Why Not Poetry?

[The Comedian]

I asked all of my classes (about 100 students total) to name their favorite poem/poet. The results of my survey were sad but expected. Most had no idea how to respond. A few said "Poe" because they've heard of him before. The most popular was the children's poet Shel Silverstein. A few tried to argue that Dr. Seuss was a poet.

It was staggering to see how little poetry is read. These students are all adults and comprise more-or-less a typical student body of first-year college students: some exceptionally smart and engaged, some woefully struggling and apathetic, but most fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

But here's the thing: many read frequently. . .and they ALL have copious songs that they enjoy. And while I agree that song lyrics don't equal poetry, they're still similar enough to make me wonder this: Why such a fervent devotion to one and a profound distaste to the other?

Both lyrics and poetry are, generally: (1) short (2) rhythmic (3) metaphorical and (4) use imagery to depict meaning and emotion.

I offered my puzzlement to them (summarized above). The responses I got were not very articulate. The best I got was that poetry is "hard to understand". This statement was widely agreed upon. But I countered by asking if they really "understood" the lyrics to their favorite song? Most said "no"; they didn't.

Then why so much hate/apathy for poetry? Silence. . . . .

[MystyrMystyry]

Well Sir - I liked poetry in primary school, went to a tough inner city working class high school where it essentially vanished from the list of important things overnight for five years

Hollywood, The Opposite Sex, Music, Football, Rock and/or Roll, Parties, Wild in the Streets - everything far more social

Over a year outside of high school and naturally the social scene changed, pubs, clubs, and a chance discovery of a folk club within a pub - far more civilised and the musos and poets would stand in front of the cramped room reserved for us every second Friday, beer in one and, smoke in the other playing and reciting our compositions

My love for the poem was reborn - and it was social! People would enthuse over everyone from e e cummings to Homer, everything from Romanticism through Metaphysics to Post Modern Deconstructionism - I feel like crying over the memory

Anyway the general parties with this fascinating new crowd continued throughout the week, and jams readings, salons etc at various houses ensued with the bluster of total abandon...

Until the pub was sold, and the folk gatherings no more, and the folkies drifted apart, largely to other towns, and with no-one readily to discuss it with poetry once again taking a back seat to science fiction, jazz and classical music, a burgeoning interest in synthesisers and pretty much everything else

There was a free monthly newspaper with a scattering of poems and short stories in it - a few quickly forgotten start up meetings and occasional people you'd meet at a bus stop - but it needed a scene

A scene like Litnet


It's a solitary pursuit poetry, at least in it's written form, and when humans start to not use a skill they eventually drop it altogether - the skill in this case not just the recording, but also the reciting and communication of ideas

Imagine walking into a pub full of interesting intelligent ravers of all ages who just didn't really care about social convention and accepted everyone in, let everone find a voice and a place, had rockin' parties all week long - and wrote songs and poetry

And then it stops - not moved to another site - just gone...


Thank God for Litnet I say!

[The Comedian]

I really like your idea that poetry needs a "scene" -- and, honestly, perhaps that's why I continue to read and post here -- but to be social and to make poetry a social experience is surely something to consider.

[EricW]

Perhaps the problem lies in the lack of importance language has in the minds of those whose only real concern exists in immediate pleasantries. Christ, with all this text-based gadgetry the youngsters are becoming diluted to the meaning and importance of words; stifled to progress for the sake of accessible media acting against the efforts of poets and teachers.

As a student myself, an amateur student at that, I can say it is the fault of the user. Why do we need poetry? How many times have you heard, "I don't need [subject material] in real life."

Who knows, at least there are some.

[billl]

Poetry As A Rewarding Social Activity
I agree that poetry needs a social angle, for a lot of people at least. On my own, of course, I can enjoy the "hard to understand" quality of it, the enjoyment of figuring out a riddle. I can also appreciate the transmission of an experience, or the capture of an emotion (although I think the bluer emotions get a little over-represented, on the whole). However, I mostly just can't devote myself to reading or writing poetry, especially without the prospect of getting/reading feedback/praise, etc.--and even that can end up a little embarrassing.

The brevity of most poems is maybe what makes them great in a social setting: people can take turns, and with a limited amount of time a variety of things can be presented and pondered. And almost everybody can do it. Poetry buffs might be very particular, and hold certain poets above certain others, and find great pleasure in plumbing depths and wondering at a certain poet's genius. But, for a lot of people, I think the desire to write one's own (and even the belief that one's own poetry is worth the attention of others) is a common reaction to poetry.

Poetry isn't always good, of course, but at this point, I can't imagine paying money for a book of poetry. I bought a portable Blake years ago, and enjoyed it, and I guess I've gotten quite a few epic poems, of course--but some new person? The stuff online at Litnet is good enough for me, if I want to read something new. And it's interesting to see fans of the form share opinions and (mostly) enjoy each other's company.

The 'Problem' With Poetry
The problem with poetry, and why I didn't care for it in high school (and still pretty much have a neutral or even negative reaction to it) is that it is basically affected. Prose is something that can be fallen into, and it respects the reader, it seems real (I'm being general, here, of course). You get a book, read it, you get a story or an essay or whatever, and you enjoy it (if it's a good book). With poetry, there's something sort of pretentious and (nowadays, anyhow) really odd happening. People pouring their hearts out (not always, I'm generalizing), using odd rhythms, rhymes, syntax--it's an imposition, in a way. Instead of the comfortable sharing of prose, there's a demand from the beginning that the reader or listener tilt his or her head, or raise his or her eyebrows--and go along with a little show. In the right frame of mind, it can really work, but I personally have misgivings about the whole thing.

I am a big fan of language, and have enjoyed studying and teaching it. I love it for the artistry that can be done with it as well, and I love puns and beautiful words and all of the poetic techniques. But for me, the deployment of all of this in prose is basically enough. The whole idea of poetry seems to me a little arbitrary. There are cool things that can be done, using language to cause effects, but it's like a poor man's music, to me. 'Love' rhymes with 'dove', and this or that word will have the right number of syllables... To write music is to choose from notes and rhythms, and craft something from a realm of astounding freedom and flexibility. I realize I'm not being fair here (the difference between language and music is that language can carry thoughts much more efficiently, and thoughts can be VERY interesting), and I certainly do enjoy reading poetry on occasion--but I can totally understand why this "game" of poetry has lost a lot of its appeal. I'm usually more in the mood to change into a slightly different gear, and read some prose, rather than undergo the bowing and scraping to strange formalism (or non-formalism) and the gradual gaping at the void, or the sudden cardiac swooning or whatever that poetry is often going for.

Is There A Problem?
I understand, of course, that there might be objections to what I'm saying. It might seem like I'm saying that great art has to be easy for the audience to appreciate (which is wrong, of course, but it might be what I'm unwittingly doing--I certainly hope that poetry lovers would take comfort in that possibility, rather than feel I have successfully provided reason for them to abandon their passion, certainly). It might seem like I'm ignoring the imagery and emotion that is so often the goal of poetry (again, I am certainly able to love it for the language, and also for where the language leads me). It might seem like a bias to find poetry to be a sort of "game" or a strange craftsmanship performed with a large and mostly arbitrarily assembled collection of tools (ie. the elements of a particular language), tools that are normally used for more straight-forward and audience-friendly purposes--like I am turning my back, essentially, on a focus on all of the little things I find beautiful about language...

Yes, that last one is probably how I would describe it. But I think a lot of people share this bias. That focus (poetry's concentrated deployment of language's chance peculiarities) is a little inauthentic, if one hasn't been properly indoctrinated. Is it a celebration of language, or are readers being exposed to a gruesome and vain display of ingenuity exacted on something meant for something else entirely? Well, that's a little overheated, sorry. And "indoctrinated" is, of course, a loaded term. But I don't think kids are crazy or stupid not to be interested in poetry, and it isn't necessarily a shame that they feel that way. The situation might be an inconvenience in the classroom however... so I think a teacher should be proud of any eyes they might be able to open, and any poetry fans they might be able to bring about. I don't really find it too appealing most of the time, but it is one of those (many) things where learning about it can only make a brain get better.

[Alexander III]

I always thought it was because listening to a song is effortless, while reading a poem requires some effort from the person. Besides music has always appealed more than literature throughout history

[Lover]

Poetry is sorely underrepresented in popular culture as compared to other art forms and, in literary circles, compared to the novel and non-fiction. The lack of valuation placed on poetry leads it to be under-looked or even overlooked by most parents and teachers, who are the first to expose children to literature, which, when combined with a lack of pushing by peers and media leads to an ignorance and, in that ignorance, potential disdain.

Arguably the most popular art form, music is pushed constantly to anyone with a television, the internet, or friends. However the media coverage of poets and poetry is...lacking (to say the least). Whenever I am at someone's house and they flip on the television (I do not own one; I don't much care for corporate/government indoctrination) one can find music, whether in shows/movies, on music videos, or in the radio music channels. One would be hard pressed to find such exposure to novels or even the visual arts, let alone poetry.

When one gets into circles where literature is popular (if not the point) there is still a tragic lack of emphasis on poetry. In my personal experience with such things as book clubs and even the library the novel reins with its' consort non-fiction. There is little, if any, mention of poetry even by those who are quite intelligent and well-read, not even a mention of dislike, it is as if poetry doesn't exist. Which is, in my opinion, far more of a shame than with the general populace.

When poetry is not emphasized by the culture (popular or not) it can be easily swept aside for other, more popular forms of literature to take precedence. In my personal experience, while I was read to regularly as a child, poetry was scant, if not nonexistent. When I went to school the instruction received in poetry did not in any way parallel that as in other forms of literature. Many students I am sure, would be more open to poetry if they had a significant experience of it, unfortunately many don't.

The place of poetry among modern young people is a complex reaction to many variables. In the end, it is not one thing, but the persuasive effects of many things that has an insidiously corrosive effect on poetry's place not only with young people, but society as a whole.

[Armel P]

I think part of the reason poetry isn't as read is that nobody talks to students about poetry. Poetry is just presented and people are just expected to read it, analyze meter and rhyme and that's that. That's the wrong thing to begin with. Teachers usually fail to communicate the world of poetry. The intention of the poets. The overall history of poetry and the development of the ideas. Students never walkaway from a lit class with a picture, an understanding, of the ideas that unite Shakespeare, Yeats, Rilke, Rimbaud, Cummings, Neruda etc. even Bukowski and Brautigan. Students aren't taught to love the manipulation of language. Poetry never shows up in a curriculum as another grand form of literature but is usually a quick tangent to check off from a list of things to touch upon. No one ever answers the unspoken question that students have: why do people write poetry? If a literature teacher is serious about getting his or her students to appreciate poetry, that is what needs to be discussed before anything else. Spend a couple of months on that, on the essence, without ever even mentioning consonance, assonance, rhyme, and meter. Otherwise the class'll be a sham and they'll be eating green eggs and ham.

[PeterL]

Most poetry in the last several hundred years has been quite light and thin.That is especially true of Post-Romantic poetry. In times when poetry served a purpose and poets wrote serious literature, poetry was popular and remembered. These days nearly everyone is literate, so they can enjoy prose, rather than trying to memorize poetry. If poets wrote good, satisfying, memorable poetry, then it might still be absorbed, but the word-play of poetry can be done more fully in prose, and modern poets don't understand how to use rhyme and rhythm, so no one remembers thier work, unless it gets used in advertising.

[Armel P]

Most poetry in the last several hundred years has been quite light and thin.

The last several hundred years? I'm sure Beowulf is not the only valuable poem. This comment seems to be coming more from your taste than from an actual problem in poetry.


and modern poets don't understand how to use rhyme and rhythm, so no one remembers thier work

I disagree with this. Serious poets don't write free verse or prose poetry because they are ignorant about real poetry. And a lot of more recent poetry (relative to your timeline) has great meter and rhyme. anyone lived in a pretty how town is definitely memorable for me.

as is...

l(a

le
af
fa
ll

s)
one
l

iness


WCW's red wheel barrow poem is probably one of the most memorable ever written.

[JBI]

Those who understand the language of poetry love it. Songs are similar, though connected (Ballads being the root of modern Songs, to an extent).

Poetry though thrives on its art - novels thrive on their narration, poetry on its rhetoric. People do not spend the time to learn it, so they think it is "weird," "gay," "pretentious," or simply crappy and boring - and those who do try to get to read it end up reading the most cliche garbage they can find on top of it.

American and Canadian education does not seem to value it particularly highly either, which adds to something - various other traditions do, but even still, there is a sort of reverence and distaste for people well versed.

For instance, there is also this misconception that every poem is about a woman, and everyone who knows poetry is romantic, whereas if you read the sex scene from Marlowe's Hero and Leander, you know it to be nothing but the case.

In general, the answer why people do not like poetry is imply because they do not understand it, and have no will to put in any effort. It was all written to be read.

That being said, some poets are more accessible than others, as is the case with novelists. Some people though have problems distinguishing from the truly difficult (Hart Crane) and the rather easy yet effort taking (Shakespeare). from the simply easy yet fun (Lewis Carrol).

[JBI]

Most poetry in the last several hundred years has been quite light and thin.That is especially true of Post-Romantic poetry. In times when poetry served a purpose and poets wrote serious literature, poetry was popular and remembered. These days nearly everyone is literate, so they can enjoy prose, rather than trying to memorize poetry. If poets wrote good, satisfying, memorable poetry, then it might still be absorbed, but the word-play of poetry can be done more fully in prose, and modern poets don't understand how to use rhyme and rhythm, so no one remembers thier work, unless it gets used in advertising.

What a sophism if I have ever read one. The reason people don't read poetry today like they did has nothing to do with it. Simply put, people read more poetry today then ever, and more people write verses than ever. What purpose did poetry ever serve, rather than give Trojan ancestors to famous nobleman (which had no real effect on common thought). Poets are good and bad, as always. The games of poetry and prose are not so connected as you make it out to seem.

There is nothing to show poetry has declined in terms of readership, the only thing that has declined is the prestige it has within a cultural frame. But then again, in English North America, literacy and culture were never particularly prized, compared with money and merchandise.

[shortstoryfan]

I didn't begin to like poetry until I started to introduce myself to poets, rather than trying to read the "great poets" that everyone thinks I need to read. It's sometimes easy for me to recognize what those masters have accomplished, but that doesn't mean that's what I want to read for enjoyment. I loved when JBI said that many people who do read poetry end up reading the most cliched crap they can find--or they come to those older poets without the depth of knowledge to really get them, and see them as...well, greeting cards. I'm the first to admit that I don't understand poetry at all, but for some reason, I keep reading it, fascinated by what I sometimes believe I do understand. I read contemporary poetry almost exclusively--and while I'm sure many of you have a great grasp of Yeats and Donne and Shakespeare, what I have I would not give up: a sickening love of contemporary poetry.

[Paulclem]

In the UK, poetry is introduced in primary school, and studied in secondary for English GCSEs - the standard 16 year old's english qualification. Then that's it unless you take a lit A'Level and go on to study at Uni. I don't see where people get their liking for poetry for the most part, but some certainly do.

A few years ago a colleague of mine happened to mention in the school staff room that he really liked reading poetry. He lter told me that 5 or 6 people had come up to him with small collections of poems that they had written or him to read on the quiet. I was surprised.

A few years later i was studying for my adult teachig qualification and came across a study which had discovered that a surprising number of people - not well educated for the most part - in Lancaster - a small northern town - regularly wrote their own poetry. The study was called " Local Literacies: Reading and writing in One community". I was again surprised.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Local-Literacies-Reading-Writing-Community/dp/0415171504/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302566889&sr=1-1

Now when I look in the local paper - The Coventry Telegraph, you do see quite a few poems written by locals wanting to get their point across. (I don't read them as they are usually terrible - about things like pot holes and other complaints - or is that just me being sniffy?).

Anyway, i think JBI's right. There are more people reading and possibly writing poetry. It's just that there is no outlet for it. As Billl says, poetry in reading public does seem a bit pretentious, but perhaps that's just something we need to get over. There aren't many publishing outlets, it doesn't pay unles you get some kind of official post.

I've taught a couple of creative writing classes, and there was a lot of interest in the poetry, but the ladies were almost all retired. It may be that intrest in poetry, the language and deeper meaning is a more mature pursuit oris perceived by young people as such.

[stlukesguild]

From my experience, young children in school are still exposed to poetry (Dr. Seuss, etc...) and they quite love it. They like the word play and the rhyme and they can memorize it, etc... The problem comes later when the focus in reading is almost solely upon narrative and poetry fades away. With the focus in education upon the quantifiable and the State standardized tests imagined as the last word as to the effectiveness of the teacher and the learning of the student, not much time is left for poetry... which like art and music is not something that can be proven to have "worth" to those who measure everything by objective standards.

We can look here at a site that one supposes is made up of those who love to read, and recognize the results of such "education". How many here ever name a poem or book of poems whenever the question of favorite books is raised? How many here frequently participate in the poetry discussions on the poetry boards? High-school English/Literature classes often have a set manner of analyzing and discussing books breaking them down into plot, setting, characters, theme, moral. How often have we had members here criticize books according to such guidelines... as if there were a single objective means of "analyzing" art... regardless of the intentions of the writer? How often do we get students asking us for the "meaning" of a poem... as if "getting it"... knowing what it means... is the end-all/be-all of appreciating poetry?

The problem with poetry, and why I didn't care for it in high school (and still pretty much have a neutral or even negative reaction to it) is that it is basically affected. Prose is something that can be fallen into...

I'm not certain I fully accept this notion. Prose can be and often is just as "affected" or artificial as poetry. Very few writers... even in prose... write in the same way as they speak. Prose... the novel and the short story... ironically seem more "natural"... less affected... even though they are far newer art forms and even though they rely upon an even greater suspension of disbelief... even more illusion.

I would note that "poetry" in the form of song still captures the younger audience. How often do we have someone start still one more thread about how the lyrics of Led Zeppelin or P Diddy are really poetry worthy of being read alongside Wordsworth and Keats?

[stlukesguild]

Simply put, people read more poetry today then ever, and more people write verses than ever.

True... and this is something commonly forgotten in any complaint about how this or that art form appears to be dying out. More people listen to Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert today than did during their lifetime. More people listen to the "obscure" contemporary composers such as György Ligeti, Krzysztof Penderecki, Philip Glass, and John Cage today that listened to Mozart or Schubert during their lifetime. By the same token, poetry may make up a small amount of the books read each year... but as JBI suggests Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill and Seamus Heaney probably have a far larger audience than William Blake, John Keats, or John Donne had during their lifetime. The audience for poetry remains smaller than that for prose. The audience for "serious" literature... prose or poetry... is as much an "elite" or limited activity as it ever was.

[sixsmith]

I think it's a combination of factors, most of which have been articulated in this thread. An appreciation of poetry requires a basic knowledge of prosody, of poetic meter and form. Most high school students, and indeed university students, do not receive sufficient, or indeed any, grounding in the mechanics of poetry and are therefore missing the tools with which to analyse and enjoy poetry. Further, and picking up on Bill's indoctrination point, one has to possess adequate knowledge of the context/movement in which a particular poem is written to understand the significance behind word choice, metaphor etc. I suppose a simpler way put all this is to say that, when it comes to learning about poetry, the cart is often put before the horse, leaving many students in a state of confusion and/or resentful towards the form. Others, probably the minority, will have their interest sufficiently piqued so as to make independent investigations.

[OrphanPip]

People do not spend the time to learn it, so they think it is "weird," "gay," "pretentious," or simply crappy and boring - and those who do try to get to read it end up reading the most cliche garbage they can find on top of it.

Are you trying to say poetry isn't gay? Damnit, if it isn't I've wasted hours of my life on it!

[EricW]

The audience for poetry remains smaller than that for prose. The audience for "serious" literature... prose or poetry... is as much an "elite" or limited activity as it ever was.

Agree. The fault lies in the young student's inability to grasp the concept of why poetry is hard to understand. I do still get frustrated when individuals that do have the capacity to absorb the themes within the text (ages 18+) are exposed to these works and continue to dismiss it as non-sense. At least acknowledge that literature is bigger, better and stronger than you are! Heh.

[The Comedian]

Are you trying to say poetry isn't gay? Damnit, if it isn't I've wasted hours of my life on it!

Don't worry Pip, it's still plenty gay. So you're good. :lol:


I always thought it was because listening to a song is effortless, while reading a poem requires some effort from the person. Besides music has always appealed more than literature throughout history

I hadn't thought of this before, but I think you raise a good point here. There is a passivity to listening to pop music -- pop music is akin to film. . .its pace and delivery are provided for us. No so with poetry or prose, for that matter.


In general, the answer why people do not like poetry is imply because they do not understand it, and have no will to put in any effort. It was all written to be read.

That being said, some poets are more accessible than others, as is the case with novelists. Some people though have problems distinguishing from the truly difficult (Hart Crane) and the rather easy yet effort taking (Shakespeare). from the simply easy yet fun (Lewis Carrol).

Good point. But I still don't understand the "I don't understand" line -- I've hear people/students "love" movies and songs they didn't understand. But the minute a poem suggests of any complexity beyond a Dr. Seuss rhyme, they panic and fret as though they have to finish a calculus exam.


I would note that "poetry" in the form of song still captures the younger audience. How often do we have someone start still one more thread about how the lyrics of Led Zeppelin or P Diddy are really poetry worthy of being read alongside Wordsworth and Keats?

Exactly! There is a difference in quality and purpose of popular song lyrics and poetry, but there are many similarities. . .students will often say how they love the sound of this line, the meaning of that line of a song. . . . the emotion of another. But for poetry, these simple pleasures are simply not deemed possible. A poem is either as simple Dr. Seuss or as erudite as T.S. Eliot -- nothing else is possible.

[OrphanPip]

Don't worry Pip, it's still plenty gay. So you're good. :lol:



Thank God, I nearly donated all my poetry books to charity. (I suppose I would have kept Leaves of Grass)

[YesNo]

People do not read poetry today because they have better things to do. Those better things might be going to a movie, or listening to music, or reading a novel. Or going to a party. Or doing their taxes.

Poets in their egotism can be very self-destructive. Unfortunately for them readers aren't stupid. When poets write nonsense, readers feel their spirit being sucked out of them. They know they are being verbally abused. Who can blame them when they stop reading? When poets release anger in their poems, readers feel, correctly, that that anger is directed at them. They know they are being belittled and, again, they stop reading.

So how does one fix the problem?

Stop praising and writing poetry that is verbally abusive and start praising and writing poetry that comes from the heart offered humbly to the reader aware that the reader is under no obligation to accept it.

I don't necessarily follow this advice, because I'm not sure I even understand all of the implications of it, but I think it puts the burden of the problem where it belongs on the writer, not the reader.

[PeterL]

The last several hundred years? I'm sure Beowulf is not the only valuable poem. This comment seems to be coming more from your taste than from an actual problem in poetry.

I am sorry to learn that you didn't bother to read my post, but that's you problem, not mine.

I disagree with this. Serious poets don't write free verse or prose poetry because they are ignorant about real poetry. And a lot of more recent poetry (relative to your timeline) has great meter and rhyme. anyone lived in a pretty how town is definitely memorable for me.
[/QUOTE]

DISAGREE ALL YOU LIKE, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE FACTS.

[PeterL]

What a sophism if I have ever read one.

You don't do much reading, do you?

[/QUOTE]The reason people don't read poetry today like they did has nothing to do with it. Simply put, people read more poetry today then ever, and more people write verses than ever. What purpose did poetry ever serve, rather than give Trojan ancestors to famous nobleman (which had no real effect on common thought). Poets are good and bad, as always. The games of poetry and prose are not so connected as you make it out to seem.[/QUOTE]

People may read more poetry, but poetry was of more significance when few people could read. Poetry contained mnemonic devices to make it eay to remember and to retell, so someone could tell the story of Beowulf in verse form to people hundreds of miles away. Those devices are different form prose forms, becaus prose assumes that seomone can read.


