "a man is hungry" and a poet offering a powerful image of someone starving. The latter is more likely to provoke something closer to the internal meaning/understanding of the feeling rather than just a more extensional understanding of what being hungry refers to. Plus, I think feelings and emotions are complicated and complex enough that we often can't understand them in the sense of symbolizing them accurately enough to really create an empathetic understanding. I've faced this many times as a film critic, where the feelings films evoke in me are simply too multi-faceted, too ambiguous, too complicated to really replicate in words.

Let me put it this way: including movies, filmed theater, and books I've experienced Hamlet at least two dozen times by now. I've read countless criticism on the work and while so much of what I've read has lent critical insight, I haven't read anything that's allowed me to identify and say "Yes, this description, these words, echo/replicate the emotional experience I have/have had when reading/watching Hamlet." So is the "meaning" of Hamlet in the criticism that allows me to consciously understand it new and different ways, or is the meaning in the feelings it provokes in me while watching/reading it?

[Delta40]

A book of bad poetry I am reading atm states:

Writing very bad poetry requires talent-inverse talent, to be sure, but talent nevertheless. it also helps to have a wooden ear for words, a penchant for sinking into a mire of sentimentality, a bullheaded inclination to stuff too many syllables or words into a line or a phrase, and an enviable confidence that allows one to write despite absolutely appalling incompetence.

Unlike the plainly bad or the merely mediocre, very bad poetry is powerful stuff. Like great literature, it moves us emotionally, but, of course, it often does so in ways the writer never intended: usually we laugh. This is no easy task.

Consider The Stuttering Lover by Fred Emerson Brooks:

I lu-love you very well,
much mu-more than I can tell,
With a lu-lu-lu-lu-love I cannot utter;
I kn-know just what to say
But my tongue gets in the way,
and af-fe-fe-fe-fe-fections's bound to stutter!

The rest is just downright painful really.

[JCamilo]

A book of bad poetry is just a commercial product, which some editors try to justify in the best way they can. Burning books is not so criminal as it seems.

[Delta40]

I disagree and I don't have the evidence to back it up. :willy_nilly:

alash, see shed
aim domed
too bee medi ochre

[MystyrMystyry]

There is verse, and there is worse. Bad, but written sincerely, well, here's William McGonangall:

The Little Match Girl

It was biting cold, and the falling snow,
Which filled a poor little match girl's heart with woe,
Who was bareheaded and barefooted, as she went along the street,
Crying, "Who'll buy my matches? for I want pennies to buy some meat!"

When she left home she had slippers on;
But, alas! poor child, now they were gone.
For she lost both of them while hurrying across the street,
Out of the way of two carriages which were near by her feet.

So the little girl went on, while the snow fell thick and fast;
And the child's heart felt cold and downcast,
For nobody had bought any matchea that day,
Which filled her little mind with grief and dismay.

Alas! she was hungry and shivering with cold;
So in a corner between two houses she made bold
To take shelter from the violent storm.
Poor little waif! wishing to herself she'd never been born.

And she grew colder and colder, and feared to go home
For fear of her father beating her; and she felt woe-begone
Because she could carry home no pennies to buy bread,
And to go home without pennies she was in dread.

The large flakes of snow covered her ringlets of fair hair;
While the passers-by for her had no care,
As they hurried along to their homes at a quick pace,
While the cold wind blew in the match girl's face.

As night wore on her hands were numb with cold,
And no longer her strength could her uphold,
When an idea into her little head came:
She'd strike a match and warm her hands at the flame.

And she lighted the match, and it burned brightly,
And it helped to fill her heart with glee;
And she thought she was sitting at a stove very grand;
But, alas! she was found dead, with a match in her hand!

Her body was found half-covered with snow,
And as the people gazed thereon their hearts were full of woe;
And many present let fall a burning tear
Because she was found dead on the last night of the year,

In that mighty city of London, wherein is plenty of gold -
But, alas! their charity towards street waifs is rather cold.
But I hope the match girl's in Heaven, beside her Saviour dear,
A bright reward for all the hardships she suffered here.

