Is Poetry Art?

[cacian]

If so should a poet be allowed to break the rules of conventions and write as freely as the wind?
Or it is up to the reader to decide whether a poet is great or not?

I personal think is up to the poet to see words as colours and use them as he or she wishes to.

A painter achieves great satisfaction and enlightnment from expressing something differently by being different.
Breaking the rules is one way of being different.
It is not a challenge but simply what natures implies. A feeling is not feeling unless exposed to the element without restraints and sense of obligatory manners.

I feel a meaning is created everyday through poetry and it is up to the reader to discover it.
In order to achieve creativity and envisage new meanings one must lose one meaning to gain a new one.
I see poetry as the creator of new fields of thinking and vision because it moves from the obvious everyday to the unusual or unthinkable.

[Gerard Quain]

The reader is king, as far who is great or not, but the truth be told most of us poet's write for ourselves first and foremost, as for what defines art, well my definition, is anything of original creation that gets a reaction, be it negative or positive, indifference is the enemy,

[cacian]

Indifference is the enemy?
How does one know is being indifferent in a bad or good way?

[Gerard Quain]

if your poetry is being ignored by those you aim at then that's indifference

indifference is never good

[Charles Darnay]

Poetry is Art, and words can be like colours But just as colours haphazardly splattered on an canvas will not receive any praise and contains very little to it, so words haphazardly splattered on a page will receive no interest.

I think you have the wrong idea of breaking the rules in order to explore new areas of Art. Breaking the rules in Art (dadaism excepted here....but **** dadaism) is not an anarchic act of freedom: artists break the rules in order to establish new ones. So do poets/writers.

[Gerard Quain]

anarchic, mmmmmm, to do that which is not acceptable , or too create chaos for the sake of it,tis a fine line indeed

[cacian]

if your poetry is being ignored by those you aim at then that's indifference

True to a certain extent.
What about the pleasures one takes from writing the way one wants? doesn't that cout for something?
One must weigh out what one wants to achieve and get out of it writing at the expense of readers who do not like it.
There is a fine line there.
Everyone regardless can write poetry but not everyone understands it the way YOU understand it.
That in itself is an importance.


indifference is never good
Intelorance is not good either. If indifference is an issue then persistance in what one believes to be true is more important.
Giving up because one is being ignored is a weakness. Pursuing what you feel is right for is more valuable because what you do not find in one day you will more in an another. Getting to know your poetry is more important then getting to know what others think.


anarchic, mmmmmm, to do that which is not acceptable , or too create chaos for the sake of it,tis a fine line indeed

Chaos is a state of mind. Writing is not chaos au contraire. Writing is getting rid off chaos.

[mjh]

Having thought the of the reader as king for some time, I am starting to think that it is in fact language that rules the roost.

[hillwalker]

What about the pleasures one takes from writing the way one wants? doesn't that cout for something?
One must weigh out what one wants to achieve and get out of it writing at the expense of readers who do not like it.
There is a fine line there.

Not really. You can write the way you want and take your readers along with you if they are going to get something in return. It all depends on whether or not you write well enough to break some (or all) the rules.

But if you're purely writing for self-gratification and to hell with anyone who doesn't appreciate the way you write - well, that's the road to ruin. If you pay no heed to what others think ('others' being those who have some appreciation of literature and language) then you'll never improve. You'll probably get worse because your self-criticism filter will cease to function. If everything you write is always good enough, why try harder?

H

[cacian]

Not really. You can write the way you want and take your readers along with you if they are going to get something in return. It all depends on whether or not you write well enough to break some (or all) the rules.
In what way one would get away with no rules because they write well?
How about those who do not write because they meant it that way?


But if you're purely writing for self-gratification and to hell with anyone who doesn't appreciate the way you write - well, that's the road to ruin. If you pay no heed to what others think ('others' being those who have some appreciation of literature and language) then you'll never improve.

I think writing is second nature to people. I do not think it is to do with self-gratification but more of a need a pleasure.
I don't need a reason to write. I write because the decision of writing is solely mine. Nobody ever told me to write. It is something I took up myself. For this very reason only I think what I write is worth it for me at least. Others and what they think is really secondary.
Having to decide for one self without the influence of others is in itslef an achievement and shows skills and talent.
To write is personal. Like nudity is personal. I compare the two together as being similar.
I write on my own without supersvision and I do it to my best of abilities in the same way that I get dressed and undress on my own without others present. In this very sense writing and nudity are linked.
I like it when I analyse two very different concepts and bring them together as one.
There is a link to everything. I do not lose sight of that when I think write or say.