There is nothing to show poetry has declined in terms of readership, the only thing that has declined is the prestige it has within a cultural frame. But then again, in English North America, literacy and culture were never particularly prized, compared with money and merchandise.

While in North America literacy is no popular now, it was highly regarded in the past, even in comparison with money, but things change.

[IceM]

Poetry is much the afterthought in the high-school curriculum. I'm currently in the AP-12 class and poetry is only taught in anticipation of a potential poem being presented in the multiple-choice category of our exam. Teaching on the analysis of poetry is little, and our assignments regarding analysis deal specifically on the distinguishing characteristics between different periods. As to forming an appreciation for poetry, Sparknotes and other quick-help websites provide the essentials necessary for the assignment, depriving the student of both the actual reading and reflections on the work.

Even coming through the K-8 system, the major emphasis was on writing coherent essays and understanding novels. Most teachers approached poetry from a perspective of "Poetry only measures cultural value." Many of my instructors emphasized that coherent essays communicated oneself more clearly and were ultimately more pertinent to our world; and as such, they deserved more attention.

I enjoy, but seldom discuss poetry, because I internalize it and enjoy the craft. Yet even one who reads poetry at my school is perhaps a one-in-twenty ratio, including teachers. Those who thoroughly enjoy it are more limited.

[stlukesguild]

JBI- What a sophism if I have ever read one.

You don't do much reading, do you?

:eek2::skep::lol::lol::rofl::smilielol5::smilielol 5::rofl::rofl::smilielol5::smilielol5:

That's gotta be the funniest thing I've read on LitNet in who knows how long. I would be impressed if you had read half of what JBI has read in the last year over the course of your entire life.

[stlukesguild]

Most poetry in the last several hundred years has been quite light and thin.That is especially true of Post-Romantic poetry. In times when poetry served a purpose and poets wrote serious literature, poetry was popular and remembered. These days nearly everyone is literate, so they can enjoy prose, rather than trying to memorize poetry. If poets wrote good, satisfying, memorable poetry, then it might still be absorbed, but the word-play of poetry can be done more fully in prose, and modern poets don't understand how to use rhyme and rhythm, so no one remembers thier work, unless it gets used in advertising.

I disagree with this. Serious poets don't write free verse or prose poetry because they are ignorant about real poetry.


DISAGREE ALL YOU LIKE, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE FACTS.

What "facts" are you referring to? You do understand what a "fact" is and that it is not the same as your personal opinions? Poetry over the last couple hundred years has been "light and thin"? How is that a fact? Whitman, Blake, Byron, Yeats, Baudelaire, Eliot, Montale, Rilke, Neruda... all "light and thin"? Gee... amazing how many people who read a lot of poetry think in a contrary manner to your "facts".:shocked:

And what is this "purpose" that poetry served in the past that has been lost?

Poetry isn't memorized much today? True... but access to books is no longer limited and competing sources of "entertainment" mean that few people have the time or the inclination to memorize. Even so... I don't doubt that JBI or JCamillo or I would be hard-pressed to ramble off any number of poets today who quite likely may survive as equals to any number of giants of the past... nor do I think it would be hard to come up with any number of poems from the last 100 years that exhibit a great mastery of poetic form and language... and still resonate with an audience beyond academia.

[JBI]

You don't do much reading, do you?

The reason people don't read poetry today like they did has nothing to do with it. Simply put, people read more poetry today then ever, and more people write verses than ever. What purpose did poetry ever serve, rather than give Trojan ancestors to famous nobleman (which had no real effect on common thought). Poets are good and bad, as always. The games of poetry and prose are not so connected as you make it out to seem.

People may read more poetry, but poetry was of more significance when few people could read. Poetry contained mnemonic devices to make it eay to remember and to retell, so someone could tell the story of Beowulf in verse form to people hundreds of miles away. Those devices are different form prose forms, becaus prose assumes that seomone can read.



While in North America literacy is no popular now, it was highly regarded in the past, even in comparison with money, but things change.

Where do your facts come from?

Poetry did, or songs did? Where is your distinction - many people have many songs in their memories - I could probably sing along with a thousand if not more. Those same mnemonics are still there.

Where is the proof that it was any more significant, or had any impact greater than today? If you want to go early renaissance, it was regarded then as a form of rhetoric, a sort of game that usually rich educated men played amongst themselves, outside of their "real work." The first poet by my estimate in English to truly make the occupation successful, minus a few earlier attempts (Gascoigne for instance) was Ben Jonson, and he did it through publishing and self-promotion.

If you want to talk oral or written forms though, I recommend you read Innis' Bias of Communication which is the first major comparison of the mediums - his argument is actually the exact opposite of yours, not that people hundreds of miles away could enjoy the same narration, but rather people hundreds of years down could appreciate it in some form. If I recall correctly, standardized language in Europe is a rather new phenomenon. Taking Italy as an example, people 100 kilometers away would have a hard enough time communicating with each other up until the intervention of mass media particularly radio, let alone enjoying an epic poem in very artistic language. Anglo-Saxon itself, the bits that have survived, display several dialects, and that isn't even a whole picture.


The only language to really hold space perfectly for such a prolonged period of time was Chinese, which was the written medium from modern day Gansu all the way to Japan and beyond into South East Asia. Characters, a written form, allowed people over space the enjoyment of reading, and a reverence for the past ensured posterity, but even so the language was completely literary, and could not be read and understood out loud to an audience - it had to be read and decoded, essentially amongst an educated elite.



What purpose in this sphere then did poetry ever serve? Where is this great "Poetic age" of enlightenment, which existed outside of select circles. If anything poetry is more of the people than ever today, whatever that means, and certainly more people, a greater percentage I would wager, are engaged in it than before.

That it is still not "mainstream" means nothing, as it never has been mainstream, nor has it ever particularly served a function other than its own means within Western Spheres (within Eastern Spheres poetry at points was a requirement for bureaucratic advancement based on deemed artistic quality), and, by extension, it rarely functioned as an occupation either.

Some did survive on it, but of those that truly got rich, I can think of only 3 in English, Pope, Byron, and Longfellow - simply put, Poets in general had day jobs.

So then, tell me when was this golden age, and what did it constitute? How was poetry any more central to culture, or society?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Don't have time to read all the responses, I will tomorrow.

Poetry simply isn't taught like it used to be. In my very small experience as a student teacher, I devoted three weeks to poetry, and I still didn't feel like it was enough. When I asked the other major teacher of sophomores (whom I was working with) what she did with poetry, she said, and I quote, "I only teach one week of poetry because i don't like it."

I just kind of stood there, dumbfounded, mouth agape. I just shook my head and walked away. I wanted to yell, to reprimand, to scream, "Who gives a **** if you like it or not, you NEED TO ****ING TEACH IT, YOU LAZY PIECE OF ****!" But, in hopes of future employment at the school, I didn't (though shaking my head and walking away wasn't a good idea, either). Her attitude wasn't seen as a problem by anyone, especially the principal, a "math guy," who loved her because she pushed failing students through and worked on all kinds of extra-curricular projects (which, of course, meant neglecting her students--she never bothered doing discussion or anything).

Teachers like this are the problem, and there is no shortage of them. I'm not a huge fan of poetry, but I taught it, and pretty well, I think. I take solace in knowing that at least my forty-or-so students were exposed to poetry and how to analyze it.

[mortalterror]

JBI- What a sophism if I have ever read one.

You don't do much reading, do you?

:eek2::skep::lol::lol::rofl::smilielol5::smilielol 5::rofl::rofl::smilielol5::smilielol5:

That's gotta be the funniest thing I've read on LitNet in who knows how long. I would be impressed if you had read half of what JBI has read in the last year over the course of your entire life.

PeterL obviously didn't mean that literally. He was being sarcastic about JBI's hyperbole. The implication is that if that is JBI's understanding of sophism he must not be well acquainted with sophistry. I think PeterL knows JBI and how well read he is.

[JBI]

Don't have time to read all the responses, I will tomorrow.

Poetry simply isn't taught like it used to be. In my very small experience as a student teacher, I devoted three weeks to poetry, and I still didn't feel like it was enough. When I asked the other major teacher of sophomores (whom I was working with) what she did with poetry, she said, and I quote, "I only teach one week of poetry because i don't like it."

I just kind of stood there, dumbfounded, mouth agape. I just shook my head and walked away. I wanted to yell, to reprimand, to scream, "Who gives a **** if you like it or not, you NEED TO ****ING TEACH IT, YOU LAZY PIECE OF ****!" But, in hopes of future employment at the school, I didn't (though shaking my head and walking away wasn't a good idea, either). Her attitude wasn't seen as a problem by anyone, especially the principal, a "math guy," who loved her because she pushed failing students through and worked on all kinds of extra-curricular projects (which, of course, meant neglecting her students--she never bothered doing discussion or anything).

Teachers like this are the problem, and there is no shortage of them. I'm not a huge fan of poetry, but I taught it, and pretty well, I think. I take solace in knowing that at least my forty-or-so students were exposed to poetry and how to analyze it.

Environment is a good question, with two traditions pretty much conflicting in my mind - one the Jewish classical example of everyone crowding around one Torah and arguing about the meaning of certain passages, and the other the Chinese tradition I am glued into now, of sitting at your desk and memorizing the book word for word with the commentary.

The question then is, what are the two uses? One gets the job done, the other only brings in doubt - how can you get to one without the other, and which one is more affective - to know enough to discuss, you must first memorize, to discuss, you must dissect what you have memorized - with some many subjects, what time is there to either memorize, or discuss?

[Alexander III]

Are you trying to say poetry isn't gay? Damnit, if it isn't I've wasted hours of my life on it!

I assure you poetry isn't gay, it's bi-winning.

[YesNo]

...nor do I think it would be hard to come up with any number of poems from the last 100 years that exhibit a great mastery of poetic form and language... and still resonate with an audience beyond academia.
I'm not disagreeing with you with this post, but it gave me an idea.

What would be, say, the top 5 to 10 poems from the past 100 years that exhibit great mastery of poetic form and language and most especially still resonate with an audience beyond academia that you would put on a reading list for the Comedian's students? And what famous poets would you explicitly exclude?

My list would include Joyce Kilmer's poem about trees which I think just might fit the 100 year constraint. Although I don't particularly like this poem, it is famous and resonates with non-academics. There would also be Robert Frost's Fire and Ice poem.

I guess I would also like to include poems by poets who are not recognized by academics because I am tired of hearing the same names dropped. One would be Tanith Lee's love poem: http://www.poemspoet.com/tanith-lee/untitled Another would be Mattie Stepanek: http://www.mattieonline.com/ I can still remember a poem he wrote about the day his brother died. It beats most anything Billy Collins wrote. The only thing I remember about Collins is his "paradelle" prank.

I would not include anything by Pound or Plath or William Carlos Williams or anyone whom I thought even remotely imitated them.

[OrphanPip]

But I like Pound and WCW...

And WCW isn't even all that difficult, he's plenty accessible. (at times)

The Tanith Lee poem is cute, but it's nothing special or all that original.

Honestly, even Plath is better than that. She's way overrated, but was still a competent poet.

[mortalterror]

What would be, say, the top 5 to 10 poems from the past 100 years that exhibit great mastery of poetic form and language and most especially still resonate with an audience beyond academia that you would put on a reading list for the Comedian's students?

1902 The Rain in the Pinewood by Gabriele D'Annunzio
1905 To Roosevelt by Ruben Dario
1910? Brahma, Visnu, Siva by Rabindranath Tagore
1910 If by Rudyard Kipling
1911 Ithaca by Constantine P. Cavafy
1913 Mirabeau Bridge by Guillaume Apollinaire
1914 Mending Wall by Robert Frost
1917 The Young Fate by Paul Valery
1918 The Black Heralds by Cesar Vallejo
1919 The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats
1920 Hugh Selwyn Mauberley by Ezra Pound
1922 The First Elegy by Rainer Maria Rilke
1922 The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot
1923 The Prophet by Khalil Gibran
1924 Anabase by Saint-John Perse
1925 The Lemon Trees by Eugenio Montale
? Lovely and Lifelike by Paul Eluard
1934 Message by Fernando Pessoa
1937 Lament for the Death of Ignacio Sanchez Mejias by Federico Garcia Lorca
1938 The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel by Nikos Kazantzakis
1940 Requiem by Anna Akhmatova
1944 A Song on the End of the World by Czeslaw Milosz
1948 Death Fugue by Paul Celan
1950 The Heights of Macchu Picchu by Pablo Neruda
1951 Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night by Dylan Thomas
1952 The Shield of Achilles by W.H. Auden
1954 Sunstone by Octavio Paz
1955 The Emperor of Ice Cream by Wallace Stevens
1974 The Envoy of Mr. Cogito by Zbigniew Herbert
1975 Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror by John Ashberry
1990 Omeros by Derek Walcott

[sixsmith]

What would be, say, the top 5 to 10 poems from the past 100 years that exhibit great mastery of poetic form and language and most especially still resonate with an audience beyond academia that you would put on a reading list for the Comedian's students? And what famous poets would you explicitly exclude?

Mending Wall - Robert Frost
In the Station of the Metro - Ezra Pound
The Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock - TS Eliot
One Art - Elizabeth Bishop
The Second Coming - WB Yeats
Aubade - Philip Larkin
Banal Sojourn - Wallace Stevens
Punishment - Seamus Heaney


I'd simply exclude what I consider weak poetry. Thus, Plath and Sexton, for example, are basically out, as is much of Roethke.

[Paulclem]

It is precisely the form aspects of poetry that are the most difficult to teach. In the hands of a poor teacher, it can really be the most boring stuff. So you have a conundrum: do you teach less formal poetry, that is more accessible, or do you look at the formal styles which without a good explanation can't be appreciated in respect of the degree of craftmanship involved?

Making links between the two by teaching formal and more informal styles side by side helps. Enthusiasm helps - as Mutatis noted, but also the school management. The teacher who was reluctant to teach poetry is at least not doing a bad job of it. It does need someone who enjoys the stuff, and this is where a bit of team teaching can help.

In the end though, I bet all the people on this forum pursue poetry themselves through their own volition, sometimes because and sometimes in spite of the teaching they had on the subject.

[MorpheusSandman]

This has been a fascinating thread, as have been many other threads on this similar theme that have cropped up on Litnet... To simply relate my own story and feelings on this subject:

I don't think I read my first poem until I was in my early 20s. It simply wasn't taught in public schools from grade school to high school, my parents never read me a poem, none of my friends read poetry, and I likely couldn't have named you a poet other than Shakespeare. Yet, I devoured novels from the time I was young until the time I was in my early teens. Then I went through nearly a decade-long health problem, and didn't really pick up literature again until my early 20s. Well, let me correct one thing: my mother infrequently wrote "joke" poems and gave them to my family on birthdays, and it was actually one of those that indirectly "drew" me to poetry. She showed me one she'd written, and even though it rhymed I couldn't get past the wonky, uneven meter. Being a lover of music and lyrics, I guess I intuitively "knew" that the meter was wrong. I told her that it didn't sound right and that I'd work on it. This lead me to Wikipedia where I began reading about poetry, meter, forms, and other linguistic aspects. From that rather serendipitous beginning that happened when I was about 21 my interest in poetry began. I think when I originally found it, I looked at it as an interesting intellectual creative challenge; how to utilize these elements and forms to say something striking? When Neil Gaiman's Sandman rekindled my interest in literature, I also found Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer, all three of which ignited my interest in poetry even more so. Ever since I think I've been drawn to it more than prose.

Although, I find it difficult to say what it is about poetry that draws me in more than prose... I think there are three main things:

1. The formal aspect of poetry

I don't merely mean "forms" like Sonnets et al., but the idea that how you arrange words in a line, especially how you begin and end lines, whether you use end-stops or enjambment, how you use punctuation, rhythm, etc. adds both a musical and aesthetic effect that typically isn't present in prose. When I read the poet masters, I'm frequently stunned at the impact that they can make with one word situation at the right place in a line, especially when juxtaposed with a previous word/line. There are moments in Paradise Lost when the first word (or few words) of a line will hit like an unexpected gut punch. I guess it's possible to do that with prose through periods and sentence beginnings, but I think the "look" of prose as merely strings of connected sentences and paragraphs provoke a more monorhythmic reading where as every new line in poetry forces you to readjust.

2. The "small" aspect of poetry

Obviously, this isn't the case with epic and narrative poetry, but lyric poetry has the ability to capture the smallest moments of life and create an entire work out of that. While novels often have "moments" where the story slows down to revel more in aesthetics and these aspects, I think it's easy for them to get lost in the whole, not add to the whole, or even merely just be part of a grander scheme. Poetry is much more flexible, though. Because it doesn't need a story, it can support any theme, any feeling, any subject, no matter how small. I think we're so used to focusing on the "big" moments in life that we often forget the small pleasures, and I think poetry revels in those small pleasures and captured moments much better than prose. Maybe it's the difference between a snapshot and a movie, in a way.

3. The emotional, aesthetic, intellectual, and musical aspect of poetry

I guess this rather relates to both elements above, and I hesitated to list this because, obviously, all of these elements are present in prose, but I think the way poetry handles them is, in a way, much more direct. In most prose, all of these elements are dominated, dictated by, and even delivered through the context of a narrative. Now, I love narrative art, but I also think there's a limit to narrative art, especially in its ability to capture things outside the imitative aspects of life, even if those imitative aspects are related to thought. Poetry doesn't have these restraints, and it can go directly to certain emotional states, intellectual themes, aesthetic feeling, or the musical enjoyment of language without having to be mediated by a narrative, characters, events, or anything else that might be connected to it. But, because of this more "pared down" approach, I also think every aspect used in poetry becomes emphasized more. Prose can get away with ignoring certain aspects of language to relate its narrative, but in poetry you don't have this safety net to fall back on, so everything superfluous gets spotlighted much faster. But, likewise, I think poetry is much better at spotlighting feelings, emotions, and thoughts because the effective use of languages galvanizes what's being expressed. I think that's why most famous sayings contain poetic concepts, especially those found in rhetoric. In fact, even if prose and novels are more popular, there are probably more known quotes from poetry than from novels.

My passion for poetry has certainly lead me to reflect on its unpopularity and relative obscurity. For me, it's rather difficult, because I would like for others to be able to read poetry and "feel" it like I do, but most don't. I guess most read it, balk at the frequently difficult language (especially with olde(er) poets/poetry), the metaphors, and the elliptical, suggestive, indirect way of relating something, and their own misunderstanding leads to confusion, which is construed negatively, which is then taken out on the poetry for "causing" this problem, so it's dismissed as something negative in general. After all, the arts, to most people, are an escape. As one person said elsewhere in this thread, music and film CAN BE very passive art forms, while you always have to engage with literature, but poetry even more because of its increased indirectness of expression. I even wrote about this in my last poem I posted on LitNet titled "Blink, Blink", basically saying that because music and the visual arts can be appreciated simply be experiencing it, they hit at something more primal in us than literature that requires understanding a "medium" (language) to connect with the object's meaning, and especially poetry that requires an even more in-depth knowledge of that medium. So, I guess I'd conclude that it's sad but inevitable. Poetry can be enjoyed, but I think it necessitates more work on the part of the individual to enjoy. I mean, I've always been the type that appreciates an intellectual challenge, and reading Shakespeare, Donne, Chaucer, and Milton (especially as an "introduction" to poetry) was by no means EASY, yet I'm also a believer in the adage that "you get out what you put in", and that which requires no effort eventually fades, but that which you work hard for has a lasting significance. I think this has worked in practice as well, as all of the art that has moved me and affected me the most are those that I've had to work the hardest in order to understand, and I think the deep and immense pleasures followed from that understanding.

[poetindisguise]

But that's just it isn't it? the excuse "it's to hard to understand" speaks volumes about the youth of today. If it's not written in plain blunt language, people refuse to make the effort to understand this. It's weird or odd and how stupid it would be to try to understand this when i can just ignore it. Right? I also agree that it just isn't taught the same way. Hearing peers make comments such as "poetry is the death of my soul" and groan and whine when we have to read a poem or write one for class goes to show that real poetry has not been properly introduced and taught in our schools. These kids have had no positive experience with the art of poetry because typically people would never write when not required. Creativity is a dying trait in todays generation which is horribly sad.

P.s. Didn't have time to read responces. Will read tonight.

[blazeofglory]

Why not poetry?

Of course we will have to revisit poetry. Let us reinvent a linguistic craft. Now we are writing poorly.

There is no fault with poetry. Poetry is eternal and the fault line is lurking in our capacity to understand the beauty of it.

If we can redecorate it beauty poetry is likely to die out.

A day will come poetry will be a thing of the past the way the erstwhile soviet union.

Who cares?

From amongst us a new person must stand out and reinvent poetry.

[poetindisguise]

i don't see why poetry must be reinvented. Why conform to societys demands of simplicating poetry so people can be lazy and not appreciate what poetry truely is? Why do that? Its ridiculous.

[blazeofglory]

i don't see why poetry must be reinvented. Why conform to societys demands of simplicating poetry so people can be lazy and not appreciate what poetry truely is? Why do that? Its ridiculous.

You are narrowing down the realm of poetry and this is injustice to poetry.

you have wrongly used the word "simplicating". Use the word "simplifying". Poetry can be written for self gratification at times, but in general you write for others to read.

Then poetry cannot be incarcerated by loners like you. It must be targeted for the mass, not just for the class only.

Poetry is reclassified or reinvented at different intervals.

[Paulclem]

I think you make some great points Morpheus - especially about the emotional impact, the gut feeling and the little events that are poignant but too small to be covered by a prose narrative.

I also think your story shows that some people often find poetry despite their conditions. Often it's just pot luck. I remember one particular teacher who asked us to write a poem, (this was the 60's), and it was a bit of a revelation for a nine or ten year old that you too could write your own poetry. It's not like that in school today of course, but it was then. It was even worse for the generations before me who had to memorise poems they perhaps didn't like or get the cane. (A fine teaching method if ever |I saw one). If I had been in a different class, or off school that day, I would never have written one at that point. (Yes we did this activity once! and I can't remember being asked to write a poem again after that!!)

[Paulclem]

But that's just it isn't it? the excuse "it's to hard to understand" speaks volumes about the youth of today. If it's not written in plain blunt language, people refuse to make the effort to understand this. It's weird or odd and how stupid it would be to try to understand this when i can just ignore it. Right? I also agree that it just isn't taught the same way. Hearing peers make comments such as "poetry is the death of my soul" and groan and whine when we have to read a poem or write one for class goes to show that real poetry has not been properly introduced and taught in our schools. These kids have had no positive experience with the art of poetry because typically people would never write when not required. Creativity is a dying trait in todays generation which is horribly sad.

P.s. Didn't have time to read responces. Will read tonight.

I'm not sure that it is altogether fair to label the youth of today. (I was - many years ago - a youth and at that time I remember a lot of labelling going on in the 70s). For one - how do you know? For two, doesn't it depend upon individual conditions, teachers etc. For three, as Morpheus has pointed out, some will come to it when they are no longer youths and distracted by youthy things.

[JCamilo]

Where do your facts come from?

Poetry did, or songs did? Where is your distinction - many people have many songs in their memories - I could probably sing along with a thousand if not more. Those same mnemonics are still there.

Poetry does, we cann't equate every oral experience with music. But the truth, is that is only true if we are talking about an oral society. Dante didn't wrote in rhymes so people could remember and recite him. And the mnemonic aspects of Poetry (the truth is the mnemonic aspects of Homer are open to improvisation, rather than 100% perfect recitation) is found in the Quran or many Bible passages. Heck, Law is organized with mnemonic devices (listing) which Homer used.

Anyways, it is rather obvious, the lack of status is because prose writers also got quite good. From the XIX they worked hard after the application of poetic principles in prose. That is pretty much what guys like Tchekhov, Poe or Flaubert demmanded. The development of the first person narrator helped to created the subjectivism that poetry could achive. It is not just that the commun idiot could write, or be the theme, etc. It is that the great guys did it too.