[missmeadowsweet]

A book of bad poetry I am reading atm states:

Writing very bad poetry requires talent-inverse talent, to be sure, but talent nevertheless. it also helps to have a wooden ear for words, a penchant for sinking into a mire of sentimentality, a bullheaded inclination to stuff too many syllables or words into a line or a phrase, and an enviable confidence that allows one to write despite absolutely appalling incompetence.

Unlike the plainly bad or the merely mediocre, very bad poetry is powerful stuff. Like great literature, it moves us emotionally, but, of course, it often does so in ways the writer never intended: usually we laugh. This is no easy task.

Consider The Stuttering Lover by Fred Emerson Brooks:

I lu-love you very well,
much mu-more than I can tell,
With a lu-lu-lu-lu-love I cannot utter;
I kn-know just what to say
But my tongue gets in the way,
and af-fe-fe-fe-fe-fections's bound to stutter!

The rest is just downright painful really.

I think there is a difference between trying deliberately to write bad poetry in order to produce a reaction in the reader and trying sincerely to write a good poem and having it turn out as a bad poem. I agree that bad poetry does have some value, perhaps in that it makes us think about the accepted conventions of poetry or merely in that it makes us laugh, but if a poem wasn't meant to do either of the above and it is still a bad poem, then it doesn't have much value and is only an exhibition of a writer's failure to artistically put his/her thoughts, ideas, or whatever he/she wished to communicate into the confines of language and meter, which I don't think many readers would care to read.

[MystyrMystyry]

I think it comes down to self-editing, and therefore self-critical judgement of what works

In the realm of what is poetry, you could broadly say words in a certain form/pattern, or cite every poem that's ever been written (not a task to take on lightly) but within the wider spectrum are many facets

You'd have to ask the reason why something was created - and there are as many possibilities for that as poets

Was it done for fun, self-amusement, just for a few friends, because the poet had something to say and wanted to share it with as many people as possible in the most memorable way, because the poet was depressed, obsessed, to fill in a blank page, kept being encouraged, just had to get it out of their system, or what?

Whether it's good or bad is a bit of an odd question in itself - you may not like something the first time you read it, despise it the second - and vice versa - and there are a gazillion reasons for that too - it may appear to gradually improve over time the more times you read it or slowly get worse, or stay the same - or even fluctuate in esteem

It may be good in contrast to something else - or bad in contrast - or just not as good as something but still okay


I'm really tired

[PSRemeshChandra]

Poetry is the spontaneous outflow of emotions evolving from close observations of things or feelings. It is only that observations should be close. If we feel when going through a piece of writing that there is no observation of things or feelings, or if the observations are not close, or still if there is no outflow of emotions, or even still if the outflow of emotions is not spontaneous but laboured, then we feel in our mind that that piece of writing is a bad one, whether it is categorized as poetry or not. To be something good, it should impart some feeling of goodness or even perfection. A continuous reader of poems will gradually come to distinguish between good and bad poems by himself, without anyone's help or guidance. That is the unique poetic appeal of a creation. Once written and in circulation, it speaks for itself, which we can listen to without the assistance of academicians. A good reader of poetry in his time will learn that there are no such things as bad poems, but bad thoughts and unfinished thoughts alone.

The prime function of poetry is to elevate human mind. If a poem does not raise the reader's mind at least an inch above ground, it does not deserve to be considered as a poem. It shall not even be considered a bad poem. Whatever is capable of elevating human mind will consequently add momentum to it too. That is how poems help mind take-off and land and refine itself. Elevating human mind is a characteristic of poetry and if this character is absent in a piece of writing, it is not poetry at all. Not all verbal utterances written strictly within the parameters of poetical rhyme and meter are poems. And often many poetical expressions of musical thought with no rhyme and meter are perfect poems.

[Delta40]

There is verse, and there is worse. Bad, but written sincerely, well, here's William McGonangall:

The Little Match Girl

It was biting cold, and the falling snow,
Which filled a poor little match girl's heart with woe,
Who was bareheaded and barefooted, as she went along the street,
Crying, "Who'll buy my matches? for I want pennies to buy some meat!"