You'll probably get worse because your self-criticism filter will cease to function. If everything you write is always good enough, why try harder?

H
You see one cannot get possibly wrong or worse from writing. Au contraire one gets more out of it then when not writing.
I don't believe in critiqiues I do not see their role as important as that of a writer.
It is very easy to criticise it is not very easy to like. Taste is difficult to please but they do say it grows on you.
Trying hard is something I do manually it is a physical thing for me. I try hard at moving furniture or moving house because I have to.
I enjoy writing and the more I write the more I get to know what I want to write.
Writing is a discovery of self. I must search for my style whilst I write. The more I put words into paper the more I get a glimpse of myself and the more I achieve my potential into finding the words the thoughts and the mechanism of how I want to write.
It is not easy but it is well worth it and so I keep on.
I never self criticise but more sensitize with what the ideas I want to write.
Writing is ideas and ideas is imagination and imagination is me. I want to challenge me and so I write.

[hillwalker]

You have to understand the rules in order to be able to break them. Read William Faulkner's 'The Sound and The Fury' to discover how a brilliant writer mangled the English language and played around with plotlines intentionally in order to create unforgettable characters.

I don't think anyone on here writes because they're told to - nor do they have someone standing at their shoulder supervising them(?). We all write because we enjoy the act and post it on here because we enjoy having our work read more widely.

But I disagree with some of your statements. If the act of writing gives you pleasure then it is self-gratification, surely. And I'm sorry, but measuring the quality of your writing purely on your own personal opinion does not show skills or talent. It's the first sign of delusion.

H

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I chose "no," not because it's what I believe, but because I felt an inexplicable question deserves an equally inexplicable answer.

[YesNo]

Having thought the of the reader as king for some time, I am starting to think that it is in fact language that rules the roost.

If I understand this correctly, mjh, you seem to be saying that there is another dimension of consciousness that language rules rather than individual readers and writers. If that is what you mean, then I think you are right. The evidence for this is the power that the words of a mantra have on the one speaking them.

Regarding the writer and reader, I usually write to please an imagined reader. That could be my co-worker when I write an email at work or someone who reads something I post on this forum. I judge the success of the communication by the response of this other person.

At the same time that imagined reader is myself and I would agree with what cacian says as well:


I don't need a reason to write. I write because the decision of writing is solely mine. Nobody ever told me to write. It is something I took up myself. For this very reason only I think what I write is worth it for me at least. Others and what they think is really secondary.

[cacian]

Poetry is Art, and words can be like colours But just as colours haphazardly splattered on an canvas will not receive any praise and contains very little to it, so words haphazardly splattered on a page will receive no interest.

I think you have the wrong idea of breaking the rules in order to explore new areas of Art. Breaking the rules in Art (dadaism excepted here....but **** dadaism) is not an anarchic act of freedom: artists break the rules in order to establish new ones. So do poets/writers.

Well if it is art then art is what you make of it.
I am to paint rather then splatter then where the creative bit here?
Words are derogotaries and meaning are even less si as far as peotry is concerned if it is to be art.
We are happy to stare at picasso and see body parts flungged in an unfashioned manner here and there and call it art and yet we are not prepared to let go with words when it comes to poetry. Where is the fun in that? I have already go grammar syntax and gender to do that for me. Why should I carry the burden of it all in poetry.
The mechanics of art is that there is no mechanism otherwise it is machinery work.We might as well learn by heart and think and write with our eyes closed. Art is as irrational and as impossible as it gets. The worse the best.
What is important is the idea behind the wall of writing. It is not always about meanings or words it is what is behind the façade that we must seek. Think of that as your own way of dealing with it.
To see beyond a canvas of words is the hardest but I have a feeling one might grow to like it because of its intricacy difficulty and all else impossible.
It is not what I see it is what I feel.
Poetry is not about the meaning it is about the feeling the way it makes us doubt our rules conventions and everything rigid. It is a challenge of everyday meaning that is lost that I find interesting about poetry.
But as they say one meaning lost ten others found.