But rambling about XX century authors... heck, Spanish language have their best poets since the Gold Century. Portuguese Since Camoes. And nobody can complain about the addition of a new perspective for english poetry coming from america.

[stlukesguild]

2. The "small" aspect of poetry

Obviously, this isn't the case with epic and narrative poetry, but lyric poetry has the ability to capture the smallest moments of life and create an entire work out of that. While novels often have "moments" where the story slows down to revel more in aesthetics and these aspects, I think it's easy for them to get lost in the whole, not add to the whole, or even merely just be part of a grander scheme. Poetry is much more flexible, though. Because it doesn't need a story, it can support any theme, any feeling, any subject, no matter how small. I think we're so used to focusing on the "big" moments in life that we often forget the small pleasures, and I think poetry revels in those small pleasures and captured moments much better than prose. Maybe it's the difference between a snapshot and a movie, in a way.

This is indeed one of the strengths of what be defined as lyrical poetry. Poetry (epic poetry and otherwise) has the ability to deal with the most grandiose subject matter, but as you note, poetry also has the ability to explore that intimate fleeting moment... that which makes up the subject matter of the Impressionist painter. The French (and Spanish) Symbolists were quite adept at capturing the momentary... the transitory atmosphere... the passing event. I've always loved Richard Wilbur's short lyric:

Piazza di Spagna, Early Morning (The Spanish Square in Rome)

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.

[stlukesguild]

Then poetry cannot be incarcerated by loners like you. It must be targeted for the mass...

We already have art for the masses. One need only look at any number of Hollywood blockbuster films, pop music, or best selling fiction. The idea of art for the masses is seemingly noble in aim... but ultimately absurd and doomed to failure. The masses rarely have the time needed to grasp that which presents any degree of challenge... not the interest. By the same token... what responsibility does the artist have to the masses? The artist has a responsibility to create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work.

[JCamilo]

I would say, people blame masses for many things. They often use it, but Art for masses is actually art for Market.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think you make some great points Morpheus - especially about the emotional impact, the gut feeling and the little events that are poignant but too small to be covered by a prose narrative. Thank you.


I also think your story shows that some people often find poetry despite their conditions. Often it's just pot luck. I remember one particular teacher who asked us to write a poem, (this was the 60's), and it was a bit of a revelation for a nine or ten year old that you too could write your own poetry. It's not like that in school today of course, but it was then. It was even worse for the generations before me who had to memorise poems they perhaps didn't like or get the cane. (A fine teaching method if ever |I saw one). If I had been in a different class, or off school that day, I would never have written one at that point. (Yes we did this activity once! and I can't remember being asked to write a poem again after that!!)I truly wonder if there is any way to inspire kids to read poetry, or read anything worthwhile, for that matter. When I was in school I couldn't care less about reading and learning what they wanted me to read and learn, but now that I'm out of school, I have more of a desire to read and learn than ever, especially the stuff that back then I hated! I wonder if it's just in our nature to reject what's forced onto us. Then again, I don't know how you provoke people (especially kids) to go to it.


This is indeed one of the strengths of what be defined as lyrical poetry. Poetry (epic poetry and otherwise) has the ability to deal with the most grandiose subject matter, but as you note, poetry also has the ability to explore that intimate fleeting moment... that which makes up the subject matter of the Impressionist painter.That's a lovely poem you posted, luke, and I agree about the fleeting, impressionist aspect of poetry. I think that's a quality I've come to appreciate in all the arts, actually. Film is just as bad about placing the narrative above all other concerns, yet I've come to favor the directors that relate more of the ephemeral aspects through photography and time, or even the experimentalists like Stan Brakhage who is as close to a genuine cinema poet as I've seen.


We already have art for the masses. One need only look at any number of Hollywood blockbuster films, pop music, or best selling fiction. The idea of art for the masses is seemingly noble in aim... but ultimately absurd and doomed to failure. The masses rarely have the time needed to grasp that which presents any degree of challenge... not the interest. By the same token... what responsibility does the artist have to the masses? The artist has a responsibility to create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work.I've always been of two minds about this... or perhaps three. On the one hand, I'm always reminded of David Lynch, I think it was, who said that if he made films he wanted to see, that he simply counted on the idea that others would want to see them too. On the other hand, he also said that Spielberg also made the films he wanted to make, but his films simply happened to appeal to the masses. So I think there's an instance of a more niche artist and popular artist both making the art they want to make but appealing to different audiences. Is one more likely to last than the other? They're probably both on roughly equal footing as far as importance and influence goes.

Then again, there's always the middle ground. Is it just me, or doesn't most of the absolute best artists tend to be those that appealed to BOTH sides, the masses AND the aesthetes/intellectuals? Shakespeare and Hitchcock certainly fit that description, even The Beatles if you want to include them. I'm not really sure if it takes more talent to appeal to a mass audience or a selective audience... with the former, it's harder to make enough compromises to find a way to appeal to that many, yet, for the latter, it becomes harder and harder to impress, even if their biases are less unpredictable. I've also found that there's no guarantee that art that attempts to appeal to either is of a generally higher or lower standard. There's crap and greatness on both sides, and it's not always easy or automatic to tell which is which. The standards are different and ever-evolving for each anyway.

In the end, I think I fall more into the "it's best to appeal to both sides" ideal. I actually think the masses can tolerate art that's somewhat challenging when it offers a certain amount of pure entertainment back. Kubrick was a master of that in the realm of film. He gave just enough to lure the audience in, but then also challenged them to reconsider how they approached film as entertainment and art. The miraculous thing is that he pulled it off while in the Hollywood studio system with complete creative, monetary, and temporal freedom to do what he wanted, and along the way he created some of the greatest AND most popular works of cinematic art and entertainment.

[JBI]

Meh, it's assuming that poets wouldn't be thrilled with the masses reading their stuff. Simply put, it isn't as easy as it seems to write for the masses. Of course, some get rich doing it, but that has a great deal to do with luck and circumstantial situations. For every Dan Brown there are a million no name people who cannot get a publisher to read their manuscript.

[poetindisguise]

Then poetry cannot be incarcerated by loners like you. It must be targeted for the mass...

We already have art for the masses. One need only look at any number of Hollywood blockbuster films, pop music, or best selling fiction. The idea of art for the masses is seemingly noble in aim... but ultimately absurd and doomed to failure. The masses rarely have the time needed to grasp that which presents any degree of challenge... not the interest. By the same token... what responsibility does the artist have to the masses? The artist has a responsibility to create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work.

Exactly! Obviously the art for the masses is compleatly opposite of what poetry stands for. If poetry were to be written for the masses it would no longer be poetry. It would become a sex infected, blunt, ugly, verse that would have no resemblence to the poetry we know today.

Sorry for my grammatical error before. Forgive me I was half asleep.
But why do you continue to call me a loner? Do I give off the impression that I have no friends and spend all my time brooding in the corners of coffee shops? As it happens I'm not a loner, just someone who is passionate about her craft. Sorry for giving you that impression.

[blazeofglory]

Poetry is unpopular today and is pursued by those who have plenty of time and nothing to do it. I wrote poems when I had nothing to do and when my career and other pursuits in my life occupied me I stopped writing poetry. It does not mean that I do not like poetry but I have so many other than things to do.

To write poems I have to corner myself and live distantly from the rest of pursuits.

Poetry is something that has to do with leisurely hours and today's kids are venturesome and they loathe something like poetry.They read it only in their textbooks.

Today' kids have many things that keep them occupied from video games to sports, movies, soaps, songs, traveling, surfing the internet and engaging in social network. Reading poetry makes them dull and sluggish. Of course the early twentieth centuries produced many poets but later on with a lot of inventions in technology and science people have many more things to relish.

I used to buy at least one book of poems a month two decades ago. Now for the last one decade I have not bought a single book of poetry and even did not look for it in any book shops.

Few talk about poetry if we meet anybody today.

[stlukesguild]

Boo Hoo Hoo... your passion for poetry died and so you assume it has died for everyone else as well. This sounds like the sniveling tirade of a teenager. I lve in a large urban city. I work in a professional position. I have a family and all the responsibilities and claims on my time that go with that. In spite of this I still read regularly... and probably read poetry more than anything else. I also listen to music with an equal passion, and I find time to continue my own artistic efforts... and not the efforts of the weekend dilettante, mind you... I am a painter who works on a rather large scale (painting often 7-feet in height). There are those who have moaned repeatedly about the death of poetry, painting, sculpture, classical music, opera, the theater, ballet, etc... In reality, they are all quite alive and kicking, and will continue to remain so as long as there are individuals who feel passionate about them... no longer how small the audience.

[MorpheusSandman]

I find time to continue my own artistic efforts... and not the efforts of the weekend dilettante, mind you...You know, I'm curious... "dilettante" seems to have such a negative connotation, but I can't figure out where it comes from. Does it basically just refer to those who have an interest/passion for art but don't get paid? If so, then I don't see what's so bad about it. Then again, it seems to connote a certain superficial interest, as if those who work as professional artists can't be quite superficial about what they do. John Ford never referred to directing as anything but a job and said it was no work for a real artist...

[IceM]

I still maintain that an appreciation for poetry is not taught. One cannot teach an appreciation for the sublime. It is found. It is discovered. However, it can be hinted towards.

My high-school teachers have grossly undertaught poetry. It's hardly present in the high school curriculum. To me, that's the educational system's failure. Teaching poetry does not ensure a unanimous appreciation for the craft. Yet exposure to such an art makes possible an opportunity for one to either appreciate or reject it. For those stumbling on the language, simplifying the context might do the trick; for those ignorant to the craft, exposure may lead to appreciation; for those already appreciative, it may lead to experimentation. But for those unexposed to the art, it only generates unappreciation.

Apathy destroys art faster than unappreciation does.

[Cunninglinguist]

Exactly! Obviously the art for the masses is compleatly opposite of what poetry stands for. If poetry were to be written for the masses it would no longer be poetry. It would become a sex infected, blunt, ugly, verse that would have no resemblence to the poetry we know today.

Now I don't think that's really true. The Aeneid, The Faerie Queene, the Comedy and many other epics were written for the "masses" and I would not count them among the failures of poetry. Some poetry has been written for the masses, some has not. Some has not, yet has still appealed to the masses. Who the poetry is written for doesn't matter - it doesn't define the medium.


There are those who have moaned repeatedly about the death of poetry, painting, sculpture, classical music, opera, the theater, ballet, etc... In reality, they are all quite alive and kicking, and will continue to remain so as long as there are individuals who feel passionate about them... no longer how small the audience.

The moaning is, in my mind, basically pretentious. It's like saying "look at how I appreciate this, yet the rest of society is full of imbeciles."

Edit:


My high-school teachers have grossly undertaught poetry. It's hardly present in the high school curriculum. To me, that's the educational system's failure. Teaching poetry does not ensure a unanimous appreciation for the craft. Yet exposure to such an art makes possible an opportunity for one to either appreciate or reject it. For those stumbling on the language, simplifying the context might do the trick; for those ignorant to the craft, exposure may lead to appreciation; for those already appreciative, it may lead to experimentation. But for those unexposed to the art, it only generates unappreciation.

This, in my mind, is a rather moot point. Those who won't read poetry on their own accord won't have the capacity to appreciate it. Moreover, I don't think it's fair to blame the schools; I think a money-drunk corporation-driven society is at large here. Poetry doesn't have much (if any) instrumental value and it is therefore regarded as rather useless to the schools' whose success is measured by the success of its students. Then there is the question of whether or not it's the school's responsibility to expose art to the students and, perhaps more importantly, what kind of art. But, in the end, I don't think it would matter if they did or did not --- if you really wanted to learn Shakespeare then you could just go down to your local library.

[mal4mac]

We already have art for the masses. One need only look at any number of Hollywood blockbuster films, pop music, or best selling fiction. The idea of art for the masses is seemingly noble in aim... but ultimately absurd and doomed to failure. The masses rarely have the time needed to grasp that which presents any degree of challenge... not the interest. By the same token... what responsibility does the artist have to the masses? The artist has a responsibility to create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work.

But some of the greatest art doesn't provide a great deal of challenge, and has mass appeal. For instance, Jane Austen and Charles Dickens are recognised as two of the greatest literary artists, but just about anyone can read and appreciate them without working hard at all.

Most people, in the first world at least, have plenty of time to pursue any kind of challenge. Most people may not choose to study Finnegan's Wake, but that doesn't mean 'a large mass of them' are not engaged with art.

I'm reading Kenyon's excellent guide to Mozart at the moment and he suggests that Mozart spent a lot of time aiming his work at certain performers - a clarinettist who could actually play his concerto, a singer who could reach his high notes ... or amateurs commissioned works from him for particular instruments, so Mozart was heavily constrained - but still created magnificent works of art.

The idea that an artist *must* 'create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work' is just plain wrong. The idea of giving the audience 'what it wants' is just as valid an approach, and can result in great works of art.

Finally - 4 billion copies of Shakespeare's plays have been sold, that looks like mass engagement with art to me!

[MorpheusSandman]

^ I agree to a large extent. I spoke elsewhere about the need for a median between esoteric art that appeals to the most learned and discerning connoisseurs and popular art that appeals to the masses. Shakespeare understood how to appeal to both. Hamlet is full of drama that any "groundling" could be riveted by, but it's also full of intellectual concepts and sophisticated language, form, characterizations, and dramaturgy. Hitchcock's films were similar; extremely accessible in terms of story, but amazingly sophisticated in terms of craft. Austen and Dickens also fit under that "entertaining/approachable/simple content, sophistication of craft/ideas". I remember back when I was obsessed with Mozart, he wrote letters to his father expressing his desire to make music that would appeal to the everyman, but would also allow him to fully express his genius (he put it more tactfully, though). Goethe even wrote about this in the prelude to Faust.

I guess what I'm saying is that, while challenging, esoteric art has its place, I think the best art is that which builds a bridge between the extremes. As much as I admire a lot of highly sophisticated art, like Finnegans Wake, I'm also a bit disenchanted that it seems so disconnected from most people. In fact, who was it that said "most people have forgotten about poetry because poetry has forgotten about most people"? The insular nature of many of the arts is a cancerous, slow killer. Even if they do "stay alive" it will only be on a morphine drip by people who themselves are, in one sense or another, disconnected from the majority of reality.

[MystyrMystyry]

.....

[stlukesguild]

But some of the greatest art doesn't provide a great deal of challenge, and has mass appeal. For instance, Jane Austen and Charles Dickens are recognized as two of the greatest literary artists, but just about anyone can read and appreciate them without working hard at all.

Perhaps they do not present the level of challenge of of Dante or Donne but neither are they as simplistic as you would suggest.

Most people, in the first world at least, have plenty of time to pursue any kind of challenge. Most people may not choose to study Finnegan's Wake, but that doesn't mean 'a large mass of them' are not engaged with art.

The fact that they "could" invest the effort in the exploration of challenging literature is irrelevant if they choose not to do so. What is one the quotes in my signature... "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." - Mark Twain

Yes, the majority engages with art... as a pleasant pastime... as fleeting entertainment... as decoration... Only a certain portion of the population approach art with an abiding passion... willing to invest a concerted effort toward that which presents a deal of challenge or difficulty... and let us be clear... the challenge is not always the result of choices made by the artist. Shakespeare... and even more obviously Chaucer present challenges because of the age of their language. Mozart wrote in a sonata form that was recognizable to any listener at the time and they would have immediately caught on when he broke away from the tradition. A fuller understanding of any work of art involves understanding the formal structures, the traditions, etc... in which it was created.

I'm reading Kenyon's excellent guide to Mozart at the moment and he suggests that Mozart spent a lot of time aiming his work at certain performers - a clarinettist who could actually play his concerto, a singer who could reach his high notes ... or amateurs commissioned works from him for particular instruments, so Mozart was heavily constrained - but still created magnificent works of art.

The idea that an artist *must* 'create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work' is just plain wrong. The idea of giving the audience 'what it wants' is just as valid an approach, and can result in great works of art.

Artist's certainly respond to their patrons... but one commonly wonders whether the relationship is not somewhat like the question of the chicken or the egg. Vermeer and Rubens were near peers. Vermeer painted jewel-like canvases... images of intimate everyday life of the Burgher class in Holland... paintings that rarely exceeded 2 feet in any direction, while Rubens produced huge heroic scenes... images of kings and queens and emperors and wars and religious and mythological narratives painted broadly and rapidly. Did Rubens choose to paint the way he did in order to pander to a certain audience... or did he simply come to love painting a certain way because that is what he learned... what was expected by the system of patronage that he was born under? Did Vermeer secretly envy Rubens? Nothing in his paintings suggests as much.

It is impossible to define the influence of the patron in the patron/artist relationship. Even if we take the modern system of artistic patronage we must suspect that the artist certainly is influenced by the patrons. If we consider the difference in the work of an art student entering art school and that of the same student upon graduation we recognize that much of this has to do with the student/artist's desire to create within the realm of what is expected by the system of patronage today. As the artist matures, however, they recognize that there is no single monolithic art world nor a single monolithic audience/patron and as a result most artists of any real merit continue to create what they love with the recognition that there is an audience for nearly anything.

In other words... I somewhat doubt that the writer or film-maker who creates something of real merit that resonates with a large populist audience only does this for the love of money and secretly hates all that he or she has done... anymore that the poet or composer who create knotty and difficult works that only engage a more limited audience secretly desire to be writing blockbusters. Most artists that I have known create what they love.

I agree to a large extent. I spoke elsewhere about the need for a median between esoteric art that appeals to the most learned and discerning connoisseurs and popular art that appeals to the masses.

But why do you imagine a need for such? There are artists who love creating an art that speaks to a more populist audience... and there are artists who passion is an art that has a more limited audience. I don't think either takes the position wishing to pander to the audience... or to reject them. Rather, they create that which they believe in and love and some love an art that simply resonates with a larger audience.

Shakespeare understood how to appeal to both. Hamlet is full of drama that any "groundling" could be riveted by, but it's also full of intellectual concepts and sophisticated language, form, characterizations, and dramaturgy.
Hitchcock's films were similar; extremely accessible in terms of story, but amazingly sophisticated in terms of craft.

...I guess what I'm saying is that, while challenging, esoteric art has its place, I think the best art is that which builds a bridge between the extremes...

Why? Shakespeare was creating for a popular audience. The very form of his writing was far removed from that of poets such as John Donne, Spenser, Herrick, or Milton who were specifically writing for a literate, educated audience. Shakespeare was a playwright. Donne and Milton were poets. Shakespeare's genius lie in bringing a poet's love of words and language to an art form that centered upon narrative, drama, and character. He has the advantage of being among those "inventing" the English (if not the European) theater as literature... as art. But do we find most others among the greatest writers to have been an equal bridge between the "esoteric" and the "populist"? I don't imagine Dante fits into such an ideal... nor Milton... nor Montaigne... Proust... Baudelaire... Aeschylus... etc... Cervantes and Chaucer I'll grant you, along with Dickens and perhaps Tolstoy... but then one questions how conscious this was. Did Shakespeare aim at entertaining the masses while also challenging the serious readers? Or did he aim to create successful plays while adding to them a depth of character and a mastery of language that he himself admired? Did Cervantes aim to please both the masses and the learned? Or was it simply the result of his own tastes which embraced both the "high" and the "low"?

As much as I admire a lot of highly sophisticated art, like Finnegans Wake, I'm also a bit disenchanted that it seems so disconnected from most people.

But why do you assume that all art is for all people... or even for a most people? Reading Joyce or Eliot or Schopenhauer or Nietzsche or Donne I am struck with the notion that I am confronting incredibly intelligent individuals who themselves did not connect with "most people". The populist notion that art SHOULD resonate with everybody strikes me as repugnant... and echo of Soviet ideals of the utilitarianism of art.

In fact, who was it that said "most people have forgotten about poetry because poetry has forgotten about most people"? The insular nature of many of the arts is a cancerous, slow killer. Even if they do "stay alive" it will only be on a morphine drip by people who themselves are, in one sense or another, disconnected from the majority of reality.

Who have they forgotten? Let's be blunt here F**k the masses. They have always been irrelevant to the arts. It wasn't the masses that supported Aeschylus, Dante, Michelangelo, Vermeer, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Picasso, Matisse, etc... It was a few wealthy patrons and a small passionate audience. Why "SHOULD" the artist be so concerned with the opinions of the masses? Are their aesthetic judgments that good? Have they historically shown themselves good at recognizing the emerging artists of real merit? Is a poll of public opinion any more likely to result in a quality artistic product than it is to result in quality political leadership?

You continue to regurgitate the notion that the audience has died out for poetry... and yet it has been repeatedly argued that the audience has never been larger. Anne Carson and Seamus Heaney and Richard Wilbur have all done far better by poetry that Keats, Shelley, Blake, etc... ever did during their lifetime. Poetry, the ballet, the opera, painting, etc... were never connected to the reality of the majority or relevant to their lives. This may be hard to deal with... especially if one comes to the arts with certain political ideals rooted in democracy, egalitarianism, or socialism... but art is Elitist. Not all art is for all people. Not every artist concerns themselves in the least with the concerns, the wants, and the desires of the masses. Today the audience is no longer limited to an "elite" based upon wealth or social class, but rather an "elective affinity"... an audience who chooses to make art or poetry or opera or ballet important.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

StLukes has really summed up one of my leading philosophies when it comes to art with three genius words, and that is "**** the masses." It seems the further I explore art--in any form, be it music, art (paintings, etc.), or literature--the more I can use the masses as a gauge for whether or not something is to be pursued . . . i.e., the larger the amount of people who like something is, the more I question the artistic value. Each genre continually shows that the crap is what's popular by the average person, and it's always been this way and always will be this way.

As a caveat, the only one artform that I really use my "the more people that like the more it must suck" to any real extent is music, where it really seems to hold true. While bad authors do hit it big, there are other authors who are successful, too. Just want to clarify before someone wants to throw a, "So since so-and-so is popular, they suck? How elitist!" statement at me (though it seems to be true 99% of the time in music).

[MorpheusSandman]

But why do you imagine a need for such?Maybe because it helps bring people together rather than divide them. Let me offer as an example my personal favorite work of art in any medium, Neon Genesis Evangelion. It's a pop culture phenomenon in Japan, and remains one of the most popular animation titles worldwide, but it's also attracted a tremendous amount of attention from intellectual and academic circles (more in Japan than here), especially those related to Japanese culture, (Hiroki Azuma), science fiction (Charles Duan), and cinema. I post on EvaGeeks.org, which is the largest resource site for the series in The West, and it's attracted a pretty diverse group of people from different ages, backgrounds, interests, etc. The effort to really understand, analyze, interpret, etc. the work has been a group effort, requiring the input from that diverse range.

I think when you get art that appeals to an extremely limited audience this communal effort is lost. It becomes much more limited and specialized, its influence and ability to affect much smaller. I mean, I admire the hell out of James Joyce, but has he been able to have as much of an impact on an as many people as Shakespeare, or Chaucer, or any other great writer who was able to appeal to more than just the elite? Maybe what I'm trying to get at is that it's about the ability to be relevant to something approximating the complex totality of human life. Just like the intellectual and emotional apart only makes up part of who we are, the ability to appeal to both together gets much closer to the totality of humanity.


But do we find most others among the greatest writers to have been an equal bridge between the "esoteric" and the "populist"?No, nor do we find most others among the greatest directors or composers to have been such a bridge. But this greatness seems created more by specialized interest than a true consensus sampling, FWIW.


but then one questions how conscious this was. Did Shakespeare aim at entertaining the masses while also challenging the serious readers?I know Tolstoy was concerned about making literature readily available to the masses, and I don't think he would've been concerned about that if he didn't think he was writing for the masses while also appealing to those whom were more in his own circle. War & Peace contains a lot of dialogue musings about class relationship, which, I think, could be reflected in one's attitudes towards art (maybe more so then than now). I also think Shakespeare was, at least, aware of the idea. Hamlet says that the judgment of the judicious should outweigh a whole theater-full of the "unskillful", yet the play is engaged in a lot of the hot-button topics like the phenomenology of ghosts that were more a concern to the intellectuals, as well as the nature of melancholy.