When she left home she had slippers on;
But, alas! poor child, now they were gone.
For she lost both of them while hurrying across the street,
Out of the way of two carriages which were near by her feet.

So the little girl went on, while the snow fell thick and fast;
And the child's heart felt cold and downcast,
For nobody had bought any matchea that day,
Which filled her little mind with grief and dismay.

Alas! she was hungry and shivering with cold;
So in a corner between two houses she made bold
To take shelter from the violent storm.
Poor little waif! wishing to herself she'd never been born.

And she grew colder and colder, and feared to go home
For fear of her father beating her; and she felt woe-begone
Because she could carry home no pennies to buy bread,
And to go home without pennies she was in dread.

The large flakes of snow covered her ringlets of fair hair;
While the passers-by for her had no care,
As they hurried along to their homes at a quick pace,
While the cold wind blew in the match girl's face.

As night wore on her hands were numb with cold,
And no longer her strength could her uphold,
When an idea into her little head came:
She'd strike a match and warm her hands at the flame.

And she lighted the match, and it burned brightly,
And it helped to fill her heart with glee;
And she thought she was sitting at a stove very grand;
But, alas! she was found dead, with a match in her hand!

Her body was found half-covered with snow,
And as the people gazed thereon their hearts were full of woe;
And many present let fall a burning tear
Because she was found dead on the last night of the year,

In that mighty city of London, wherein is plenty of gold -
But, alas! their charity towards street waifs is rather cold.
But I hope the match girl's in Heaven, beside her Saviour dear,
A bright reward for all the hardships she suffered here.

Heh heh. He is the chief perpetrator in this book! apparently bad poetry will take some catastrophe and sink to the sublime at the wrong moment. Imagine The sinking of the Titanic moment but the bad poet will comment on the cost of the fare instead.

[Cunninglinguist]

In semiotics, symbol and significance are always together. Meaning come from them. Anyways, I curious to know what you mean as language being not deducible by logical principles? Do you mean without a group of proper referencial to allow some correspondence? (Because in a simple minded example, just observing the place where the word inshallah was often used and the presence of word allah, i come to the meaning, because in portuguese or english we have similar construction, and this is obviously a logical reasoning to deduce the meaning of a word in a different language).

They are, but there’s more to it. Form is a determination of content, being a necessary condition for the content. Nothing (with no context) can never represent something. Nevertheless, the agent, the audience, is also a necessary condition for the existence of the content. If the information of the content were contained within the symbol we could derive it through a logical deduction, which is clearly not the case – this is what I meant by saying that content is not deducible though logical principles. Moreover, since each agent differs in her projections she becomes the second determination of the content.

It is convenient to say that symbols have meaning prior to their representation - I have said that it exists sui generis - but that meaning only exists intersubjectively and not in the symbol itself.


That is not what Saussure for example defines. Symbols has both meaning and form (I have no idea what specific term is used in english) both linked. And the interpretation of a symbol depends on his usage. There is need of referencial, but then again, I think there is no real disagreement here, we just not fix the vocabulary between us.

Unfortunately no one takes Saussure very seriously anymore. My above comment, I think, offers a sufficient response to this.


No, because the meaning of a symbol is not static, albeit based on conventions. It is possible to be interpreted even if the original meaning of the symbol is lost. But the example is not good - the content of Divine Comedy is not only the italian dialect, otherwise this content could not be translated. I supposed when you talked about the context affecting form and vice-versa, would include the terza rima, the use of epic structure, etc beyond the use of the idiom.

I’m not keen on what you’re arguing here.


I mean exactly understand what someone feel, not that someone feels.
And the word understandment implies correspondence of interpretation. Which is not true. I have seen people laughing at sad pieces or horror movies. They do not have a correspondence. While sometimes it is about the artist failing to transmit his original intent, sometimes the artwork is presented under a context which takes away any referencial. So, the word understandment is bad, maybe provocted could be better.