But why do you assume that all art is for all people... or even for a most people? ... The populist notion that art SHOULD resonate with everybody strikes me as repugnant... and echo of Soviet ideals of the utilitarianism of art.I wasn't suggesting that all art is or should be for most people, see above. We certainly need art that specializes as much as it generalizes. There's a place for it all. But I get the same sense of incompleteness whenever I encounter are that seems so completely weighted one way or the other, as if it's disconnected or alien from the rest of reality that very much matters. Maybe call it missing the forest for the trees.


Why "SHOULD" the artist be so concerned with the opinions of the masses? Are their aesthetic judgments that good? Have they historically shown themselves good at recognizing the emerging artists of real merit? Is a poll of public opinion any more likely to result in a quality artistic product than it is to result in quality political leadership?They should be concerned because art is at least partly about capturing the experience of life, and when you completely ignore the most common experiences to focus on the most select, then you can never capture but a small portion of what constitutes life. "Are the masses' aesthetic judgments good?" is a rather silly question when you're defining "aesthetic judgments" by the standard that the select laid down to begin with. The masses have their own aesthetic standards that, again, doesn't recognize some art because some art doesn't recognize them. And your third question is just as loaded as well, roughly for the same reason but adapted for those questions. Do you think leadership as selected by a few "elite" people has historically resulted in quality leadership that looked out for the interests of everyone?


You continue to regurgitate the notion that the audience has died out for poetry...Considering I never gurgitated this it's impossible that I've regurgitated it. You think you're replying to blazeofglory, not me. We're not the same. I'm also largely playing devil's advocate here. Not that I don't think there's a lot of relevant truth in what I'm arguing, but merely that I can see it from your side as well. I don't think there is an ultimate answer here. What I do know is that what I love so much about Shakespeare, about Hitchcock, about Tolstoy, about Mozart is that they are/were able to appeal to both sides, synthesizing the kind of content that entertained the masses and executed with the kind of sophisticated that appealed to the elite. I'd argue Shakespeare captured more breadth and depth of the human experience than any writer I've encountered, and he did that by recognizing the masses, their thought, their character, their concerns, not by ignoring them because they were too ignorant to appreciate what he was capable of at his most intellectual and challenging.

[MorpheusSandman]

the only one artform that I really use my "the more people that like the more it must suck" to any real extent is music, where it really seems to hold true. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, et al. suck?

[JBI]

The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, et al. suck?

No, but any number of less popular acts can be seen as equals. Popularity is neither proof of particular quality or proof against it. Likewise, reading and enjoyment are only linked to the popularity of the piece if one is self-conscious of one's own judgement. If one needs to have a million sales before they like something, well, their loss.

As for poetry, it isn't exactly unpopular, for what it is. It has its own audience, it is not a gold mine, but the audience is often faithful, and appreciative. It does not need to be super-popular to be serious, or of the best quality.

Likewise, popularity should have no bearing on one's own reading, and "rating" works is a rather low pursuit - simply put, it is a necessity to evaluate quality, but it also is irrelevant to understanding, or discussing a work itself - it is the work that is discussed, not its sales, otherwise you are not critiquing, or reading the work, but looking at the works impact - a sociological reading of history, not of the work itself.

Dylan without his sales would still be an amazing musician.

[MorpheusSandman]

No, but any number of less popular acts can be seen as equals.As equals how? Equal in originality, influence, musicianship, songwriting, aesthetic quality, social importance, etc.?


Dylan without his sales would still be an amazing musician.I think you mean amazing songwriter. Amazing musician isn't what comes to mind when I think of Dylan. In fact, amazing musicianship isn't what comes to mind when I think of many popular music artists.

As for the rest, popularity is proof that something appeals to a lot of people. That's about it. Yet canons are made because art either appeals to a lot of people or a lot of the necessary people (by "necessary" I mean the types that actually care about canons).

[JBI]

As equals how? Equal in originality, influence, musicianship, songwriting, aesthetic quality, social importance, etc.?

I think you mean amazing songwriter. Amazing musician isn't what comes to mind when I think of Dylan. In fact, amazing musicianship isn't what comes to mind when I think of many popular music artists.

As for the rest, popularity is proof that something appeals to a lot of people. That's about it. Yet canons are made because art either appeals to a lot of people or a lot of the necessary people (by "necessary" I mean the types that actually care about canons).

What is aesthetic quality - who is to judge, and, by extension, who is to listen t the judgement. Equals are in the sense that each has his own with art - the notion of snobbery only goes so far as people care to regard highly opinion, and the notion of populism only goes so far as stating the widespread appeal. All these notions are questions - what is socially important, and to whom? What is musicianship? What does it even mean to be original, and, by extension, what is the role of originality, and why is it a criteria for anything? What is influence, and why is it even relevant to the discussion of art?

OF course, in order to answer the question, you create your own set of rules, that is what we call Canon - namely, that which fits with a set of rules - the canon is neither static, as rules change, and is arguably intangible as nobody can agree on it, and perhaps nobody has the same rules and schemes of judgement.

Ironically, these are all questions of poetics, which poets try to answer. I have heard Western verse described as "one long conversation about what it means to creative," and I tend to more or less agree with that statement - all these elements are addressed, but the value of them is not objective - we create, or follow the rules of the discourse, and judge accordingly.

As for Dylan, there is something in his performance, something that blends many elements, especially American folk elements with Rock and Roll, to create his sound; many of his songs have been sung to acclaim by others, some I could not imagine sung by others - his merit is perhaps a debate, but ultimately, there could be no answer.


As for your last paragraph - the real significance is this: canons only matter to those who think they do, and popularity only matters to those who value popularity. In other words, poetry's value is not decided by its popularity, but by the value of readers at any given moment. As it is, the most popular and respected poets in the world are hardly mentioned here, so one could by extension say that poetry is not appreciated on this forum except by a select few individuals, does that mean these poets are not good, or popular?

You on one hand agree with St. Lukes, but on another try to show yourself as some super populist who loves that which is acclaimed and popular - well, take your pick, you either agree with me or don't, but don't try to contradict me while stealing my arguments. Just because you like some Anime program that is of artistic merit (I personally have no ability to comment on it, as I do not watch anime, much less television itself except for the Chinese language news and Al Jazeera) but the fact that you like it is irrelevant.

Simply put, if people value something, it has value. That not everyone values something is irrelevant to it having value to a select few. Poetry has never been particularly popular, but that makes no difference on the fact that it has value, and that it should be read.

If people stopped *****ing about popularity and started actually talking about texts, well then maybe appreciation could increase, or there would just be people who find every opportunity to try and show they are more sophisticated without any real logical argument. As it is, I have heard your words contradicting, and misappropriating other people's arguments, but have yet to hear you actually close read poetry on these forums.

As it is, I do not even post much on these forums - but I will say that everyone who discusses poetry here seems to know each other, seems to have a sense of appreciation for similar verse, for discussion - we may be few, but there is an affinity. It then pains one to hear some kid out of left field insisting that his view of comics is somehow invalidating to a small group of people who just happen to love verse.

Simply put, why not poetry? Why "why not poetry?" Poetry is fine, and, as of now, with the exception of your poems on personal poetry, you have not started a thread on poetry - the artist need not appeal to you, as you are not even looking for their appeal - if I were more skeptical, I could deduce that your notion of populist is simply your own voice, which you pontificate in contradicting others who do not agree with you, even if they are more numerous (I.E., those here who read, enjoy, and comment on poetry) and promoting your own poetry (you've posted quite a deal on personal poetry, so you clearly desire yourself to be read). This balance you speak of makes no sense - you on one hand insist on mass appeal, but on the other insist on a place for "individualized personal groups."

Return the question and address it, what does popularity have to do with art, and what does it have to do with personal enjoyment. If it has to do with money, that is fine, but when I am reading, I do not think of how much money the book I am reading has made, nor do I think particularly on the appeal it has gained, if not for a second thought to make my reading more full, and see how others saw it. Popularity has no bearing on anything but understanding popularity - the fact that Dylan is popular or not has no bearing on his quality as a musician (or song writer for that matter) - there is no connection.

[Joely B]

“In the end I think of music as the saving grace for all humanity. As the universal language it transcends the boundaries of nationality, social strata, and political ideology. Whether we are educated or uneducated, rich or poor, whether we speak the same tongue or not, we still possess the ability to communicate our feelings to one another through music. The world would be a terrible place without it, a miserable place.” —Henry Miller

Therein lies the answer.

[mortalterror]

As it is, the most popular and respected poets in the world are hardly mentioned here, so one could by extension say that poetry is not appreciated on this forum except by a select few individuals, does that mean these poets are not good, or popular?

Do you mean modern or ancient Chinese poets?


Just because you like some Anime program that is of artistic merit (I personally have no ability to comment on it, as I do not watch anime, much less television itself except for the Chinese language news and Al Jazeera) but the fact that you like it is irrelevant.

You know, I've watched those programs, because I have some interest in what people around the world enjoy. I remember thinking that Al Jazeera seemed a bit like the BBC or CBC, whereas when I tried to watch Xinwen Lianbo, I couldn't help but notice how old fashioned the programming was. It's about thirty years behind western news coverage format-wise, though it gets about 200 million viewers. Compare this to Fox News programs like The O'Reilly Factor which only has around 6 million viewers domestically, though it is much slicker visually. I won't make any comparisons as to content. This is an observation considered purely on a technical level.

The most watched program in the world is supposed to be the CCTV New Year's Gala, regularly picking up around a billion viewers every year. It's pretty well produced, although I wouldn't say that it was grander than certain spectacles at the Oscars or Superbowls I've seen.

Naturally, I was curious about Chinese programming because anything that appeals to hundreds of millions of people must have some merit, and I was curious how the other half of the world lived. However, after seeing them first hand, they don't look as polished and expert as many Hollywood products, and I can see why native television shows like Kiefer Sutherland's 24 are making inroads into their newly opened marketplace.

As far as Neon Genesis Evangelion goes, I'll agree that it's art. It's one of the best anime programs of all time, up there with Akira, or Ghost in the Shell. Still, I wouldn't call it one of the best shows in recent history like I would The Sopranos, The Wire, or Mad Men. It's better than a Japanese game show(Takeshi's Castle), but not as good as a Kurosawa flick(Rashomon).

[IceM]

Those who won't read poetry on their own accord won't have the capacity to appreciate it. Moreover, I don't think it's fair to blame the schools; I think a money-drunk corporation-driven society is at large here. Poetry doesn't have much (if any) instrumental value and it is therefore regarded as rather useless to the schools' whose success is measured by the success of its students. Then there is the question of whether or not it's the school's responsibility to expose art to the students and, perhaps more importantly, what kind of art. But, in the end, I don't think it would matter if they did or did not --- if you really wanted to learn Shakespeare then you could just go down to your local library.

I disagree here. It's easy to imagine someone already engaged by literature to commit to independent study of the literary giants. I'm more concerned with those not involved in the field, whether in writing or reading. The fundamental purpose of the school is to inform. This includes exposure to different studies; I doubt many sophomores would engage chemistry, or many seniors, calculus, on their own accord, especially if their instruction in the necessary pre-requisites was lacking. Schools are to instruct and expose students to different fields, including literature and the arts. While exposure to poetry does not guarantee instant appreciation, therein lies the possibility that a student may someday explore the field. Those forever unexposed to poetry lack this opportunity.

Poetry is the communicant of values, either on behalf of the author or the the culture from which the author stemmed. Being able to internalize and comprehend poetry indicates an ability to understand cultural values. In an increasingly globalized society, I see no more pertinent moment than now to develop understanding in the field.


The idea that an artist *must* 'create that which he or she believes in and then to seek out that audience with supports his or her work' is just plain wrong. The idea of giving the audience 'what it wants' is just as valid an approach, and can result in great works of art.

Finally - 4 billion copies of Shakespeare's plays have been sold, that looks like mass engagement with art to me!

An artist's creation is an inherent reflection of the artist at the moment he created it: in painting, of his belief; in music, of his aesthetic; in literature, of his contemplations. Creating something populist to make money is a reflection of the artist. By nature, creating art is creating what you believe in.

To your final comment, Shakespeare's massive success doesn't suggest he was a populist writer, it rather suggests later generations recognized his genius and made him successful.

[stlukesguild]

Maybe because it helps bring people together rather than divide them...

I think when you get art that appeals to an extremely limited audience this communal effort is lost.

And do you assume that artists became artist because they wished to bring about the Age of Aquarius? From my own experience, artists of any genre go into art because they are passionate about a given art and driven to create something new within that art form... not because they wish to change the world or bring about peace and understanding.

It becomes much more limited and specialized, its influence and ability to affect much smaller. I mean, I admire the hell out of James Joyce, but has he been able to have as much of an impact on an as many people as Shakespeare, or Chaucer, or any other great writer who was able to appeal to more than just the elite?

Impact? Reread Oscar Wilde: All art is quite useless.

Maybe what I'm trying to get at is that it's about the ability to be relevant to something approximating the complex totality of human life. Just like the intellectual and emotional apart only makes up part of who we are, the ability to appeal to both together gets much closer to the totality of humanity.

So if I don't get Japanese Noh plays or opera or bluegrass or the ballet they are all garbage and irrelevant... in spite of the fact that they seem to remain relevant to thousands... millions? You seem to be suggesting that only something that stoops to the lowest common denominator... Lady Gaga, McDonalds... is of any worth.

I know Tolstoy was concerned about making literature readily available to the masses...

I knew Tolstoy would eventually pop up for the simple reason that he was one of the greatest writers ever... in spite of the fact that he held on to his illusions of the utilitarian nature of art and his delusions about the masses.

The reality is that the arts are more accessible to the masses than they ever were. Anyone who can get themselves to a major city can see any number of the greatest paintings, sculptures, and other objects ever created. Most museums even have certain days or hours when they are free to the public. Music can be accessed through the radio, the internet, downloading, the CD, or in person. One can purchase a last minute ticket to the opera or the symphony for $25 or less. Most of the great books of the past are available free on the internet or at the library... or may be purchased at a price far less than that paid for in the past. The accessibility has never been greater. It is up to the individual whether he or she is interested... or not.

Seriously, I don't read... or turn to the arts in general because I need someone to reaffirm my own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... I don't look for someone to pander to me. I look to art as a honest expression of the artist's own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... As Anna Quindlen proclaimed, "Books (and I would expand this to include the whole of the arts) are a means to immortality." Kafka, among others, agreed, comparing reading with an "intercourse"... a dialog with the dead. Quindlen went on to proclaim, "through (the arts) we experience other times, other places; we manage to become more than our own selves." If art has a utilitarian value, it lies here... in the ability to spur on an empathy... a greater understanding of others. This is not what a universally popular art would likely promote.

I wasn't suggesting that all art is or should be for most people, see above. We certainly need art that specializes as much as it generalizes. There's a place for it all.

Then what is the problem? Seriously, I think the notion that the esoteric branch of the arts has dominated and continues to dominate is greatly overstated. The vast majority of books sold are populist in nature. A good percentage of the serious literature being produced is far from being esoteric or difficult.

They should be concerned because art is at least partly about capturing the experience of life, and when you completely ignore the most common experiences to focus on the most select, then you can never capture but a small portion of what constitutes life.

Did that damage the work of Michelangelo, Rubens, Dante, Spenser, Herrick, Donne, Watteau, etc...? I don't recall too much concern for the peasants involved. Again, art is about the experiences and the interests and the concerns of the individual artist. Dickens confronted class and the working classes head on for the simple reason that he had experienced poverty etc... first hand. So the university educated composer or painter should go slumming in the bars and factories to pick up a bit of a feel for the working classes?

"Are the masses' aesthetic judgments good?" is a rather silly question when you're defining "aesthetic judgments" by the standard that the select laid down to begin with. The masses have their own aesthetic standards that, again, doesn't recognize some art because some art doesn't recognize them.

Ah... "Cultural Relativism". There is no good nor bad. All is but a social construct. Yet why would the power elite then elect a rather amoral possible bisexual writer to stand as the greatest writer in the West? Why would they elect a frustrated homosexual painter/sculptor/architect/poet as the greatest artist? I agree that there are good and bad works in nearly any artistic genre. You suggest that the misunderstanding is a one way street... that it is the "fine arts" that have rejected and refuse to recognize the masses... yet most of the artist and art lovers I know freely admit to a love of various aspects of "low art": rock music, the blues, blue grass, the occasional Hollywood blockbuster, the Simpsons, South Park, etc... Again, you sole weak argument is that "high art" and the creators of "high art" don't recognize the masses because they haven't dumbed-down their work to make it more accessible.

And your third question is just as loaded as well, roughly for the same reason but adapted for those questions. Do you think leadership as selected by a few "elite" people has historically resulted in quality leadership that looked out for the interests of everyone?

One might argue that the decisions resulting from an elected form of government (representing the voice of the masses) has no better history than the government by an aristocracy. It all comes down to the actual individuals in charge. Art, on the other hand, is not a product of the masses, but of talented individuals.

What I do know is that what I love so much about Shakespeare, about Hitchcock, about Tolstoy, about Mozart is that they are/were able to appeal to both sides, synthesizing the kind of content that entertained the masses and executed with the kind of sophisticated that appealed to the elite.

But again... you exaggerate you examples. Shakespeare often struggled with competition from other theaters that staged plays that were more about spectacle. He even struggled against the the ever-popular bear-baiting (the WWF or Monster Truck Show of the day). His popularity was quite limited prior to the publication of his plays. Mozart continually struggled for recognition but repeatedly lost lucrative positions to far inferior composers. His biggest mistake was sticking to Vienna as opposed to Prague (where he was quite popular) and London (where Handel and Haydn became very wealthy stars). With the exception of a few "dirty" songs and his Magic Flute, most of Mozart's music followed the structures and expectations of the elite music of the day (sonata form, etc...). Even Hitchcock had his failings to connect with the masses. Vertigo... often sited among his best films... flopped with critics and the audience initially. Hitchcock also had the advantage of employing the sort of celebrity actors and actresses that assured him of an audience that Bergmann and other equally brilliant directors could not.

I'd argue Shakespeare captured more breadth and depth of the human experience than any writer I've encountered, and he did that by recognizing the masses, their thought, their character, their concerns, not by ignoring them because they were too ignorant to appreciate what he was capable of at his most intellectual and challenging.

It isn't a question of "intelligence" but of "ignorance"... and the two are not the same. The lawyer, doctor, research scientist, engineer, etc... may all be thought to have a certain degree of intelligence... perhaps greater than most... but they may be equally ignorant of opera, poetry, 18th century painting, etc... Compared to JBI, I am grossly ignorant of Chinese poetry... its structures... its use of metaphor... its employment of images... its traditions. I'll go out on a branch and assume that compared to me he is rather ignorant of German Expressionism in the visual arts. Politicians have employed the "Us... good solid working class 'real' Americans" vs "them... elitist snobs." Personally, I find this strategy insulting on all sides. It accepts the stereotype that the masses ARE unintelligent and can't possibly actually aspire to something higher in culture. It also suggests that someone should be embarrassed of his or her knowledge. Art is there for anybody... but it involves effort.

[stlukesguild]

StLukes has really summed up one of my leading philosophies when it comes to art with three genius words, and that is "**** the masses." It seems the further I explore art--in any form, be it music, art (paintings, etc.), or literature--the more I can use the masses as a gauge for whether or not something is to be pursued . . . i.e., the larger the amount of people who like something is, the more I question the artistic value.

Don't get me wrong... popularity is no measure of artistic merit... for of against. There are great artists who are incredibly popular and there are crappy artists who are incredibly popular... and there are great artists who have but a limited audience... because their art.. for whatever reason... doesn't appeal to the masses, and there are artists who have a small audience for the simple reason that they suck.:ack2:

[mortalterror]

Yet why would the power elite then elect a rather amoral possible bisexual writer to stand as the greatest writer in the West? Why would they elect a frustrated homosexual painter/sculptor/architect/poet as the greatest artist?

Because they were white?


I agree that there are good and bad works in nearly any artistic genre. You suggest that the misunderstanding is a one way street... that it is the "fine arts" that have rejected and refuse to recognize the masses... yet most of the artist and art lovers I know freely admit to a love of various aspects of "low art": rock music, the blues, blue grass, the occasional Hollywood blockbuster, the Simpsons, South Park, etc... Again, you sole weak argument is that "high art" and the creators of "high art" don't recognize the masses because they haven't dumbed-down their work to make it more accessible.

I don't agree with you that South Park is "low art". Trey Parker and Matt Stone may be the best writers in the country right now. They are certainly some of the best writers of comedy in history. I have no problem comparing them to the likes of Aristophanes or Twain. Comedy isn't low art any more than television is. Once you get past preconceived notions about their medium, it's hard to deny just how good they are at it. Is it "low art" because of the swearing and scatological humor? Rabelais, Cervantes, and Joyce are guilty of those failings. There is a big freaking difference between a really smart comedy like South Park and the childish buffoonery of The Jersey Shore.


Hitchcock also had the advantage of employing the sort of celebrity actors and actresses that assured him of an audience that Bergmann and other equally brilliant directors could not.

How many movies did he make with Max von Sydow, and Liv Ullman? Those are stars in his part of the world. He was very popular in Sweden, and after the blockbuster success of Smiles of a Summer Night in 1955 the studios gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted and cast their biggest actors. He got one of the best cinematographers in history, Sven Nykvist, whenever he wanted him for a quarter of a century. He won 3 Academy Awards, so it's not like he was some sort of struggling unknown.

[Drkshadow03]

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of you are reading more into Morpheus's words than is warranted. Then again I could be misunderstanding him as he does elaborate on his comments in a way that suggests he could mean something else.

The crux for me is: "It becomes much more limited and specialized, its influence and ability to affect much smaller. I mean, I admire the hell out of James Joyce, but has he been able to have as much of an impact on an as many people as Shakespeare, or Chaucer, or any other great writer who was able to appeal to more than just the elite? "

Essentially his position (I think) is Shakespeare is more relevant art to most people than Joyce's works because it appeals to both intellectuals and the masses. Joyce could be teeming with depth, but unfortunately whatever Joyce has to say will be ignored in comparison to what Shakespeare has to say because more people read Shakespeare's work. If you disseminate your fiction to 100,000 people, you're clearly reaching more than the writer who is only read by 500 people.

[stlukesguild]

Yet why would the power elite then elect a rather amoral possible bisexual writer to stand as the greatest writer in the West? Why would they elect a frustrated homosexual painter/sculptor/architect/poet as the greatest artist?

Because they were white?

There were many others who met that criteria who also more closely fit into the ideals of the rich, white, power elite.

I don't agree with you that South Park is "low art". Trey Parker and Matt Stone may be the best writers in the country right now. They are certainly some of the best writers of comedy in history. I have no problem comparing them to the likes of Aristophanes or Twain. Comedy isn't low art any more than television is. Once you get past preconceived notions about their medium, it's hard to deny just how good they are at it. Is it "low art" because of the swearing and scatological humor? Rabelais, Cervantes, and Joyce are guilty of those failings. There is a big freaking difference between a really smart comedy like South Park and the childish buffoonery of The Jersey Shore.

"High" and "low" have become increasingly blurred concepts... and it was ever thus. The theater of Shakespeare's time wasn't afforded much more respect as an art form than TV is in our own day, and we all know how the first novels were received. I'll not question you on your assertions for South Park as I haven't seen enough to offer much of an opinion for or against for the simple reason that I rarely watch any TV.

How many movies did he make with Max von Sydow, and Liv Ullman? Those are stars in his part of the world. He was very popular in Sweden, and after the blockbuster success of Smiles of a Summer Night in 1955 the studios gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted and cast their biggest actors. He got one of the best cinematographers in history, Sven Nykvist, whenever he wanted him for a quarter of a century. He won 3 Academy Awards, so it's not like he was some sort of struggling unknown.

Exactly. Hitchcock may seem more populist than Bergmann for the simple reason that he had the weight of the American film industry and its PR department behind him, but Bergmann is not an unknown... even in the US.

[JBI]

Do you mean modern or ancient Chinese poets?



You know, I've watched those programs, because I have some interest in what people around the world enjoy. I remember thinking that Al Jazeera seemed a bit like the BBC or CBC, whereas when I tried to watch Xinwen Lianbo, I couldn't help but notice how old fashioned the programming was. It's about thirty years behind western news coverage format-wise, though it gets about 200 million viewers. Compare this to Fox News programs like The O'Reilly Factor which only has around 6 million viewers domestically, though it is much slicker visually. I won't make any comparisons as to content. This is an observation considered purely on a technical level.

The most watched program in the world is supposed to be the CCTV New Year's Gala, regularly picking up around a billion viewers every year. It's pretty well produced, although I wouldn't say that it was grander than certain spectacles at the Oscars or Superbowls I've seen.

Naturally, I was curious about Chinese programming because anything that appeals to hundreds of millions of people must have some merit, and I was curious how the other half of the world lived. However, after seeing them first hand, they don't look as polished and expert as many Hollywood products, and I can see why native television shows like Kiefer Sutherland's 24 are making inroads into their newly opened marketplace.

As far as Neon Genesis Evangelion goes, I'll agree that it's art. It's one of the best anime programs of all time, up there with Akira, or Ghost in the Shell. Still, I wouldn't call it one of the best shows in recent history like I would The Sopranos, The Wire, or Mad Men. It's better than a Japanese game show(Takeshi's Castle), but not as good as a Kurosawa flick(Rashomon).

I watch Chinese news for language reasons, since I am trying to pick up the journalist language - it is refreshing to see though criticism of China coming from within, since their English language presses are so ridiculous. Generally, in terms of Chinese media, anything that is available a little internationally can almost always be dismissed as propaganda (that is, excluding Hong Kong papers and coverage, which are more or less free).

As for the most popular poets, I was talking in general - Arabic poetry does not come up, German poetry barely comes up, Chinese poetry barely comes up, Persian poetry barely comes up - hell, most of English poetry barely surfaces, but that is the only language that gets any real exposure, and even then, it is more or less limited to English classics and people's homework.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, et al. suck?
Rolling Stones, yes. Bob Dylan as a musician, yes. But those are all older bands that have stood the test of time. I was more referring to contemporary art.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do you mean modern or ancient Chinese poets?
I don't know if this was meant as a joke or not, but I got a chuckle, because I thought the same thing when JBI mentioned the world's greatest poets going unrecognized. :)

StLukes has really summed up one of my leading philosophies when it comes to art with three genius words, and that is "**** the masses." It seems the further I explore art--in any form, be it music, art (paintings, etc.), or literature--the more I can use the masses as a gauge for whether or not something is to be pursued . . . i.e., the larger the amount of people who like something is, the more I question the artistic value.

Don't get me wrong... popularity is no measure of artistic merit... for of against. There are great artists who are incredibly popular and there are crappy artists who are incredibly popular... and there are great artists who have but a limited audience... because their art.. for whatever reason... doesn't appeal to the masses, and there are artists who have a small audience for the simple reason that they suck.:ack2:
I guess I should've clairfied in that the masses as a measure of a contemporary's artistic merit is only for my personal philosophy. I have yet to encounter one largely popular musical group of recent years that seem to have any artistic merit to them. But, it's just my opinion. Maybe I'm completely off in thinking that GaGa and Bieber are complete ****. :nod:

Sorry for the double post, meant to combine but didn't. Oh well.

[Cunninglinguist]

The fundamental purpose of the school is to inform.

This gets into the responsibilities of the school - how should they be rearing us? Society tells us to do it in such-and-such a way that does not value literature and so, as I said, society would be the one to blame.


This includes exposure to different studies; I doubt many sophomores would engage chemistry, or many seniors, calculus, on their own accord, especially if their instruction in the necessary pre-requisites was lacking. Schools are to instruct and expose students to different fields, including literature and the arts. While exposure to poetry does not guarantee instant appreciation, therein lies the possibility that a student may someday explore the field. Those forever unexposed to poetry lack this opportunity.

One does not get anything worth having out of poetry unless one wants to read it in the first place - so even if the schools did expose the students to poetry, tested them on it, made them write papers on it, etc. it wouldn't change anything. I'll maintain that the affinity comes before the art - it's a disposition, and one that most, if not all, schools lack the capacity to teach.


Poetry is the communicant of values, either on behalf of the author or the the culture from which the author stemmed. Being able to internalize and comprehend poetry indicates an ability to understand cultural values. In an increasingly globalized society, I see no more pertinent moment than now to develop understanding in the field.

Not all poetry provides us with a cultural map, and if it does it's almost always gravely partial - few poets touch on the values expressed in MTV's cribz, the hills, degrassi, that 70's show, etc.. Moreover, we can more readily derive cultural values from these shows than from Merwin or Hirshfield. And further, what do Elizabethan cultural values matter to our culture now? How is the mythology expounded in Ovid's Metamorphoses going to help Kenneth Lay scam another billion? In short, what poetry and art says about the context it was written in is largely irrelevant to this culture.

In fact, the deepest/best poetry and the deepest art touches on values that are not conventional, but natural. Why do you think Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, resonate with us still today? They all touch on something that's timeless. And so, here I am in accord with Stlukes, the masses with their conventions usually have to take a back seat before great art can be made.

Edit: I don't mean that the works aren't necessarily written for the masses, but that the conventions of the culture are jettisoned. The Comedy, for example, did not follow many modern conventions. It's brevity almost makes it an oxymoronic piece of Medieval literature; it was written in an Italian vernacular instead of Latin; it employed a mixture of classical and rural similes; Dante invented a new rhyming scheme, rima turza, for it. But The Comedy (somewhat contrary to what stlukes previously stated) was ultimately a humanitarian endeavor. Many, if not most, pieces of art are humanitarian in intent; but most of the literature now renowned broke a convention and/or instated a new one - Dante, for reasons aforementioned and more, Ovid, Homer (for, more or less, inventing the epic), Chaucer for being the father of the English language, Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, and Virgil, though for less obvious reasons.

[stlukesguild]

The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, et al. suck?

Rolling Stones, yes.

Blasphemer!!!:prrr::rage::incazzato::flare:

Bob Dylan as a musician, yes.

In what way? His abilities are perfectly suited to his songs. I can't think of a better voice for anything on Blonde on Blonde or Highway 61 Revisted. His backing musicians are equally perfect for what he is after. No, Dylan can't sing like Rene Fleming or Philippe Jaroussky nor is a masterful instrumentalist ala Murray Perahia or Yo Yo Ma but I doubt that they could do what he does. I agree with JBI in calling Dylan a "musician"... or perhaps a "performer" rather than a songwriter. While I agree that he is indeed a magnificent songwriter, it is his interpretations... his performances that lend many of them the greatest fire.

[stlukesguild]

I guess I should've clairfied in that the masses as a measure of a contemporary's artistic merit is only for my personal philosophy. I have yet to encounter one largely popular musical group of recent years that seem to have any artistic merit to them.

You may be right here. I rarely listen to new music (outside of the classical sphere). There is so much I am still catching up on from the past. I will say that even in classical music there are those stars who are overrated (Charlotte Church, Andrea Bocelli, Lang Lang) but then there are those whose reputations are every bit deserved: Philippe Jaroussky, Rene Fleming, Murray Perahia, John Eliot Gardiner, William Christies, etc... Of course we are speaking of the performance of classical music here in which the standards are well-established. It is far more difficult to discern who really matters among those who are creating something new: paintings, films, music, novels, poetry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, et al. suck?

Rolling Stones, yes.

Blasphemer!!!:prrr::rage::incazzato::flare:
:lol: Not the first time I've encountered this reaction to my Stones aversion, nor will it be the last. They have some good tunes, I'll give them that.


Bob Dylan as a musician, yes.

In what way? His abilities are perfectly suited to his songs. I can't think of a better voice for anything on Blonde on Blonde or Highway 61 Revisted. His backing musicians are equally perfect for what he is after. No, Dylan can't sing like Rene Fleming or Philippe Jaroussky nor is a masterful instrumentalist ala Murray Perahia or Yo Yo Ma but I doubt that they could do what he does. I agree with JBI in calling Dylan a "musician"... or perhaps a "performer" rather than a songwriter. While I agree that he is indeed a magnificent songwriter, it is his interpretations... his performances that lend many of them the greatest fire.
I don't dislike Dylan. I like a song here and there, but his voice is too grating for me to listen to a whole album. Plus, he just isn't a great guitar or harmonica player (though I admire anyone who can do both at the same time). Is he suited for his music? Yes. I also agree that he was quite a good songwriter. He is a musician, no doubt--anyone who can play an instrument competently is--but not a great one. He deserves his place as a musical legend. I think it's due a lot to his brilliant lyrics and the perfect time for them to be sung that has led to his lasting fame. Without the lyrics, I doubt we'd even know he existed.

And, no musical group can even begin to match the genius of The Beatles. Just sayin'.

[MorpheusSandman]

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of you are reading more into Morpheus's words than is warranted... Essentially his position (I think) is Shakespeare is more relevant art to most people than Joyce's works because it appeals to both intellectuals and the masses. Joyce could be teeming with depth, but unfortunately whatever Joyce has to say will be ignored in comparison to what Shakespeare has to say because more people read Shakespeare's work. If you disseminate your fiction to 100,000 people, you're clearly reaching more than the writer who is only read by 500 people.Yes, this is my position exactly, and I thank you for defending me and succinctly stating my point (I admittedly have a tendency to ramble and am a horrible self-editor, which often leads to my inability to communicate my points well).

It goes a bit deeper than that, though. I've been on the other side of this debate more often than not. In real life, and usually online, I'm surrounded by people who are a part of the masses in terms of their tastes, people who look askance when they see me reading classics or poetry, people who are surprised to find out I watch foreign films or anime. So I'm usually the one trying to convince them to break out of the box of popular media advertisement; there's more music out there than Lady Gaga, there's more movies out there than Transformers, there's more literature out there than Dan Brown and JK Rowling. I often have to work extremely hard to get people to even considering watching, reading, or listening to some of the stuff I do, and I always find myself defending these things against the populist argument.

But, over time, I can't help but come sympathetic to their mentality. Too much of the critical canon in all of the mediums has been formed by people with very specialized interest, not by people who are, I think, better representative of the majority of the human experience. In on respect, I've always felt disconnected from that myself, which explains my interest in aesthetics and other areas that most couldn't care less about, yet I've also become disenchanted with how little so much of what I love matters to anyone else. I often wonder if much of the high-brow, elitist attitude is anything other than a defense against this feeling of being inconsequential to others. I'm always very suspicious when others claim that they don't care what others think, as if we're not even a part of human society and culture.

If my posts sound contradictory it's probably because I've been on both sides of this argument more times than I care to count, and I always find myself coming back to the middle, and being most satisfied with the art that mediates those two extremes. Shakespeare did this better than any other, so did Hitchcock and The Beatles. In one respect, they're my Holy Trinity of those mediums for that very reason. In the meantime, I find myself enjoying mass entertainment but not admiring, and admiring a lot of elite art but being depressed that it doesn't seem to be connected to the world at large. I guess I should just be grateful that there's plenty on both side, so maybe out of the extreme opposites I can pretend I have something that's closer to being a whole.


Rolling Stones, yes. Bob Dylan as a musician, yes. But those are all older bands that have stood the test of time. I was more referring to contemporary art.You mean you were referring to contemporary artists who haven't had the chance to stand the test of time? Seems rather hasty, don't you think?


As far as Neon Genesis Evangelion goes, I'll agree that it's art. It's one of the best anime programs of all time, up there with Akira, or Ghost in the Shell. Still, I wouldn't call it one of the best shows in recent history like I would The Sopranos, The Wire, or Mad Men. It's better than a Japanese game show(Takeshi's Castle), but not as good as a Kurosawa flick(Rashomon).Firstly, I don't think comparing a Japanese anime series to American TV series is really fair for a couple of reasons, mainly that anime series are more a fusion of feature films (with its set beginning/middle/end) and TV (with its episodic format). American series usually run until they're canceled, or until the creators decide to end it. I love The Sopranos and The Wire (haven't seen Mad Men), but they're closer to old serial fictions, with the lone exception that season finales tend to wrap up at least one major storyline. I found season 3 of The Wire, for instance, much better than 1, and significantly better than 2 (which had some of the series most manipulative moments), so it becomes a bit difficult for me to judge it as a single work; a bit like trying to judge the entire run of Charlie Brown. The other thing that's unfair is that the content and mode is completely different; Evangelion is an apocalyptic sci-fi fantasy allegory that wears its philosophical/psychological/personal themes on its sleeve, while The Wire, The Sopranos, and Mad Men are set in a much more gritty, realistic tone, like most American TV (although much better written than the norm).

That said, I think Evangelion is better on every level in which they overlap. Hideaki Anno is certainly a much better director than the team of hired guns that rotated on The Sopranos and The Wire, and his editing prowess is, IMO, up there with the elite, from Eisenstein to Kurosawa and Kubrick. This gives Evangelion a much more cinematic, "auteuristic" edge than either The Wire or Sopranos, which, even with their generally consistent writing, still felt like the product of too many cooks in the kitchen. There's much more of a unified, unique voice in Evangelion. Characterizations, even though completely different, I also think is superior. Shinji is one of the great anti-heroes of all time, IMHO. In fact, the infuriating reaction to his character is indicative of his potency, and I still don't know of another better subversion of the hero/savior archetype in cinema, TV, or fiction, in general. I also give Evangelion the edge in terms of drama. The Wire and Sopranos, while full of great moments, were ultimately predictable in their tragedy and drama, which almost always revolved around a significant death. After a while, I got the feeling that neither could do anything to surprise except for that, so it merely becomes a death pool of who's it going to be. The drama in Evangelion, especially from ep. 16-26, is utterly unpredictable and original, from mind-rapes, to being swallowed into alternate dimensions, to being absorbed into a bio-mechanical robot, to the revelation of the clones, to the sacrifice of the last Angel, to the amazing complexity that constitutes the actual apocalypse itself. There is absolutely nothing on American TV, or in the cinematic canon, that approaches any of these.

Finally, for all of their richness, Sopranos and Wire are ultimately rather shallow next to Evangelion; shallow in intellectual substance, shallow in craft, shallow in structure, shallow in content. When I say they're "rich", what I mean is that they use the temporal breadth of American TV (hour-long episodes, 12 eps. per season is roughly the equivalent of Evangelion in its entirety) to construct a massive narrative that approaches the level of detail of a novel, but this detail is usually no more than skin-deep. Now, both have their moments where I think they suggest at themes deeper than what's on the surface, but I also think they drown them in the concrete tangibility of the story itself. Compare that to Evangelion which inverts the relationship between the narrative and themes, essentially denying access to the former without going through the latter, which, in itself, echoes the theme of the persona/unconscious relationship (even more amazing is that Anno polarizes all of his themes and shifts them to either side in the process). There's nothing even remotely this daring in either Sopranos or Wire. Evangelion actively challenges the viewer to keep up with its narrative and understand how the barrage of themes relate to everything. It's almost even Hamlet-like in how it interrupts its narrative momentum for these moments of introspection and expression. Of course, Shakespeare didn't shroud his narrative in so much mystery, and Evangelion's mythology has proved to be the biggest brain-twister I've encountered in visual fiction outside of Lynch's Inland Empire.

As for Kurosawa, well, he's my favorite director, and I have two of his films in my top 10 (Seven Samurai and Ikiru), but I ultimately go back to the fact that I've spent 4.5 years now analyzing, studying, and discussing Evangelion and still don't feel like I've tapped all of its depths, while I don't think you could tell me anything about Seven Samurai or Ikiru (or a few others) that I don't know, that would illuminate me to something I missed. Of course, this doesn't mean they aren't profound works of cinematic art, but I absolutely think Evangelion belongs in that same class. It's certainly as technically accomplished. Yes, I'm biased, but it doesn't come from a place of ignorance as I've been a connoisseur, student, and critic of cinema going on more than a decade now, and I knew and loved the likes of Kurosawa, Bergman, Ford, Hitchcock, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Kieslowski, Ozu, Brakhage, Kubrick, and Godard (to rattle off my 10 favorite directors) long before I found Evangelion. Yet Evangelion blew me away to an extent that none of the others did, having an immensely profound affect on me personally. And while I've had this experience with other works (Hamlet, Ikiru, Seventh Seal, War & Peace, various poetry), none has kept me as intrigued and fascinated so consistently for so long. Evangelion's riches and details seem nearly endless in that respect. Only Hamlet has kept me as enthralled for an equal amount of time.

[MorpheusSandman]

What is aesthetic quality - who is to judge, and, by extension, who is to listen t the judgement. Equals are in the sense that each has his own with art - the notion of snobbery only goes so far as people care to regard highly opinion, and the notion of populism only goes so far as stating the widespread appeal. All these notions are questions - what is socially important, and to whom? What is musicianship? What does it even mean to be original, and, by extension, what is the role of originality, and why is it a criteria for anything? What is influence, and why is it even relevant to the discussion of art?I think you've asked too many questions for it not to rhetorical, unless you genuinely wanted me to try to give a complete answer to each and write a wall-of-text, or wanted me to rather flippantly answer each. As for how you say they're "equals", what you seem to be saying is that they're considered equals by elitists, who makes up for their deficiency in quantity with quality. Yet, the quality itself is judged by other elitists, which doesn't strike me as a very fair way to consider such a thing. That's what I mean about the insular nature of such dismissals of popular opinion, a way of saying "we may not can equal you in numbers, but we equal you in quality by the standards that we ourselves have established for what counts as quality".


As for your last paragraph - the real significance is this: canons only matter to those who think they do, and popularity only matters to those who value popularity. In other words, poetry's value is not decided by its popularity, but by the value of readers at any given moment. I wouldn't really dispute that except that canons largely determine what art successive generations gets exposed to, yet they're little more than representations of popular opinion within a given framework. Even today a great many read Shakespeare, but many less read Ben Johnson. Can we really separate Ben Johnson not being as good from Johnson not being more popular and not being part of the canon (at least on the same level)? It's a bit of a chicken or the egg question; doesn't quality determine popularity (even popularity within a limited context, ie, not necessarily "mass" popularity), which then determines the canon?


As it is, the most popular and respected poets in the world are hardly mentioned here, so one could by extension say that poetry is not appreciated on this forum except by a select few individuals, does that mean these poets are not good, or popular?If we're talking world then we're talking other languages, and then it becomes a matter of language, not necessarily popularity, which will, unfortunately, always be a barrier when it comes to literature more so than other mediums.


You on one hand agree with St. Lukes, but on another try to show yourself as some super populist who loves that which is acclaimed and popular - well, take your pick, you either agree with me or don't, but don't try to contradict me while stealing my arguments.Hmmm, I'm not sure what you're saying here; I don't recall stealing your argument. There are things I agree with both you and Lukes about, yet I'm also presenting the opposite side of the argument. "Why not poetry?", well, I'm trying to understand "why not" for so many. I'm not, nor have I ever been a "super populist", yet, as I explained above, I've been around that populist too long not to sympathize with aspects of their perspective. I'm not doing as blazeofglory is doing and pronouncing the death of poetry with a string of unsubstantiated, generalized falsities, but I am trying to understand those who don't seem to give a crap less about poetry and art in general. To put all the blame on poetry is unfair, but to put all the blame on people isn't either.


If people stopped *****ing about popularity and started actually talking about texts, well then maybe appreciation could increase, or there would just be people who find every opportunity to try and show they are more sophisticated without any real logical argument. As it is, I have heard your words contradicting, and misappropriating other people's arguments, but have yet to hear you actually close read poetry on these forums.Well, this certainly came out of nowhere. I have not "close read" poetry on these forums because I do not feel knowledgeable and authoritative enough to do so. I don't feel I could submit a reading with the same amount of insight and relevant perspective with which I write about films, a medium I have much more experience with and knowledge about. I'm learning. In the meantime, threads and questions like these intrigue me and provoke me to post and share my opinions, present an argument, even if I'm (somewhat) playing devil's advocate. After all, too much agreement is like too many fat men in a hot tub; it may feel comfortable, but you just end up with some nasty broth.

I'm not sure what I've done here to offend you and provoke such a response, as the post of mine you replied to contained a simple, genuine question and a statement about popularity and canons. I don't think it warranted an accusation to this extent.


It then pains one to hear some kid out of left field insisting that his view of comics is somehow invalidating to a small group of people who just happen to love verse....I'm almost tempted to suggest you have me mixed up with someone else as I have no idea what you're talking about.


You have not started a thread on poetry - the artist need not appeal to you, as you are not even looking for their appeal -if I were more skeptical, I could deduce that your notion of populist is simply your own voice, which you pontificate in contradicting others who do not agree with you, even if they are more numerous (I.E., those here who read, enjoy, and comment on poetry) and promoting your own poetry (you've posted quite a deal on personal poetry, so you clearly desire yourself to be read). This balance you speak of makes no sense - you on one hand insist on mass appeal, but on the other insist on a place for "individualized personal groups."Again, I don't know what you're talking about. What artist need not appeal to me? You act as if I have a grudge against poets and poetry or if I dislike or am deriding the majority of poets and poetry out there when I've never done any such thing... You honestly have me very confused right now.

I've posted SOME of my own poetry on Personal Poetry, yes, but the vast majority of my posts there have been critiquing and commenting on others' poetry, for which I've consistently been praised for doing by people who seem to appreciate my readings and advice. Honestly, I'm more concerned about improving than in being read, and I'd trade all the positive comments in the world for someone who'd take the time to critically engage with me.

I don't INSIST on mass appeal, but what I'm lamenting is the fact that so much of what we consider great seems as if it could not matter less to most. Perhaps this doesn't bother you and Lukes, but it bothers me, and I can't so easily dismiss it with a c'est la vie attitude. Likewise, if you think I'm a raging apologist for the vast majority of popular art and entertainment then you're dead wrong. I detest the vapidness that makes up so much of popular art, yet I equally find it hard to dismiss it for its shallowness as clearly it means something to many.

You know, I'm reminded of the great aphorism from Billy Wilder on this subject: "An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark - that is critical genius."

[Lord Macbeth]

I asked all of my classes (about 100 students total) to name their favorite poem/poet. The results of my survey were sad but expected. Most had no idea how to respond. A few said "Poe" because they've heard of him before. The most popular was the children's poet Shel Silverstein. A few tried to argue that Dr. Seuss was a poet.

It was staggering to see how little poetry is read. These students are all adults and comprise more-or-less a typical student body of first-year college students: some exceptionally smart and engaged, some woefully struggling and apathetic, but most fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

But here's the thing: many read frequently. . .and they ALL have copious songs that they enjoy. And while I agree that song lyrics don't equal poetry, they're still similar enough to make me wonder this: Why such a fervent devotion to one and a profound distaste to the other?

Both lyrics and poetry are, generally: (1) short (2) rhythmic (3) metaphorical and (4) use imagery to depict meaning and emotion.

I offered my puzzlement to them (summarized above). The responses I got were not very articulate. The best I got was that poetry is "hard to understand". This statement was widely agreed upon. But I countered by asking if they really "understood" the lyrics to their favorite song? Most said "no"; they didn't.

Then why so much hate/apathy for poetry? Silence. . . . .

As someone who's at this very second enjoying a recording of a reading of Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalott"...

That breaks my heart! :O

No Shakespeare touches these kids? No Dante, Milton, Homer?

Keats, Tennyson, Poe, T.S. ELIOT--"The Waste Land" is in my opinion not only the greatest poem of the last century, but perhaps the most perfect capturing of the conscience of the times then and even now--NONE of them?!