I didn’t mean that the viewer understood the artist’s intent; but they have to understand something in/from the art in order for it to be meaningful. The imbecile laughing at the sad piece of art nevertheless somehow understands humor in/from it, even if his understanding doesn’t correspond to the artist’s.


I'm of two minds on this concept because it really relates back to what I said about symbolizing VS experiencing. Naming or categorizing a feeling doesn't recreate or necessarily capture the feeling. It's a bit like the difference between saying "a man is hungry" and a poet offering a powerful image of someone starving. The latter is more likely to provoke something closer to the internal meaning/understanding of the feeling rather than just a more extensional understanding of what being hungry refers to. Plus, I think feelings and emotions are complicated and complex enough that we often can't understand them in the sense of symbolizing them accurately enough to really create an empathetic understanding. I've faced this many times as a film critic, where the feelings films evoke in me are simply too multi-faceted, too ambiguous, too complicated to really replicate in words.

Let me put it this way: including movies, filmed theater, and books I've experienced Hamlet at least two dozen times by now. I've read countless criticism on the work and while so much of what I've read has lent critical insight, I haven't read anything that's allowed me to identify and say "Yes, this description, these words, echo/replicate the emotional experience I have/have had when reading/watching Hamlet." So is the "meaning" of Hamlet in the criticism that allows me to consciously understand it new and different ways, or is the meaning in the feelings it provokes in me while watching/reading it?


Hmm.. I don’t think you fully understood my argument. When you read Hamlet you understand a certain feeling/idea/something being expressed by it, no matter how that thing itself is qualified; pleasurable or not, “understandable” or not, extensional or intensional, etc.. You need to understand something in the art/symbol in order for it to be meaningful in any way. Intuitively the art needs to affect you; but words, at least, cannot alone impart any content onto the reader. It is the audience that must find (understand) something in the art. That’s all I was saying.

Will have to get back to you on your OP; been busy lately :willy_nilly:

[JCamilo]

I am drunk so, as most of things are just matter of propositions rather than analyse...

People do take Saussure seriously. He still the father of semiotics. And his definitions of symbols, meaning, etc... accepted. They are expanded, not denyied. And in serious note, most of linguistic studies, follow his path, if not his ideas.

Like I said, the word understanding implies relation between A (observed) and B (conclusion). C is not understading and while I can go beyond and grap what you mean, the use of this word is always wrong if you see A and say it is B (The Imbecile just didnt understood it).

As the inexistence outside the symbol, try to show a cross to anyone. They will derive the meaning that belong the cross. They must be aware of it. It is not us who give it to the cross at all. If it was impossible to guess the meaning of a lost symbol, because it out be as subjective as we guess, champolian would not use rosetta, but my garden's stone.

As the logical argument, all symbols are related, I would not deny you argument except the part you are using logic wrongly - stabilishing relations to derive content is logical, not illogical. That is all.

[MorpheusSandman]

When you read Hamlet you understand a certain feeling/idea/something being expressed by it, no matter how that thing itself is qualified; pleasurable or not, “understandable” or not, extensional or intensional, etc.. You need to understand something in the art/symbol in order for it to be meaningful in any way. Intuitively the art needs to affect you; but words, at least, cannot alone impart any content onto the reader. It is the audience that must find (understand) something in the art. That’s all I was saying.I'm still not entirely clear on your argument, though I admit that this is probably my failing. I agree that in all art we must understand and connect to something, but this understanding can happen on a multitude of levels, from an unconscious identification with a protagonist, an intuitive understanding of the conflict, or a very conscious understanding of form, structure, craft, intent, etc. I'm also not sure why you feel we must understand something in an art or symbol for it to be "meaningful in any way". How about abstract art? How do we understand shapes and colors that don't intentionally represent anything intensional or extensional? Can we still not understand the feelings/reactions it provokes and proclaim that a meaning, or, maybe more accurately, a purpose? I'm also not clear on why you think words cannot alone impart any content onto the reader". What do you mean by "impart content" and what do you define as content? Maybe an example would help. Certainly, there has to be an a priori understanding of words for any kind of communication, but once that understanding has been established then our brain certainly reacts to words as if they, themselves, impart something. But, then again, art is almost always saying/suggesting/offering more than what's beyond the surface understanding of words. The entire concept of narrative, drama, and poetry is one of meta-semiotics.