April IS the cruelest month...and what a cruel, crushing idea that is...

[MorpheusSandman]

And do you assume that artists became artist because they wished to bring about the Age of Aquarius? From my own experience, artists of any genre go into art because they are passionate about a given art and driven to create something new within that art form... not because they wish to change the world or bring about peace and understanding. I think you took what I said more politically and socially than I intended it; I wasn't necessarily talking about having an impact on that level, but being able to be relevant to many different types of people, get at something universal about the human experience. Shakespeare unites because no matter who you are you can find your views expressed in his work, and the reason Shakespeare studies is so huge is because you get all of those multitude of voices reflecting on how his work speaks to them, and that thus enlightens others who don't necessarily view things from that perspective. I'm not necessarily it brings people into agreement and accord, but it nonetheless gets them together on a single subject.


Impact? Reread Oscar Wilde: I'm not sure what being "useless" has to do with making an impact on people, and I'm not sure I'd agree with Wilde anyway. Then again, it depends on how we define use. Since most things of use only exist to help us bring about a state of existence we deem as positive, art does this in a pretty direct way, assuming we have a positive reaction to it. This is ignoring those whose thoughts, feelings, and perspective actually are engaged and affected by art.


So if I don't get Japanese Noh plays or opera or bluegrass or the ballet they are all garbage and irrelevant... in spite of the fact that they seem to remain relevant to thousands... millions? You seem to be suggesting that only something that stoops to the lowest common denominator... Lady Gaga, McDonalds... is of any worth.That's not what I'm suggesting; there is a certain historical perspective that must be applied. When I say Shakespeare is universally relevant, I'm not really taking into account that most today don't read Shakespeare. My opinion is based on his sustained popularity amongst a diverse group for a long period of time. Something like Lady Gaga may have mass popularity on her side, but her "art" ignores a lot of the human experience as well, and whether it manages to break into other areas and survive is matter of time. Likewise, I think cultural perspective must also be taken into account, as indeed a lot of art simply does not make its way across world borders, which can't be construed as the fault of the art. On the other hand, the Japanese thought Ozu was "too Japanese" until his films began circulating worldwide and connecting with an incredibly diverse range of audiences.

Even then, I'm not dismissing art with more limited appeal, I'm not stating it has no value. What I'm stating is that I don't understand why its value seems to be considered automatically superior to that which is more massively popular. Of course, I'd say the reverse is true when I see others who argue the other side. At best, all we can say is that certain art seems to represent the thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. of certain people, and if we don't approach that democratically, then it becomes a matter of "well why does the limited appeal of this equal the mass appeal of that? Why are their opinions held as being more important?" The only answer I can seem to find that alleviates my reservations with art that leans too heavily to either side is art that appeals to both sides, a combination of breadth and depth, of the fox and the hedgehog, rather than just either/or. I'm not even saying that we should eliminate or deride those that work exclusively in one or the other, merely that I don't think we should consider either innately superior to the other.


Seriously, I don't read... or turn to the arts in general because I need someone to reaffirm my own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... I don't look for someone to pander to me. I look to art as a honest expression of the artist's own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc... As Anna Quindlen proclaimed, "Books (and I would expand this to include the whole of the arts) are a means to immortality." Kafka, among others, agreed, comparing reading with an "intercourse"... a dialog with the dead. Quindlen went on to proclaim, "through (the arts) we experience other times, other places; we manage to become more than our own selves." If art has a utilitarian value, it lies here... in the ability to spur on an empathy... a greater understanding of others. This is not what a universally popular art would likely promote. I very much love everything you have to say here, and I don't disagree with any of it. But perhaps this argument has become more about legacy than personal enjoyment. I think a lot about how much of what I watch, read, listen to, etc. has been dictated by those who are very much not me. As I said to JBI, this seems to be the entire purpose of canons, which likely wouldn't be so necessary if life wasn't so short and if art wasn't so long (as the expression goes). And we're always engaged with the act of determining what art gets passed on and what gets obscured, and in that dynamic struggle there very much does seem to be the two sides of the masses and the elite, and in that duality I find myself in the terrible middle, but generally identifying more with the latter than the former, even though I see the problems with both.

It's not that I want to "reaffirm my own beliefs, values, standards, ideals, experiences, etc", but I think we all look to art to both expand ourselves while still seeing something of ourselves in that expansion, or at least something of the world that we observe or feel or think or even just desire. It's certainly not entirely selfish, but do you ever proclaim art good that you find not appealing to you at all, and how could art appeal to you unless you saw something in that spoke to you on some level?


Then what is the problem? Seriously, I think the notion that the esoteric branch of the arts has dominated and continues to dominate is greatly overstated.What is the problem? Hmmm... if I could answer that succinctly I don't think I'd be here. Maybe I actively started this debate because I wanted to explore what is eating at me about this debate that I've had so many times in so many contexts, arguing for both sides yet never feeling to be fully apart of either. FWIW, I don't think the esoteric branch dominates in any area except in those canons that determines longevity and legacy.


Did that damage the work of Michelangelo, Rubens, Dante, Spenser, Herrick, Donne, Watteau, etc...?I don't have the experience you do with visual art, but I will say both Dante and Donne connected to many universal themes that affect everyone, especially religion, death, and love. Dante did so in a format that I think is pretty universally accessible (though it's difficult to tell in translation), while Donne can certainly be difficult to the point of limiting his audience. Of course, Donne didn't seem to think much of his poetic pursuits to begin with, and they did seem to largely form the utilitarian function of seducing women, impressing his coterie, and winning him favor with those in influential positions.


Ah... "Cultural Relativism". There is no good nor bad. All is but a social construct. Yet why would the power elite then elect a rather amoral possible bisexual writer to stand as the greatest writer in the West? Why would they elect a frustrated homosexual painter/sculptor/architect/poet as the greatest artist?Obviously because something in the works of these two artists meant enough to enough people (or, again, enough of the right people); I'm not sure it goes any further than that or needs to, and I'm not sure why such descriptions of these artists matter, or should matter, in terms of why they were "chosen"... although I wouldn't say they were so much chosen as weeded out in continuing dynamic process of criticism. The works merely exist anyway, while qualitative judgments are mental folders that we try to ascribe to how we react to objects, which is entirely relative on a number of levels (not purely cultural, but personal as well).


You suggest that the misunderstanding is a one way street...Didn't meant to suggest this either. Obviously, misunderstanding runs both ways, and, in fact, is probably more grossly prevalent in the reverse. The masses misunderstand high art because they lack the necessary vocabulary and mind-set to appreciate it, but how much of this is their fault? Do we blame cows for not appreciating indoor plumbing? If I tend to side more with the elitists it's for precisely the reason you noted, that they CAN enjoy/appreciate "low-art" (not that I agree with all of what you label low art, but that's another discussion) as well. It's why I usually find myself defending art that the majority label as "bad" simply due to them approaching it with extremely limited biases.

Yet, I think when it comes to those who MAKE esoteric art, I do think they often show an inability to connect with those who aren't able to appreciate what they do. Should we not think of this as a deficiency as much as we think of art that can't appeal to the esoteric as a deficiency? Why is one more preferable/important than the other? And wouldn't finding a way to synthesize be the best answer?


But again... you exaggerate you examples.You're certainly correct that even those artists faced their share of difficulties, but at least they received criticism from both sides and yet found ways to ultimately appeal to both, even if they weren't as successful on one extreme as others. I don't think this invalidates the notion, however, that they still managed to be relatively popular and relatively successful in the more esoteric/elite arenas. Mozart, indeed, struggled appealing to the elite as much as the masses for much of his too-brief life, yet is any composer, with perhaps Beethoven, now more appreciated by those who listen to classical music casually AND study it seriously/love it passionately? Hitch was usually a success at the box-office, and, indeed, Vertigo was one of his few immediate failures and, if anything, its resurrection and canonization is almost wholly due to the cinematic elite. Yet arguably Hitch's most popular film, Psycho, is almost equally as appreciated, as well as North by Northwest (which is also one of his lightest fairs).


It isn't a question of "intelligence" but of "ignorance"... and the two are not the same.Absolutely, and, if you'll note, I used the word "ignorance" as well. In fact, one of the biggest misconceptions I've battled with "average" people about is the notion that the more "esoteric" art I love is "out of their intellectual reach". I don't think that's true in the slightest, and I've even worked with some people to teach them, for instance, how to watch a film like I do. It's mostly just a matter of becoming aware of elements rather than being passive and unconscious. Of course, it does require a bit of work, but so does learning to appreciate anything.

At the same token, I do have the feeling that the art that connects with us the most is that which finds a way to bypass our awareness and consciousness. The ironic thing is that I think most people, in their limited state of awareness--ignorance, as you said--desire art that they can fully understand and be aware of, at least intuitively, while those who are very aware and conscious look for art that challenges their ability to understand it. Indeed, I think that's why many intelligent aesthetes find themselves bored with so much popular art, because there's nothing there that challenges the way they experience and process art. There's nothing there to surprise them and move them and intrigue them. When I look back on my favorite works of art, it's not those that I immediately understood, but those which immediately confounded me but inexplicably moved me as well.

[JBI]

I guess I should've clairfied in that the masses as a measure of a contemporary's artistic merit is only for my personal philosophy. I have yet to encounter one largely popular musical group of recent years that seem to have any artistic merit to them.

You may be right here. I rarely listen to new music (outside of the classical sphere). There is so much I am still catching up on from the past. I will say that even in classical music there are those stars who are overrated (Charlotte Church, Andrea Bocelli, Lang Lang) but then there are those whose reputations are every bit deserved: Philippe Jaroussky, Rene Fleming, Murray Perahia, John Eliot Gardiner, William Christies, etc... Of course we are speaking of the performance of classical music here in which the standards are well-established. It is far more difficult to discern who really matters among those who are creating something new: paintings, films, music, novels, poetry.

Lang Lang actually has his merits - on some pieces he is absolutely brilliant, on some he is a dead fish. I have seen him live, and I will say he did something absolutely incredible with Tchaikovsky - an acquaintance of mine who is a professional pianist (of some renown who used to tour the biggest halls of Europe before the Romanian government barred him from leaving) agreed with me - there is talent there, it just is a peculiar, inconsistent one that is given a bit of free reign based on popularity.

But then again, there is a difference - Kathleen Battle, someone who had talent, basically destroyed herself - I have heard the last concert she did in Toronto as described, "she came out with sheet music, which is shameful enough, but then she had a false start, and threw a fit." Popularity and talent are only so much.

[stlukesguild]

Lang Lang actually has his merits - on some pieces he is absolutely brilliant, on some he is a dead fish. I have seen him live, and I will say he did something absolutely incredible with Tchaikovsky - an acquaintance of mine who is a professional pianist (of some renown who used to tour the biggest halls of Europe before the Romanian government barred him from leaving) agreed with me - there is talent there, it just is a peculiar, inconsistent one that is given a bit of free reign based on popularity.

I agree there's talent there... but he's been heralded as something far more than he currently is. Sony signed him for somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million with the intention of using him as a means of gaining further foothold in the Asian... and especially the Chinese market. Lang Lang, however, is not even 30 years old and it cannot be claimed that he has a single recording that is considered essential within the classical music realm. Van Cliburn, by contrast, a similar star from some decades ago... winner of the First Tchaikovsky International Piano Competition in Moscow at the height of the cold war... immediately after his victory in Moscow recorded several magnificent performances that are admired to the present. Glenn Gould... an equally... no far more "quirky" artist than Lang Lang... recorded his masterful version of Bach's Goldberg Variations at age 23... (a disc that is still seen as the touchstone to this work) before going on to record dozens of equally brilliant performances. Another Canadian, Angela Hewitt is rather an unknown in comparison to Lang Lang... in spite of her having recorded a good half dozen recordings of Bach that are considered the standard by which all others should be measured. And how many have even heard of Jean-Efflam Bavouzet? Born in 1962 he has labored in relative obscurity... in spite of his recent acclaimed recordings of Ravel and Debussy's complete piano works acknowledged by many as the best since Walter Gieseking, as well as a brilliant performance of Bartok's concertos, and Haydn's sonatas. Lang Lang seems more about spectacle and less about the actual performance of music. But as you suggest, he is quite talented and time will tell.

But then again, there is a difference - Kathleen Battle, someone who had talent, basically destroyed herself - I have heard the last concert she did in Toronto as described, "she came out with sheet music, which is shameful enough, but then she had a false start, and threw a fit." Popularity and talent are only so much.

Kathleen Battle was more than talented. She was a diva. Unfortunately, as you note, she self-destructed. This is something that many recognize as now happening with Angela Gheorghiu. Her notorious difficulty in working with others, her ego in presuming that she, as a singer, should have final say in artistic matters concerning staging, sets, costumes, etc..., her repeated last minute cancellations of performances at important venues including Covent Garden and the Met, her tasteless public statements concerning disputes with the Met and other opera houses and her messy divorce from Roberto Alagna have all begun to undermine her career. She has an unquestionably magnificent voice... but so do Rene Fleming, Magdalena Kozena, Anne Sophie von Otter and several others who are far easier and more professional to work with, more consistent in performance, and more intelligent in the roles they select. Of course Maria Callas... the temperamental diva of the century... notorious affair with Onasis and her poor choices of repertoire both greatly contributed to the decline of her career and voice... yet she will remain acknowledged as one of he great voices... one of the great singers and performers... of all time.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You mean you were referring to contemporary artists who haven't had the chance to stand the test of time? Seems rather hasty, don't you think?

I was talking about popular contemporary artists, which I think I made pretty clear. Most will fade into obscurity or become the butts of jokes (see Milli Vanilli).

If you want to argue that current popular musical acts are good, go ahead. Good luck, though.

And the name Lang Lang makes me chuckle.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think the esoteric branch dominates in any area except in those canons that determines longevity and legacy.

Seriously, I am of the firm belief that the canon is something defined by several groups of individuals: First you have the "experts" and professionals... academia, and the critics and historians. Secondly you have subsequent generations of artists. Finally you have what Virginia Woolf referred to as the not-so-common "common reader"... the educated/knowledgeable/experienced reader. A writer such a James Joyce survives because of his continued impact upon subsequent writers and his reputation with the "expert"... within academia. Few common readers read him for pleasure. Alexandre Dumas, by way of contrast, is largely ignored... if not derided by the experts, but he remains beloved by the reading public so that we have no choice but to acknowledge his "classic" status.

I will acknowledge that there are moments when one direction of another dominates in the arts... especially in academia where theories and philosophies of art become ingrained. Looking at poetry today, however, I don't see this dominant trend toward the esoteric. Thomas Disch and Dana Gioia have both argued that quite the opposite is true. We are bombarded with more poetry than ever (every small college has it's creative writing programs and churns out books by the alumni)... most of which are little better than the ramblings of a teenage girl's diary... and far from presenting any great cognitive challenge or formal difficulties.

Looking at any number of poets writing today I just don't see the problem. Seamus Heaney surely presents no difficulty to anyone capable of reading Dylan Thomas, Yeats, or Keats. Anne Carson employs a good many Post-Modernist elements but reads fluently... even colloquially I would say. Richard Wilbur and Anthony Hecht are classicists who wouldn't seem out of place next to many of the great poets of the past were it not for their references to contemporary experience. Richard Howard is a sophisticated narrative poet in the tradition of Robert Browning. Geoffrey Hill is admittedly difficult... knotty... clearly in the tradition of Eliot and Pound... even with regard to his moral and social concerns. The majority of Latin-American poets of the last half-century... Octavio Paz, Pablo Neruda, Jorge Guillen, Raffael Alberti, etc... build upon the traditions of French Symbolism, Surrealism, and Walt Whitman are are quite accessible to anyone able to handle Baudelaire, Rimbaud, and Verlaine. Now certainly there are the incredibly esoteric works... off hand I think immediately of Charles Olsen's Maximus Poems and Louis Zukofsky's "A"... both modeled on Ezra Pound's Cantos but these no more dominate poetry today that do the heir of James Joyce dominate prose and the novel.

[JBI]

Like I mentioned before - poetry never was a best seller - does that make it irrelevant? Even populist verses barely made it past their neighborhood (Border ballads, sea shanties, etc.) does that not mean they were not enjoyed?

The notion of scale of enjoyment is only significant to people who view legacy and quality as spatially oriented, namely, the amount of space (sales in what geographic distance) it can span. In contrast, poetry generally seems to be more communicative toward time - its question is not particularly about "how wide" or how much space, but more "how long" or how much time. Such a preoccupation ignores the idea of sales and popularity and focuses on one thing, appealing to those who read it, and will keep it going. Novels don't do that, but with one line, Wordsworth can bring Milton to life, into his poem, and with reading verse, time is reconfigured within the poem itself - that is the power of verse. The appeal to the masses is insignificant when good verse in general means only to appeal to the tradition. Poets for the most part don't delusion themselves with dreams of monetary grandeur, even the best poets had day jobs.


Now, back to popularity - I do not think verse is particularly unpopular, or unappreciated. A lot more people read and write poetry than one can imagine - I bet you in every senior high school class there are at least a few people penning verses, and reading them, and in every university more people read than one gives credit to. The problem is, people have no scope - they try to write without reading, much like people paint without seeing paintings. That, however, does not mean that poetry lacks popularity, only that, like all forms, there are those who take it seriously, and those that have harmless fun. As for the big names and whatnot, well, they are far from unpopular anyway - Wordsworth, Keats, even Richard Wilbur all have good sales - Derek Walcott isn't exactly unpopular - these guys didn't get rich, but they still are read - some did less well, but that has no bearing as long as their verse is good. Poetry is very alive, since it wills itself to be read.


Back to Lang Lang though, well he does preform in more venues than I think any other pianist, so perhaps as a recording artist he is over represented, but he does play endless concerts. Still you make a good point. I have heard recordings of most of those artists, and have seen a few of them. In general I see the biggest names that make it to Toronto, which is no small number - but even still, Lang Lang isn't bad - he just is young and caught in a rather weird routine of playing nonstop to too much fame. He hardly is doing any bad though, and one can do worse.

[mortalterror]

Firstly, I don't think comparing a Japanese anime series to American TV series is really fair for a couple of reasons, mainly that anime series are more a fusion of feature films (with its set beginning/middle/end) and TV (with its episodic format).

Which is why I also compared it to two Japanese animes and a Japanese game show.


American series usually run until they're canceled, or until the creators decide to end it. I love The Sopranos and The Wire (haven't seen Mad Men), but they're closer to old serial fictions, with the lone exception that season finales tend to wrap up at least one major storyline. I found season 3 of The Wire, for instance, much better than 1, and significantly better than 2 (which had some of the series most manipulative moments), so it becomes a bit difficult for me to judge it as a single work; a bit like trying to judge the entire run of Charlie Brown.

I thought so as well. Critics didn't "discover" how good The Wire was until season 3 and then they couldn't shut up about it. It was definitely something special, but I still liked Deadwood better. I used the example of The Wire because it is generally regarded very highly, and by juxtaposing it against The Sopranos and Mad Men, I hoped to create a sense of television canon. I think all kinds of things could go there such as South Park, All in the Family, or I Love Lucy but those are comedies and Evangelion is more a representative of modern tragedy.


The other thing that's unfair is that the content and mode is completely different; Evangelion is an apocalyptic sci-fi fantasy allegory that wears its philosophical/psychological/personal themes on its sleeve, while The Wire, The Sopranos, and Mad Men are set in a much more gritty, realistic tone, like most American TV (although much better written than the norm).

American television doesn't have a category for things like anime. Our cartoons tend to be more wacky and aimed at a younger audience; so that comparison isn't apt. I guess I could compare it to Babylon 5, a deeper than average science fiction epic, but that's not right either. So many of the conventions which Evangelion draws upon are neither science fiction nor philosophical. Gainax was primarily an Otaku organization and so Evangelion is steeped in the lore of anime culture. Evangelion skates boundaries even within it's own genre. It's not really shonen like Naruto, but it's not really seinen like Berserk, or Battle Angel Alita.


That said, I think Evangelion is better on every level in which they overlap. Hideaki Anno is certainly a much better director than the team of hired guns that rotated on The Sopranos and The Wire, and his editing prowess is, IMO, up there with the elite, from Eisenstein to Kurosawa and Kubrick. This gives Evangelion a much more cinematic, "auteuristic" edge than either The Wire or Sopranos, which, even with their generally consistent writing, still felt like the product of too many cooks in the kitchen.

I may be wrong, but I believe that cinema is the directors medium and television is the producers and those were pretty constant throughout their respective runs. Also, they had some regular directors who would do about 20 episodes a piece, so it's not like every episode looked like something completely different. The DP and set designers are also the unsung heroes of the industry which contribute greatly to a series look and feel. I don't want to either downplay or overestimate the importance of directors in television, but they aren't the only chefs in the kitchen, as you say.


There's much more of a unified, unique voice in Evangelion. Characterizations, even though completely different, I also think is superior. Shinji is one of the great anti-heroes of all time, IMHO. In fact, the infuriating reaction to his character is indicative of his potency, and I still don't know of another better subversion of the hero/savior archetype in cinema, TV, or fiction, in general.

People also hate C-Ko, and it's not because she's such a great character. My friends don't like Shinji because he's a whiner and I can totally respect that opinion. When I think of a great anti-hero I don't think of a mueling child. I think of Clint Eastwood characters in Westerns and Dirty Harry. I think of Mel Gibson's character in Payback.



I also give Evangelion the edge in terms of drama. The Wire and Sopranos, while full of great moments, were ultimately predictable in their tragedy and drama, which almost always revolved around a significant death. After a while, I got the feeling that neither could do anything to surprise except for that, so it merely becomes a death pool of who's it going to be.

It's a show about children in mechs fighting Godzilla type monsters every week. It was completely predictable until the wheels came off at the end.


The drama in Evangelion, especially from ep. 16-26, is utterly unpredictable and original, from mind-rapes, to being swallowed into alternate dimensions, to being absorbed into a bio-mechanical robot, to the revelation of the clones, to the sacrifice of the last Angel, to the amazing complexity that constitutes the actual apocalypse itself. There is absolutely nothing on American TV, or in the cinematic canon, that approaches any of these.

Lost had it's share of wtf plot elements, and just like Evangelion, they tended to piss most regular fans off too. From what I remember of the show, and it's been a few years, there was an episode where all that happened was some disembodied voice kept shouting at Shinji "Why do you pilot the Eva?" and he's just sitting in the dark crying. That's not riveting television, no matter how many blocks of text you put up on the screen or how many times you randomly cut to live action gold fish swimming through the ether. For all it's pretensions, and art house philosophy, it's not even as deep as Serial Experiments Lain, which ponders the nature of reality and identity in modern techno-culture. And in the end, after all the oedipal complexes and eye gouging is done we're left with an Adam and Eve story, with Shinji strangling Asuka on the beach while the giant severed head of Rei looks on in the background like it's the statue of liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes.


As for Kurosawa, well, he's my favorite director, and I have two of his films in my top 10 (Seven Samurai and Ikiru), but I ultimately go back to the fact that I've spent 4.5 years now analyzing, studying, and discussing Evangelion and still don't feel like I've tapped all of its depths, while I don't think you could tell me anything about Seven Samurai or Ikiru (or a few others) that I don't know, that would illuminate me to something I missed. Of course, this doesn't mean they aren't profound works of cinematic art, but I absolutely think Evangelion belongs in that same class. It's certainly as technically accomplished. Yes, I'm biased, but it doesn't come from a place of ignorance as I've been a connoisseur, student, and critic of cinema going on more than a decade now, and I knew and loved the likes of Kurosawa, Bergman, Ford, Hitchcock, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Kieslowski, Ozu, Brakhage, Kubrick, and Godard (to rattle off my 10 favorite directors) long before I found Evangelion.

My two favorite Kurosawa films are Seven Samurai and Rashomon, but Ikiru is definitely up there. As for the 10 best directors off all time my list would go Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa, Scorsese, Tarkovsky, Yimou, Welles, Lean... and I can't think of a tenth. Kieslowski is watered down Tarkovsky. Ozu is boring, and I can't stand Brakhage or Godard. Tarantino does a lot of the same things which annoy me about Godard, but at least he made Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and so I still actually like him.

[JCamilo]

Frankly, I think you two are making anime industry something that it is not - It is audio-visual and includes Hollywood on the plate because long montion animes are traditional and influential.

Just like American tv has Sci-fic shows, Westerns, Weird Twin Peaks, HBO high-quality series, wacky humor, children series, fantasy series, LOST, Heroes, X-Files; animes does also, just employing animated characters and with a particular style of animation. You have sit-com like series too (Japanese in the end loves to "copy" western art) like Rumiko Takahashi series which are more close to it (even the wackness of Ranma 1/2 or her sobrenatural series). You are talking about audio-visual (obviously with their Evas or Beebops alongside Sailors and pikachus).

[MorpheusSandman]

I was talking about popular contemporary artists, which I think I made pretty clear. Most will fade into obscurity or become the butts of jokes (see Milli Vanilli). I realize that, but the same is true for all art in every generation. Just as the Beatles and Stones survived while the hundreds of other British Invasion bands didn't, so will a few select popular contemporary artists from today survive while the majority won't. There's no way to know if Lady Gaga will end up being Milli Vanilli or David Bowie, who received many of the same criticisms she did when he began ("all show, no substance", "just for shock", "weird for weird's sake", etc.).

[MorpheusSandman]

Which is why I also compared it to two Japanese animes and a Japanese game show. Yet an anime series is neither an anime feature film and is farther away from a Japanese game show than it is from a live-action feature film, so I didn't see the point.


I think all kinds of things could go there such as South Park, All in the Family, or I Love Lucy but those are comedies and Evangelion is more a representative of modern tragedy... American television doesn't have a category for things like anime... So many of the conventions which Evangelion draws upon are neither science fiction nor philosophical. Gainax was primarily an Otaku organization and so Evangelion is steeped in the lore of anime culture. Evangelion skates boundaries even within it's own genre... As you allude to here, Evangelion is an anomalous, uneasy fit within any canon. One reason I've begun introducing it to cinephiles and film critics is because it has a cinematic virtuosity that is uncommon to American TV and the majority of anime series. Yet, its format puts it squarely in the realm of TV. But even there, it's odd because it concludes with a feature film, that as it once intricately connected, and yet its own entity. It is indeed deeply trenched in anime tradition, but it subverts nearly every stereotype it introduced and practically introduced the avante-garde into anime, as well as elaborately developed allegory that borrows heavily from mythology, philosophy, and psychology. In the latter respect, it has more in common with high-art, especially classic literature and, indeed, it's easier to find it's subversive elements in literature than in film or TV, whether anime or not.

This is what I meant when I said that the series has engaged with such an immensely diverse group of people, from aesthetes to cinephiles to culture critics to Otakus to sci-fi fans to academics even average viewers. Evangelion dug in deeply to the particulars in many arenas and found a way to synthesize them all, varying wildly between the realms of superficial entertainment/drama and something incredibly ambitious and artful. If it's not deserving of being in "the canon" (whatever canon), then nothing is.


I may be wrong, but I believe that cinema is the directors medium and television is the producers and those were pretty constant throughout their respective runs.It's usually said that cinema is a director's medium and TV a writer's medium... producers are typically the overlords of both. Although, this is a somewhat simplification of a complex matter. In the Golden Age of Hollywood, producers were closer to being "auteurs" than most directors. Indeed, we usually say "O. Selznick's Gone with the Wind" rather than "Fleming's", and, indeed, the other Fleming masterpiece from the same year is impossible to pin down on any one creative person. It's worth noting that auteur theory wasn't even advanced until the 60s by the Cahiers du Cinema writers, and it was met with tremendous hostility. I've always said that with auteur theory it's not a matter of asking whether it's universally applicable, but whether it's applicable in an individual case.

As for TV, I think it's a "writer's medium" because the brisk shooting pace usually stresses a certain formulaic approach while most all of the creativity gets focused on the writing of the script. In film, scripts are frequently just guidelines for what's actually going to be shot and are frequently changed during the production while this rarely happens in TV. It's also a writer's medium because the extended time allows for a greater detailing of content. In film, the visuals and editing frequently have to "enhance" what's being said because you can't carry out scenes in all of the detail that you can in a novel. In TV, this is less of a problem as you have more time to dig into the details of characters and events. One great thing about, eg, The Wire is that it was incredibly patient in how it unfolded its narratives, especially across multiple seasons.

Coming back to the anime series, I think it's something of a hybrid. There's not as much time as in a seasonal TV series but there's more time than in a feature film. Also, because of the nature of an anime production it's easier to be creative within the production, allowing for there to be a less formulaic approach with regard to the visual language. When I look at my favorite anime series--Evangelion, Texhnolyze, Haibane Renmei, Lain, Cowboy Bebop, Mushi-shi--they all presented a superb balance between detailed writing, a more sophisticated literary approach, and expressive direction, using the language of the cinema to enhance those literary aspects.


My friends don't like Shinji because he's a whiner and I can totally respect that opinion. When I think of a great anti-hero I don't think of a mueling child. I think of Clint Eastwood characters in Westerns and Dirty Harry. I think of Mel Gibson's character in Payback.All of the hate directed at Shinji approaches him as if he were a real person rather than a fictional character, and I've often said this is a faulty approach. People typically turn to anime and "heroic" fiction in general (of which a good chunk of sci-fi and fantasy is concerned with) for idealized self-identification. What they desire are characters whom present an idealized version of themselves, and this is especially true the more they don't get that sense of self and assurance from others (which is one thing that gives anime, sci-fi, and fantasy its "geeky" association). Anno sought to present Otakus as they really were, not as they imagined they were or as they wanted to be. This fit in with the general scheme of subverting the entire notion of anime, sci-fi, and fantasy as escapist entertainment. Anno even likens this to ego-death, the desire to dissolve the self in the comforting nothingness of collectivity, the mother, and even death itself. Anno also had particular insight into this because he WAS Shinji, he WAS an Otaku, even if he was an unusually self-reflective one (as artists tend to be).

Shinji actively denies that kind of idealized identification from the audience. Instead, he (and the other characters) become mirrors, not of our idealized qualities, strengths, etc., but of our fragility, our failings and flaws. Shinji fails, he whines, he runs away, he does all of the things a hero is NOT SUPPOSED TO TO DO, and this subversion of the expected (hero/savior overcomes) with reality is what gives the series its profound dramatic and personal power that has connected deeply with as many as it's repulsed. Anno so skillfully sets up the lie solely so he can deconstruct it to find the truth, and this results in pulling the carpet out from under his target audience whom he hopes will be forced to confront themselves, their insecurities, and their desire for escapism by recognizing the real them in the mirror of these flawed characters.

Technically, Shinji is a bit of an amalgamation of an antihero and unlikely hero. Unlikely heroes are everyday characters thrust into extraordinary situations and become heroes by their actions; think Luke Skywalker here. The first epithet describes Shinji, but he only occasionally marginally "becomes" a hero. If you think of what a hero typically is and what Shinji actually is (and does), he's much more of an "anti-hero" because he is the opposite of every trait that a hero has and everything thing a hero does. The term antihero has a thorny history, and it's referred to amoral protagonists, more "Byronic" heroes, everyday protagonists (like Aurthur Miller's Willie Lowman), and has now become typically associated with vigilante heroes that often blur moral boundaries to do their tasks (those Clint Eastwood spaghetti western characters and Dirty Harry, as well as others like certain incarnations of Batman and The Punisher fall into this latter category).

I think the biggest point to make is that Shinji's humanistic complexity defies any of these molds. In the case of the unlikely hero, he frequently does acts that are anti-heroic (like running away and whining), while in the case of the antihero he isn't following some grand design, vision, or task, and he certainly doesn't have the mythological qualities of, say, Eastwood's Man With No Name or The Punisher. The most important thing though is that Shinji is very clearly cast into the archetypal hero/savior ROLE. In that role he's supposed to ultimately overcome his flaws and be successful. In that respect, NGE would shape-up more like a hero's journey, the monomyth, but it even subverts this, especially in the second half which is more about repetition, failure, the negation of will, and regression more than progression, success, and overcoming. In fact, the ultimate end-point of Evangelion isn't a resolutive ending, but an ambiguous beginning, essentially making the ultimate regression all the way back to mankind's and the individual's origins before it can take a single step forward; a literal and figurative "New Beginning".


It's a show about children in mechs fighting Godzilla type monsters every week. It was completely predictable until the wheels came off at the end.See, I despise insulting reductions like this, as if reducing the series down to its basic action elements (which take up a small fraction of screen-time compared to the character and relationship detailing and development) somehow diminishes what it is. Hamlet is a play about a guy who can't make up his mind. If anything, the rote predictability of Evangelion's first half (which is actually less than you'd imply here, as the execution and variety of the mech battles and Angel designs were radically unlike anything else in the genre) exists only to contrast to the breakdown of that pattern in the second. It's indeed part of the set-up/subversion structure, but this doesn't make it any less brilliant. In fact, my favorite episode from the first half is ep. 4, which contains no Angel or battle and is all about Shinji's first attempt to run away. It's a brilliant example of wordless, visual character development, which introduces so many themes and motifs that will echo later on, especially the theater scene.


From what I remember of the show, and it's been a few years, there was an episode where all that happened was some disembodied voice kept shouting at Shinji "Why do you pilot the Eva?" and he's just sitting in the dark crying. That's not riveting television, no matter how many blocks of text you put up on the screen or how many times you randomly cut to live action gold fish swimming through the ether. For all it's pretensions, and art house philosophy, it's not even as deep as Serial Experiments Lain, which ponders the nature of reality and identity in modern techno-culture. And in the end, after all the oedipal complexes and eye gouging is done we're left with an Adam and Eve story, with Shinji strangling Asuka on the beach while the giant severed head of Rei looks on in the background like it's the statue of liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes.There's so much wrong in this paragraph I'm unsure where to start. Firstly, there was no ENTIRE episode that involved what you describe. Now, ep. 25/26 was the culmination of the series' self-deconstruction, and it did involve Shinji, as well as all of the characters, subjected to a kind of group-therapy session that mostly took place in closed theater sets with static images and a barrage of philosophical and psychological musings. Whether or not its "riveting television" is, by this point, beside the point. Evangelion spent 24 episode delivering riveting television and drama and this is where Anno said "screw it, I'm going to cut through all the BS and get right to the heart of the matter". There's a brilliant, audacious statement being made in these two episodes, namely that the "persona" of the characters is the equivalent to the fictional story itself, and it's both that have been stripped away in the finale, getting to all the ugly truth underneath. Those episodes is when Evangelion becomes a self-aware entity, exploring the nature of its own existence by peeling back its exterior and suffocating us inside its static headspace. Again, utterly unpredictable, utterly unlike anything ever in TV, or indeed, film history.

Now, I love Serial Experiments Lain, but, as someone who spend a good amount of time studying it in depth, I can testify that it doesn't even get close to Evangelion's depth. In fact, most everything you need to know about Lain is contained here. (http://www.cjas.org/~leng/lain.htm) Read that, and you'll have the vast majority of Lain, from its terminology to its allusions to its plot to its themes, resolved in a fairly neat and tidy package. Evangelion utterly denies any attempt to penetrate it so fully. Even a quick browse through here (http://wiki.evageeks.org/) is a testament to how much more there is in Evangelion, and that website is hardly even complete and exhaustive. Hell, read the commentary for the opening theme (http://wiki.evageeks.org/FGC:OP_A), and that's all but 90 seconds! Myself and other contributors still find ourselves daily fussing over details and interpretations, and not just in terms of the narrative and mythology, but in terms of the theme. Lain ponders the nature of identity in a technology culture? Really? And Evangelion doesn't? How do you miss the fact that Shinji and Asuka define their selves by their ability to pilot Eva? Especially when the former uses it as both a means to escape reality and the reality he escapes from, substituting his deep-seated personal issues with his sense of self-worth regarding his father's abandonment for something he actually has control over? Especially when the latter equally overcompensates for her own fear of abandonment by projecting a persona of confidence, so she can convince other she's indefensibly needed? How do you not notice that Evangelion basically reduces "God" down to a question of scientific engineering, and the Biblical Genesis down to a metaphor for the rise of consciousness and the desire to return to the collective abyss of origin?

And your attempt to reduce End of Evangelion down to an "Adam and Eve" story is sheer ignorance. The end of End of Eva alludes to Adam and Eve, certainly, but this is an apparent allusion, not an actual one. Shinji and Asuka are not the only beings alive (this would contradict what Rei says about anyone being able to come back). On a metaphoric level, the Genesis allusion merely serves to highlight that these characters have, indeed, returned to the beginning. But, if anything, this is an example of corrective allusion, ie, where the new context stands in sharp contrast to the referent; if this is Genesis, it's nothing like the Eden of the Bible. Indeed, it's a barren wasteland in which the austere, sobering tangibility of harsh reality stands in stark contrast to the highly romanticized version of the actual apocalypse. Anno likes to play these games where the new context is both potently in line and at odds with the referent context; consider him equating Shinji with Jesus--indeed, a selfish executioner VS a selfless savior.

You mention the strangulation but how many ways can this be interpreted? How many ways can Asuka's "kimochi warui", a phrase that literally means "feeling (kimochi) bad/negative (warui)", be interpreted? What about the fact that this exchange of hand gestures, a choke and a caress, are the final iteration of what has been a motif throughout the entire series? Clenched fists have been related with death, open palms with life. Consider the echoes within the film itself; Shinji's choking Asuka begins Instrumentality, and it's the first act done when it's finished, while Yui's caress of Shinji's cheek inside Instrumentality echoes Asuka's response. What about the equating of hands with choice? What about the equating them with life & death simultaneously (consider; blood on Shinji's hands over Rei in ep. 1, semen in Shinji's hands over Asuka in End of Eva).

To ignore hands, what about the red streak across the moon? The moon has been associated with Rei, Rei with Yui/Lilith and origins. Does this mean the "death of instrumentality and rise of individuality"? Is it symbolic for menstruation as, indeed, Rei referred to herself as a "woman that doesn't bleed"? Is it symbolic of Rei herself being dead? What about the Rei apparition that appears and disappears, echoing all the way back to the same in ep. 1? What about Misato's cross being nailed to the pole?

The final scene of End of Evangelion is--and I don't see this lightly--the single best scene in any film or TV series I can name. It is mind-bogglingly rich in content, connotation, suggestion, multi-layered and ambiguous metaphor, sophisticated visual language (the sequence of the cuts, the metricality), allusion... I have never, ever seen another single scene in any work of visual vision that contained this much depth and complexity, and you're willing to ignore all this in favor of saying it's like Planet of the Apes? Really?


My two favorite Kurosawa films are Seven Samurai and Rashomon, but Ikiru is definitely up there. As for the 10 best directors off all time my list would go Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa, Scorsese, Tarkovsky, Yimou, Welles, Lean... and I can't think of a tenth. Kieslowski is watered down Tarkovsky. Ozu is boring, and I can't stand Brakhage or Godard. Tarantino does a lot of the same things which annoy me about Godard, but at least he made Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and so I still actually like him.Fellini is a director I admire more than love. None of his films have ever connected with me personally, even though I've found them to be works of dizzying cinematic genius. Scorsese is a bit like Kubrick for me in that I love a few of his films (Raging Bull and Goodfellas) but am less impressed otherwise. Tarkovsky is similar. I think Solyaris is a distended mess of a film, and The Mirror feels like a cinematic thesis rather than a cinematic experience itself. Andrei Rublev is phenomenal though, as is Stalker. I love the visual textures in Yimou, but have been less thrilled with everything else. I actually think I prefer the underrated Kaige to him. Welles is, of course, a cinematic genius as well, but outside of Kane and Touch of Evil I haven't cared much for him. He's always fun, but never profound. Lean I think I need to revisit; I saw his works too spread out to really appreciate them as being the work of a singular auteur.

I'm surprised you say Kieslowski is a "watered down Tarkovsky" because I've never equated the two directors together. Kieslowski rarely displays the visual opulence and experimentation of Tarkovsky. The only quality they really share is their tendency towards the metaphysical, but even there Kieslowski firmly places his in juxtaposition with social and personal reality. Kieslowski suggests the supernatural as being subtly behind our experience of the natural, while Tarkovsky dives headlong into the otherworldly from the start. Really, the natural world is what's so out of place in Tarkovsky. Kieslowski is a much more humanistic director, ever concerned with the complexity of morality, or the relationship of free-will and destiny, in symmetrical patterns embedded in the seeming chaos of life. I personally think Kieslowski had much more to say about human life than Tarkovsky, and depicted it in a way that much more approximates how we experience it and think about it. Tarkovsky was so wrapped up in theory that he forget to make attempts towards connection, and even something like Ivan's Childhood seems utterly divorced from the social context it's trying to depict, compared to Kieslowski's No End which is a much more delicate intertwining of the social and the personal, of reality and the metaphysical.

I can understand how some would find Ozu boring, but he nonetheless is a director that rarely fails to move me. Late Spring was, especially, one of the most deeply moving experiences I've ever had with film, and I Was Born But... may be the best depiction I've ever seen of a child's first disillusionment with their parents. If you can't stand Godard, I guess it's about the metafictional aspect, the part where Godard always seems to be making films that comment on films more than anything else. All of Godard is a dialect with cinema itself, all very self-aware in that Brechtian way. Tarantino is a bit similar, but he indulges in the entertainment aspect much more, while Godard explores the thematic implications. Nonetheless, I think films like Contempt and Pierrot le Fou are great, anarchic fun.

What do you think about Bunuel or the Taiwanese New Wave?

[mortalterror]

We'll just have to disagree about how good Eva is. I like it, but I'd never compare it to Hamlet. Hamlet didn't have a penguin wearing a rocket pack for a pet or play Dance Dance Revolution to train for his fight with Laertes.


Fellini is a director I admire more than love. None of his films have ever connected with me personally, even though I've found them to be works of dizzying cinematic genius.
For me he connects far more easily than Kubrick or Bergman, because whereas they are cold and contained, precise and calculating, he is brilliant, humorous, warm, and inventive. It's that warmth and humor which really set him apart.


Scorsese is a bit like Kubrick for me in that I love a few of his films (Raging Bull and Goodfellas) but am less impressed otherwise.
I agree that those two are far and away Scorsese's best films, although Mean Streets, Aviator, and Taxi Driver are pretty good as well. He does seem to have a lot of unevenness to his career just like Coppola, but I think that's partly do to his pace. However, when it comes to Kubrick, even the films of his I detested at first, I now watch over and over with love. How can you not love a director who seemed to even control the weather in his films? Seriously, look at the skies in his movies. They're beautiful. His attention to light and texture, movement and color are unrivaled.


Tarkovsky is similar. I think Solyaris is a distended mess of a film, and The Mirror feels like a cinematic thesis rather than a cinematic experience itself. Andrei Rublev is phenomenal though, as is Stalker.
That much I agree with you.


I love the visual textures in Yimou, but have been less thrilled with everything else. I actually think I prefer the underrated Kaige to him.
Yimou is the real deal, man. Raise the Red Lantern is a little slow in the beginning but boy does it deliver at the end, and To Live is one of the best films I've ever seen. What a gripping story, right up there with Kurosawa's Ikiru! But he's capable of delivering the goods even when his source material isn't a modern classic, like that eye candy he gave us in Hero, or that touching character study in Shanghai Triad. He doesn't really beat you over the head with effects, but he seems to know how to get the most out of every element. He just keeps adding one spectacular movie after another to his list of credits (Ju Dou, Story of Qiu Ju, Not One Less, Red Sorghum) until it's impossible to doubt his talent.

Kaige's Farewell My Concubine is good enough to have been made by Yimou, but The Emperor and the Assassin was just alright.


Welles is, of course, a cinematic genius as well, but outside of Kane and Touch of Evil I haven't cared much for him.
You have to see his Shakespeare stuff. Othello, Macbeth, and The Chimes at Midnight are all well worth seeing. F is For Fake was also interesting, even though it's not essential viewing.


He's always fun, but never profound. Lean I think I need to revisit; I saw his works too spread out to really appreciate them as being the work of a singular auteur.
Nobody does the slow paced epic like David Lean. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, A Passage to India, and The Bridge on the River Kwai, how many other directors have 4 films that good?


I'm surprised you say Kieslowski is a "watered down Tarkovsky" because I've never equated the two directors together. Kieslowski rarely displays the visual opulence and experimentation of Tarkovsky. The only quality they really share is their tendency towards the metaphysical, but even there Kieslowski firmly places his in juxtaposition with social and personal reality. Kieslowski suggests the supernatural as being subtly behind our experience of the natural, while Tarkovsky dives headlong into the otherworldly from the start. Really, the natural world is what's so out of place in Tarkovsky. Kieslowski is a much more humanistic director, ever concerned with the complexity of morality, or the relationship of free-will and destiny, in symmetrical patterns embedded in the seeming chaos of life. I personally think Kieslowski had much more to say about human life than Tarkovsky, and depicted it in a way that much more approximates how we experience it and think about it. Tarkovsky was so wrapped up in theory that he forget to make attempts towards connection, and even something like Ivan's Childhood seems utterly divorced from the social context it's trying to depict, compared to Kieslowski's No End which is a much more delicate intertwining of the social and the personal, of reality and the metaphysical.

I meant that the thing I take away from both of them, what seems to be their primary focus, is this sort of poetic atmosphere. So many of their scenes breathe with a life of their own, like certain Polanski movies, only more so. When I watch their films, I often feel uneasy, like a voyeur. It's like being hypnotized and drawn into the film. Perhaps, on my part, it's more a feeling of association I have with them, and the way their films make me feel. Kubrick and and Bergman often make me feel the same way, and in my mind they are linked, so too are Tarkovsky and Kieslowski.


I can understand how some would find Ozu boring, but he nonetheless is a director that rarely fails to move me. Late Spring was, especially, one of the most deeply moving experiences I've ever had with film, and I Was Born But... may be the best depiction I've ever seen of a child's first disillusionment with their parents.
I never got to those. Tokyo Story and Good Morning were like having my fingernails torn out.


If you can't stand Godard, I guess it's about the metafictional aspect, the part where Godard always seems to be making films that comment on films more than anything else. All of Godard is a dialect with cinema itself, all very self-aware in that Brechtian way. Tarantino is a bit similar, but he indulges in the entertainment aspect much more, while Godard explores the thematic implications. Nonetheless, I think films like Contempt and Pierrot le Fou are great, anarchic fun.

You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why I hate Godard and like Tarantino, though less now than I used to. Contempt was actually a fairly watchable flick, I got no beef with that one. It was Alphaville, Week End, Pierrot le Fou, and Breathless that got on my nerves. I can appreciate some of his meta-effects and experimentation. In certain doses I enjoy those, but he just did it too much, and at the expense of his other materials: acting, writing, etc. If I watch French New Wave, I'm going to watch Truffaut who had a much more down to earth attitude toward cinema.


What do you think about Bunuel or the Taiwanese New Wave?
I love what I've seen of Bunuel, which admittedly isn't much. So far I've only seen Un Chien Andalou and The Exterminating Angel. I loved the part in UCA where a the dude holds a straight razor by a woman's eye and then it cuts to a cloud passing over the moon. I thought of that scene when Eva 1 pops through Rei's eye during The End of Eva.

When it comes to the Taiwanese New Wave, I know very little. I haven't kept up on my viewing of foreign film for some years now. When I do indulge, I'm far more likely to watch a Korean picture like Taegukgi, Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, The Host, Shiri, Memories of Murder, My Sassy Girl, or Joint Security Area. If you are into dark, gritty, violent films, nobody is doing it like they're doing it right now.