[gbebooks]

Poetry

Why is this "poetry"
my brother asked.

He said,
On the radio, Keillor read this poem.
It was like,
"I walk to the car
and check the weather
as I get ready to drive to work.
I open the door
and put a bag of DVD's on the passenger seat.
I close the door,
walk around to the driver's side,
climb in, adjust the air, turn on the radio,
and drive to work."

Is that a poem, he asked.

It can be.

[Cunninglinguist]

I'm still not entirely clear on your argument, though I admit that this is probably my failing. I agree that in all art we must understand and connect to something, but this understanding can happen on a multitude of levels, from an unconscious identification with a protagonist, an intuitive understanding of the conflict, or a very conscious understanding of form, structure, craft, intent, etc. I'm also not sure why you feel we must understand something in an art or symbol for it to be "meaningful in any way". How about abstract art? How do we understand shapes and colors that don't intentionally represent anything intensional or extensional? Can we still not understand the feelings/reactions it provokes and proclaim that a meaning, or, maybe more accurately, a purpose? I'm also not clear on why you think words cannot alone impart any content onto the reader". What do you mean by "impart content" and what do you define as content? Maybe an example would help. Certainly, there has to be an a priori understanding of words for any kind of communication, but once that understanding has been established then our brain certainly reacts to words as if they, themselves, impart something. But, then again, art is almost always saying/suggesting/offering more than what's beyond the surface understanding of words. The entire concept of narrative, drama, and poetry is one of meta-semiotics.

It probably doesn't matter, and I'm not going to keep on making it since we've got better things to do. Perhaps replace the word "understand" with "see," though I hesitate to do this; so if we see (understand) nothing in the art how can there be any meaning in it for us? That something we "understand" is the meaning, which is not contained within the symbols (that is, we cannot get it through a logical deduction). And, to boot, if we could it would not be a symbol at all. A symbol, by definition, must represent. If the content were contained within the symbol, the symbol would not represent the content but, in fact, be the content (which vindicates my assertion that symbols are (by definition) inherently meaningless, though not "informationless"). I wont give an example here because I feel it'd be too arduous (perhaps PM me if you want, and I will).

Content was perhaps the wrong word - the symbols cannot impart any meaning onto us. The symbols have their own properties, of course, which can be classified as some sort of content if you use certain definitions (though it's more commonly called form :D). This "content" (form) is ultimately not content (meaning) in that it's only one determination of the content (as expounded in an above post). Anyways, the symbols cannot impart any meaning onto us because the meaning is not contained within them, i.e. the meaning cannot be obtained through a logical deduction. And, to boot (again), if it could it would not be a symbol at all. If a picture of a tree affected us as a tree it would be a tree.

Anyways, I guess I won't be getting around to responding to that original post, unfortunately (or fortunately, haha). In retrospect I would have gotten more theoretical than necessary, which is why I'm not going to say anything about this in this forum hereafter.


As the inexistence outside the symbol, try to show a cross to anyone. They will derive the meaning that belong the cross. They must be aware of it. It is not us who give it to the cross at all. If it was impossible to guess the meaning of a lost symbol, because it out be as subjective as we guess, champolian would not use rosetta, but my garden's stone.

As the logical argument, all symbols are related, I would not deny you argument except the part you are using logic wrongly - stabilishing relations to derive content is logical, not illogical. That is all.

The meaning is "derived" through something more like a logical induction, which is not, in the strict sense, a derivation at all. Didn't say we derived content through illogical means. Being pretty well versed in Kant and Aristotle, I don't think I'm using any logic wrongly.