[MorpheusSandman]

We'll just have to disagree about how good Eva is. I like it, but I'd never compare it to Hamlet. Hamlet didn't have a penguin wearing a rocket pack for a pet or play Dance Dance Revolution to train for his fight with Laertes.No, but there are still moments of silliness and frivolity in Hamlet, and Shakespeare certainly wasn't above the "lowest" forms of comedy in general, so I see no reason why film or anime should be. The surprising thing about Pen Pen is that it's the one anime cliche (the mascot) that Anno doesn't subvert. He writes him out of the show, but it's almost as if he wanted to have one vestige left of innocent fantasy.

The Hamlet/Eva connection is more in their dramatic/thematic approach, especially in terms of the relationship between character, inner conflict and outer conflict. In both, the protagonists are "called upon" to perform a task, and both are afflicted by their failure to perform it. In turn, this failure gives way to accessing their internal conflicts, which happen to be the real conflict, the real themes. Evangelion is, I find, even more original in how it presents this, as it's actually through the connection of protagonist and external conflict that the characters access the inner conflict; a metaphoric joining of the projected and reified unconsciousness and persona. But just like Hamlet turns his disillusionment, fear of death, disgust at women & man into a desire for a revenge (projecting an abstract inner turmoil he can't control/conquer to an external problem that he can), so Shinji covers up his feelings of worthlessness, fear, anxiety, and sexual complexes by pretending that the external force, The Angels, are the real enemy while his real enemy is his father (Anno suggests this in a flash montage that morphs images of The Angels into images of Gendo; I think in ep. 16).

You can disagree about how good Eva is, but "good" is just an umbrella judgment based on any number of factors, some more arbitrary and personal than others. Stating Eva isn't deep, complex, technically virtuosic, or artistically substantial is plain false. If we're judging quality based on these things, and others such as impact, influence, importance, originality, and certain technical qualities then I think I can convincingly argue that Eva trumps any anime you can name. The only two I've seen come close (in terms of series) is Haibane Renmei and Texhnolyze. Both of which were made by many of the same people who made Serial Experiments Lain. I've often said those three series form an almost Divine Comedy of anime (Lain being Earth/Purgatory, Renmei being Heaven/Paradise, and Texhnolyze being Hell/Inferno).


For me he connects far more easily than Kubrick or Bergman, because whereas they are cold and contained, precise and calculating, he is brilliant, humorous, warm, and inventive. It's that warmth and humor which really set him apart.I can certainly understand that, but it's just not something I feel myself. One critic said that every Fellini film was like a gift from your best friend, and I do see how Fellini has a certain easy-going approach that makes it feel like you are joining in with a friend, but I prefer Bergman's more personalized expressions and Kubrick's more distant observances. I guess I'd say Fellini sits somewhere in between them, a middle ground that, in this case, doesn't appeal to me as much. I engage my intellect and aesthetic sense more with Kubrick, and my emotions more with Bergman.


However, when it comes to Kubrick, even the films of his I detested at first, I now watch over and over with love. How can you not love a director who seemed to even control the weather in his films? Seriously, look at the skies in his movies. They're beautiful. His attention to light and texture, movement and color are unrivaled.I would never argue against Kubrick being one of the two or three supreme technical and aesthetic masters of cinema. His attention to detail was unparalleled, and perhaps only Hitchcock was equally as identifiable, but even then Kubrick was more diverse. But I think Kubrick can infuriate and alienate as much as he can rivet and provoke. 2001:ASO is, IMO, one of the 10 best works of art of the 20th Century. Its cinematic brilliance is nearly unrivaled and it's really the only piece of cinema I appreciate as much as Evangelion. Equally, Dr. Strangelove is perfect satire, and Barry Lyndon is a stunningly gorgeous aesthetic experience with one of cinema's great antiheroes. But, outside of that, I'm not as enthralled with him. I like ACO more than, say, Ebert, but I still can't call it a masterpiece. It is a bit art design gone mad. Full Metal Jacket I recently reviewed here (http://www.cinelogue.com/reviews/full-metal-jacket), and I basically concluded that, while an excellent film, found Kubrick struggling to depict war in an original way or bring any artistic insight to it. The Shining I think is a great horror film, but it definitely trades coherency and depth for affect. Eyes Wide Shut I need to rewatch.

I think his early films are largely forgettable except for Paths of Glory, which is excellent but unusually sentimental and even rather cheap for Kubrick.


That much I agree with you.Have you seen any from Bella Tarr? He's very Tarkovsky-esque but, if anything, is Tarkovsky pushed to an extreme (ridiculously long takes, aesthetics and artifice over realism, plenty of philosophical muddiness). His Satantango is one of my top 30 films. It's 7.5 hours long, but it's an unearthly experience.


Yimou is the real deal, man. Raise the Red Lantern is a little slow in the beginning but boy does it deliver at the end, and To Live is one of the best films I've ever seen. What a gripping story, right up there with Kurosawa's Ikiru! But he's capable of delivering the goods even when his source material isn't a modern classic, like that eye candy he gave us in Hero, or that touching character study in Shanghai Triad. He doesn't really beat you over the head with effects, but he seems to know how to get the most out of every element. He just keeps adding one spectacular movie after another to his list of credits (Ju Dou, Story of Qiu Ju, Not One Less, Red Sorghum) until it's impossible to doubt his talent.I don't doubt his talent, but I'm merely saying nothing I've seen from his has cracked the masterpiece mark for me, even though they've all been of a supremely high quality. But I do think Yimou got a lot of help from Gong Li, who embodied every role she played. She's the kind of actress Mizoguchi needed back in the day. Raise the Red Lantern is probably my favorite from him; one of the most lushly textured films ever shot.


You have to see his Shakespeare stuff. Othello, Macbeth, and The Chimes at Midnight are all well worth seeing. F is For Fake was also interesting, even though it's not essential viewing.I have seen Othello and was impressed, perhaps just as much with Welles' acting, which was surprisingly naturalistic and moving for him. But the film was a mess of editing and pacing. Granted, that's the studio's fault more than Welles. Chimes at Midnight I need to rewatch. I saw it on VHS back before I appreciated Shakespeare, and I thin I'd probably like it more now. F For Fake was quite interesting.

My impression with Welles is almost always this: technically genius, artistically/thematically shallow, ruined by the studios. I always feel like I'm watching Welles' films through an ugly filter, trying to put together the film he wanted to make from the pieces that are left. This is especially true of Othello and The Magnificent Ambersons.


I meant that the thing I take away from both of them, what seems to be their primary focus, is this sort of poetic atmosphere.If we're talking about poetic atmosphere then I'd certainly give the edge to Tarkovsky, but Tarkovsky is more overtly concerned with that. The only Kieslowski film that was overtly poetic throughout was The Double Life of Veronique, and even it had its moments of stark realism. In Kieslowski, the poetry happens in brief, inexplicable moments. They contrast with the dry prose that most of his films depict, until he finds away to tie them together into one, sometimes imperceptibly. I think Kieslowski makes more sense if you watch him in chronological order. His documentaries revealed a filmmaker primarily concerned with the world, culture, and society around him, attempting to make some kind of difference. But Kieslowski also became disillusioned with the "realism" of documentaries, discovering that they could be just as staged and false as fiction. One of his early films, Camera Buff, depicts this process where reality, documentary, and fiction overlap. In fact, it was really his first substantial film in general (not a masterpiece, but still very good).

After that is when he became more involved with the metaphysical and abstract. Blind Chance is probably the most original film on the concept of destiny VS free-will/chance ever made, and No End began his interest with how the personal and otherworldly influence how we react with the cultural and worldly. His masterpiece Dekalog is all about the tenuousness of absolute morality in the modern world, and, as Kubrick said, Kieslowski was a master at dramatizing his themes, rarely letting on explicitly what he was trying to get across. It's also masterful in how it weaves the threads of so many subtly interconnected lives together. Veronique uses those connections to explore the nature of identity, while his Three Colors Trilogy is like a synthesis of all the themes and styles he'd been cultivating throughout his career.

If we're talking about pure poetics then Kieslowski is not the first director I'd name. I actually think Brakhage is the only real poet of the cinema, because his work is pure imagery, form, suggestion, metaphor, etc. You can experience it as pure ontology or you can work to interpret it, but you can't just watch it passively and hope to be fed any tangible meaning. I wrote about the immense difficulty of putting Brakhage in words (while attempting to do so) here. (http://www.cinelogue.com/reviews/23rd-psalm-branch)


Tokyo Story and Good Morning were like having my fingernails torn out.Good Morning is fairly average. The funny thing about Tokyo Story is that Ozu remarked it was his most melodramatic film, yet it's his most universally beloved. I mean, I feel it's a masterpiece, but I prefer Late Spring quite a bit. It's like Tokyo Story but even more subtle. What about Tokyo Story did you hate so much?


If I watch French New Wave, I'm going to watch Truffaut who had a much more down to earth attitude toward cinema.See, I find Truffaut rather bland; a "vending machine of good will" as Rosenbaum called him. Godard I both enjoy and admire more, if only beause of his "F-it-all" attitude.


I love what I've seen of Bunuel, which admittedly isn't much. So far I've only seen Un Chien Andalou and The Exterminating Angel. I loved the part in UCA where a the dude holds a straight razor by a woman's eye and then it cuts to a cloud passing over the moon. I thought of that scene when Eva 1 pops through Rei's eye during The End of Eva.I'd never made the UCA/End of Eva connection; that's very interesting! Anyway, Bunuel had an amazingly rich career so it can be difficult to know where to go. My favorite from him is Discreet Charms of the Bourgeoisie, but everything from his late/mature period is brilliant, basically everything from Simon of the Desert onward. Before that, Nazarin, Tristana, Los Olvidados, and Viridiana (often his most popular) are probably his best.


When it comes to the Taiwanese New Wave, I know very little. I haven't kept up on my viewing of foreign film for some years now. When I do indulge, I'm far more likely to watch a Korean picture like Taegukgi, Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, The Host, Shiri, Memories of Murder, My Sassy Girl, or Joint Security Area. If you are into dark, gritty, violent films, nobody is doing it like they're doing it right now.I do love Chan Wook-Park, especially his Vengeance Trilogy. In fact, a friend of mine, Jack Eason, did a Park retrospective on Cinelogue. The Taiwanese New Wave are in a very different vein; more naturalistic, subtly poetic, slow-paced fair. Hou Hsiao-hsien is one of my 5 favorite directors; his City of Sadness is in my top 10 while Puppetmaster is in my top 30. Edward Yang's Yi Yi and A Brighter Summer Day are up there as well. Tsai Ming-liang is another favorite, although he's more postmodern, perversely avant-garde than Yang or Hou. What Time is it There? is his masterpiece, although The Wayward Cloud is what must surely be the world's first art-house musical porno!

I'd recommend Yi Yi as a great place to start. It's probably the most easily accessible/likable film in the movement. Hou's are more intellectually, aesthetically, and technically demanding. Always brilliant, but always rather challenging. His Flight of the Red Balloon might be the easiest place to start.

[JCamilo]

Meh, while I agree we can see a similarity of how Shakespeare had some love for boffons and silliness, perhaps to keep the public attuned and how Eva does the same, accepting the otakuness in the series to sweep the floor, i would not go futher. Eva is Kubrick. All cinematography, details, pacing, music, even the mystic tematic (while serious, not without some sense of humor from both authors)... It happened before, it happend with Kubrick. And overall, the impact of Eva is similar to 2001 impact on their mediuns and society.

[MorpheusSandman]

Accepting the otakuness in the series to sweep the floor, i would not go futher... it happened before, it happend with Kubrick. I'm not sure what you're saying with these. Although, comparing Eva to Kubrick is hardly a knock against its greatness. Kubrick is usually considered one of the 5 greatest directors ever and 2001:ASO one of the 4 or 5 best films ever made. The reason I bring up the Shakespeare angle is because Eva's handling of dramatic form seems to have more roots in classic literature as opposed to film. I really can't think of another film that handles conflict like it does, or another that seems to utilize the 5-act structure in quite the same way. Even 2001's structure, for all its brilliance and originality, is very different from Eva's.

[JCamilo]

I have said nothing about greatness or not and frankly, Eva influence in literary form or cinematography (considering their long background with anime series previously, which is in the end the true direct influence of Anno) is silly, since Movies have literary influence, so they all have same roots. It would be easy to say Anno created characters like Cervantes did (steryotipes playing out of the place to first build familiarity then contrast to create the uneasy effect effect, comedy in one, angst in another). Anno worked in Macross Plus, the series with cinematography, so we do need much to think about his influences.

[MorpheusSandman]

Films have literary influences, yes, but the majority of the most influential films and directors were those that forged a path away from the literary and theatrical aspects of cinema. I think it was Bordwell that traced this evolution in his The Way Hollywood Tells It. Essentially, the literary compression of cinema necessitated the invention of a visual lexicon that could compensate for what was lost. This in turn necessitated a new approach to screenwriting that separated itself from classic literature. The disciplines for screenwriting, playwriting, and novels are completely different. The elongation of the TV format largely proliferated this into an episodic format, but I think it becomes clear that mini-series and continuing series can't (or shouldn't) be handled in the same way. This is where I say that I think Anno looked more towards classic literature rather than cinema, because most of his techniques in terms of writing are pretty alien to modern screenwriting.

It's not just shallow comparative interpretations via archetypes because, as I've said, there really IS no parallel for Shinji's character in anime or film that I can think of, and there's certainly none of the set-up/suversion deconstructionism. Even Godard was always very upfront about his messing with cinematic form. There are some that come close in anime, but they ultimately followed the traditional path of overcoming, and none of them were infused with the level of psychological and existential introspection that Shinji (much less Hamlet) was. Yes, we may look to film for Anno's visual influences, but that's obvious. But, even then, the influences are more classic than modern; Eisenstein, Godard, Kubrick, etc. The auteuristic techniques he brought to Eva were largely alien to anime. Even auteurs like Oshii, Otomo, and Miyazaki didn't quite draw on as wide a canvass of cinematic past. Oshii's montages are in the Eisenstein/Coppola vein, but he doesn't play with wide-angels and lenses like Anno or Kubrick, nor with iconographic motifs and extensive allusion. I think anime was a direct influence on the superficial content of Anno's work, but there's so much that he incorporated that didn't have its roots in anime, and when we encounter those elements you have to look outside anime to film and literature.

[JCamilo]

Films have literary influences, yes, but the majority of the most influential films and directors were those that forged a path away from the literary and theatrical aspects of cinema. I think it was Bordwell that traced this evolution in his The Way Hollywood Tells It. Essentially, the literary compression of cinema necessitated the invention of a visual lexicon that could compensate for what was lost. This in turn necessitated a new approach to screenwriting that separated itself from classic literature. The disciplines for screenwriting, playwriting, and novels are completely different. The elongation of the TV format largely proliferated this into an episodic format, but I think it becomes clear that mini-series and continuing series can't (or shouldn't) be handled in the same way. This is where I say that I think Anno looked more towards classic literature rather than cinema, because most of his techniques in terms of writing are pretty alien to modern screenwriting.

I have in my Eva manga an interview with Anno and he says his major influences were Macross and Sci-fie movies. Not Literature. Considering he was working alongside the EVA project manga, I doubt there is anything soo compelx on the script. I would like you to point where he shows this break-thru rupture, because Eva dialogue is clearly adapted to the manga/anime medium.


It's not just shallow comparative interpretations via archetypes because, as I've said, there really IS no parallel for Shinji's character in anime or film that I can think of, and there's certainly none of the set-up/suversion deconstructionism. Even Godard was always very upfront about his messing with cinematic form. There are some that come close in anime, but they ultimately followed the traditional path of overcoming, and none of them were infused with the level of psychological and existential introspection that Shinji (much less Hamlet) was.

I did not said anything about interpretation. And Anno basic strategy is subversion of archetypes. He said it clearly "We need a premium girl" and here is Rei. The traces of the characters weren't - moderm as they are - meant to be a rupture either. And I saw this done with Utena (albeit the faery tale path) and in movie I do not need to scracth my beard. Kane is much better than Shinji, Orson Welles can teach anyone how to desconstruct a character from a single word. Still a lesson. As the Hamlet bit (sorry, but Shinji is rather swallow, a pseudo Hamlet of short, hunted by the ghost of his mother and trying to impress his father.), I will take just as an exageration of otakunism. Anno do use Shinji well, and that is what matters.


Yes, we may look to film for Anno's visual influences, but that's obvious. But, even then, the influences are more classic than modern; Eisenstein, Godard, Kubrick, etc. The auteuristic techniques he brought to Eva were largely alien to anime.

His prime influence was quite moderm. Nausica, Gundam, Macross, even Devilmen. Heck, the biggest merit of Eva is not their philophical allegory, not the uneassy feeling it provokes, it how Anno construct and disconstruct his medium. He obvious didnt made just one more anime, but his close lineage is his main influence.


Even auteurs like Oshii, Otomo, and Miyazaki didn't quite draw on as wide a canvass of cinematic past. Oshii's montages are in the Eisenstein/Coppola vein, but he doesn't play with wide-angels and lenses like Anno or Kubrick, nor with iconographic motifs and extensive allusion. I think anime was a direct influence on the superficial content of Anno's work, but there's so much that he incorporated that didn't have its roots in anime, and when we encounter those elements you have to look outside anime to film and literature.

How not, those open shorts are in Macross Plus and Wings of Honneamise. I can see you point Eva was one of the first to bring to a long series and not for Anime films the cinematography (a bit like what Twin Peaks did in american tv), making the TV series to have a high quality, which before was not praticed. The abusime level of Cowboy Beebop was only, of course, possible after Eva final breakthru. But saying all anime, it is like denying Anno's own otakuness towards his precussors.

[MorpheusSandman]

I have in my Eva manga an interview with Anno and he says his major influences were Macross and Sci-fie movies. Not Literature.Obviously Anno drew on series like Macross, Gundam, and other sci-fi for the story/setting, but that's obvious, and I think that's what most mean and think of when they say influences. Anno's biggest influence in terms of that was actually Space Runaway Ideon, and Be Invoked has a lot of similarities to End of Evangelion. But these are more in generalities than in structure and overall approach. All of those series stayed firmly rooted in the traditional anime, fantasy/storytelling vein, and none observed the breakdown of characters and form like Eva, and it's in those elements that I say Eva seems to have more in common with classic literature. I also never said that Anno was intentionally or consciously influenced by classic literature, what I said was that a lot of his techniques do not have their roots/origins in any anime or films I know of, and they seem to have more in common with certain literary approaches. Another cinephile I know of described Anno's creative process as "reinventing a wheel that he was unaware existed".

Anno also stated that around the middle of the series he was reading a lot of psychological and philosophical textbooks and that they crystallized the direction he wanted to take the series in. Contrast this to what he said in pre-production about not really knowing where the series was going to go. Anno has also expressed his appreciation for the films of Kubrick. So it's clear that he has more interests and influences than the obvious ones of modern and even classic anime.


And Anno basic strategy is subversion of archetypes. He said it clearly "We need a premium girl" and here is Rei. The traces of the characters weren't - moderm as they are - meant to be a rupture either. And I saw this done with Utena (albeit the faery tale path) and in movie I do not need to scracth my beard. Yes, subversion of archetypes, but the method of subversion is, again, not found in anime or film tradition. I don't know what you mean by "weren't meant to be a rupture", and Utena was largely inspired by Evangelion. It was even criticized when it came out for being a Shojo version of Eva.


Kane is much better than Shinji, Orson Welles can teach anyone how to desconstruct a character from a single word. Still a lesson. As the Hamlet bit (sorry, but Shinji is rather swallow, a pseudo Hamlet of short, hunted by the ghost of his mother and trying to impress his father.), I will take just as an exageration of otakunism.But Kane isn't "deconstructed", he's rather "reconstructed" from the various perspectives of those who observed them. And the fact that Welles was able to reduce Kane's entire being and drive down to a single metaphoric word is, in my mind, indicative of his shallowness. I think it was Pauline Kael that argued this very point. Kane's drive was rather generalized, while Shinji's was specific. Yes, you can reduce both of them down to individuals attempting to compensate for childhood traumas, but Shinji's is much more thoroughly explored, from the origins to the various consequences and the method that it constructed his perception of the world. Kane's impetus isn't nearly as intricate or elaborately explored. Kane was simply removed from his parents, but with Shinji it was an accumulation of things, from both his mother and father, but equally what had happened to him since coming to NERV. Shinji is broken down, Kane is built up. They're very different approaches, but I think Shinji is by far the more interesting and complex character.

As for Hamlet, again, I wasn't really comparing their characters directly, but in the manner that Anno and Shakespeare treated external and internal conflict. Hamlet has the benefit of being an intellectual wizard that runs circles around those around him. Shinji, being an adolescent, and a particularly introverted one, doesn't and can't do this. Shinji is locked into his frame of mind, while Hamlet lets his imagination run wild and alternates from introspection to external engagement. Yet there are some relevant similarities, including the fact that they both suffer from parent problems. But more relevant is the fact that, in both cases, the external aspects of their conflict give way to accessing and exploring the internal aspects. Hamlet generalizes much more than Shinji does, while Shinji's internal explorations are more personal, more uniquely related to him, his relationships, his situation. As much as I love Hamlet, TS Eliot did have a point in that Hamlet lacked an objective correlative that really justified all of its meandering musings, but Shinji CERTAINLY doesn't lack that.

Anyway, I don't think Shinji is a "shallow" version of Hamlet at all. You can reduce either character down to a few basic facts, but this hardly captures their three-dimensionality and dynamicism.


His prime influence was quite moderm. Nausica, Gundam, Macross, even Devilmen. Heck, the biggest merit of Eva is not their philophical allegory, not the uneassy feeling it provokes, it how Anno construct and disconstruct his medium.I would vigorously argue that Eva's greatest merit isn't its deconstruction of its medium/genre. I certainly think that's an important part, yes, but that's not the element that has profoundly affected so many and created such a personal and lasting impact. Anno's original impetus was his own battle with depression, his own desire to run away from reality, and he saw this as a symptom of an obsessive Otaku/fantasy culture. Yes, Evangelion deconstructed the latter, but it did it to get to the psychological and philosophical roots that engendered these symptoms to begin with. It's no accident that the series' biggest impact has been made on people who have themselves battled with depression and a desire to run away and escape reality. Anno saw anime as one of the many enabling drugs that fed a much deeper problem, and it was only through deconstructing the means for escape that Anno got to the root cause. I think to argue that Eva's greatest merit is its deconstruction of anime is to essentially dismiss the reason and themes that inspired its creation and the deconstructive mode to begin with and what made it connect with so many people.


How not, those open shorts are in Macross Plus and Wings of Honneamise. I can see you point Eva was one of the first to bring to a long series and not for Anime films the cinematography (a bit like what Twin Peaks did in american tv), making the TV series to have a high quality, which before was not praticed. The abusime level of Cowboy Beebop was only, of course, possible after Eva final breakthru. But saying all anime, it is like denying Anno's own otakuness towards his precussors.Here's the thing; most people praise Citizen Kane for its originality when Kane's real genius is in its ultimate synthesis of all film theory, methods, and approaches that preceded. Almost every "original" element in Kane has its roots in cinema before it, but people had never seen it all in one place, all used to such a dizzyingly virtuosic degree. Evangelion is very much like that in anime. If you break it down piecemeal then you can probably find precursors for all its techniques, but what I'm arguing is that no single director, no single work ever incorporated so much from anime past into one package as Anno in Evangelion, and so many of its devices, modes, methods, styles, etc. seem drawn from sources outside anime and even outside film. I don't think this was intentional on Anno's part, and I never argued that, but I think Anno was inspired to such a degree that he managed to cobble together an incredibly diverse range of diffused and intuitive influences. A good example is how there are so many Godardian elements in Eva, especially towards the end, but Anno had never seen a Godard film, even though he had seen films by directors influenced by Godard.