[AuntShecky]

There is verse, and there is worse. Bad, but written sincerely,

"Most artists are sincere and most art is bad; some insincere art (sincerely insincere) can be quite good."
--Igor Stravinsky

[MorpheusSandman]

so if we see (understand) nothing in the art how can there be any meaning in it for us? That something we "understand" is the meaning, which is not contained within the symbols (that is, we cannot get it through a logical deduction). And, to boot, if we could it would not be a symbol at all. A symbol, by definition, must represent. If the content were contained within the symbol, the symbol would not represent the content but, in fact, be the content (which vindicates my assertion that symbols are (by definition) inherently meaningless, though not "informationless").I think I understand what you're trying to say now, but I'm not sure I can agree. It seems as if you're saying that when we reach the signified (meaning) we can't attribute that to the signifier (symbol), which doesn't make much sense considering that's the entire point of language to begin with. Now, you do have a point that the signified/meaning is farther away from the signifier than is, say, the referent. If I write the word "tree" and you think of that tall thing with a trunk of bark, limbs, and leaves in your front yard, then it's impossible to say that the word didn't direct you to think about that object because of how the word is mutually defined. Then again, if I'm using "tree" in a context where the tree is meant to be a symbol, evoke certain intensional meanings loosely associated with trees, like nature (which would make it a metonym) or life or even The Bible, then it becomes more possible to say that the meaning is built on something much shakier, more suggestive and unsure. In such cases, we simply refer to other words to see if they fit into this particular meaning scheme. For instance, are there other possible Biblical allusions that would allow the piece to have a Biblical meaning? I don't think this kind of meaning can be deduced, but can be [/i]induced[/i]. We can "build a case" for an interpretative meaning through evidence within the work.

As for how we can "understand" nothing in art and there still be meaning... if a young child is hit he doesn't have to know the meaning behind why he was hit in order to cry and use that "feeling" as his "meaning". So that's what I was saying about art being able to evoke/provoke feelings and emotions that allow it to experience it without fitting it into conscious semiotics. I don't know if you call this meaning, but I'd call it significance. The thing is, we can understand a lot about each other unconsciously and without words. In fact, so much of how we relate is paralinguistically, on levels that we don't consciously "understand" why they're happening to us. If I see a beautiful woman in the street, my first thought is not to understand her beauty, what "meaning" it has (or could possibly have), but simply to enjoy the effect the aesthetic has on my monkey brain. Most art works (or tries to work) on that level first; affecting us without our knowledge or understanding of the "meaning". As Kubrick said (and I think it applies to all art): "A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."

[Cunninglinguist]

I think I understand what you're trying to say now, but I'm not sure I can agree. It seems as if you're saying that when we reach the signified (meaning) we can't attribute that to the signifier (symbol), which doesn't make much sense considering that's the entire point of language to begin with.

Not exactly what I was saying. As above posts will indicate, the meaning depends on both the audience and the symbol, as they're both determinations of the meaning, so we attribute it to both. The meaning cant exist with only one or the other - both are necessary, and neither comes before the other.


I don't think this kind of meaning can be deduced, but can be [/i]induced[/i]. We can "build a case" for an interpretative meaning through evidence within the work.

I think I addressed something similar to this before and concluded that, even though the inference through self-reference is possible, all meaning starts with a prescription (I would argue this even for paintings and photographs, but I think we ought to stay with language to keep the waters clearer).


If I see a beautiful woman in the street, my first thought is not to understand her beauty, what "meaning" it has (or could possibly have), but simply to enjoy the effect the aesthetic has on my monkey brain.

Her beauty is her meaning, that your argument starts out with the premise that she is beautiful indicates you've already understood some content/meaning (namely beauty) in her various physical characteristics.

[Wendy M]

A poem still a poem if bad or not. It is a format, not a status and great poets wrote dreadfull poems.

Totally agree

[Winry]

I always thought that maybe poems are good or bad according to the aesthetic thoughts of each one and the purpose of the author, and that, when the thoughts of the reader and the objective of the author are similar, then the poem can be considered at least...good?

Well, I am a little confused... now. I suppose that, if the purpose of the author was to write satirical poems and the reader wants to laugh, maybe if he laughs louder than bombs we can consider the poem good?

Oh...I am confused

My purpose was to write something like an ad...a funny ad.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61016
:lurk5:

Is this ok? Is this a good poem?