I chose "no," not because it's what I believe, but because I felt an inexplicable question deserves an equally inexplicable answer.

is it the question inexplicable because the answer is not clear or is it the idea behind it?

[Charles Darnay]

Well if it is art then art is what you make of it.
I am to paint rather then splatter then where the creative bit here?
Words are derogotaries and meaning are even less si as far as peotry is concerned if it is to be art.
We are happy to stare at picasso and see body parts flungged in an unfashioned manner here and there and call it art and yet we are not prepared to let go with words when it comes to poetry. Where is the fun in that? I have already go grammar syntax and gender to do that for me. Why should I carry the burden of it all in poetry.
The mechanics of art is that there is no mechanism otherwise it is machinery work.We might as well learn by heart and think and write with our eyes closed. Art is as irrational and as impossible as it gets. The better the best.
What is important is the idea behind the wall of writing. It is not always about meanings or words it is what is behind it that we must seek.
To see beyond a canvas of words is the hardest but I have a feeling one might grow to like it because of its intricacy difficulty and all else impossible.
It is not what I see it is what I feel.
Poetry is not about the meaning it is about the feeling the way it makes us doubt our rules conventions and everything rigid. It is a challenge of everyday meaning that is lost that I find interesting about poetry.
But as they say one meaning lost ten others found.

If that's what you are going for - all the power to you. But don't expect others to go along with you. And if, as you stated elsewhere, your ambition is to create a book that stands the test of time, you have to give some consideration to your readers, and your "Beezoo-bib-bap" approach to poetry will not get you that.

(as a complete aside, has anyone seen Wofl and Cacian on the same thread? Hmmm......)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Poetry is art. It's not even a matter of debate.

[JCamilo]

Strangely enough, Cacian is wrongly right.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Really? I thought she was wrongly wrong.

[cacian]

Poetry is art. It's not even a matter of debate.

Well I think you find a lot of people disagree hence rules and regulations about to present a piece of poetry.
I agree it is art.
Learning about art does not necessarily make a talented artist.
It is the show and tell idea. One tells art more but not quite show it if one is to achieves ones own talent.
I might be wrong here but I think learning art accentuates ideas and reinforces style but how much of it becomes our own is debatable.


QUOTE=hillwalker;1180280]You have to understand the rules in order to be able to break them.
Hi hillwalker and thank you for posting.
Firstly what would the point of that?
If I understood everything to be correct then I would not be able to break the rule because it would be natural for me not to.
I break the rules because the language, its structure, everything about it allows me to.
I have given an example somewhere else about 'stand alone words' that means nothing if it wasn't for the context. That alone from an aesthetic linguistic point of view is an error.
Had this had not been the case then I would have been be less likely to break the rules because the language bestowed upon is literally perfect.
There is such a thing as the perfect language we just have not got to it yet.
A language that is exact that makes no mistakes and allows for not odds and errors and relies not on context alone is less likely to be broken.
One makes the bed and lie on it.


Read William Faulkner's 'The Sound and The Fury' to discover how a brilliant writer mangled the English language and played around with plotlines intentionally in order to create unforgettable characters.

I read it, was taught it at university, and loathed it. I am afraid I make a pass on this one.


I don't think anyone on here writes because they're told to - nor do they have someone standing at their shoulder supervising them(?). We all write because we enjoy the act and post it on here because we enjoy having our work read more widely.

I write firstly because I want to. Nothing can make it write if I did not want to. That is the bottom line.


But I disagree with some of your statements. If the act of writing gives you pleasure then it is self-gratification, surely. And I'm sorry, but measuring the quality of your writing purely on your own personal opinion does not show skills or talent. It's the first sign of delusion.

H
Self-gratification is more like saying one likes the sound of their own voice and therefore they only do it because of the sound and the not the value of it.
I do not see an issue with liking what we do. No one will give you praise like you would to yourself. You alone understand how to please you because no one else will equal that. It is a delusion to think that the only pleasure I get is the pleasures of others. The pleasure is all mine first.

[Jack of Hearts]

No. And anybody who writes poetry is a jerk.






J

[hillwalker]

If I understood everything to be correct then I would not be able to break the rule because it would be natural for me not to.

What you're saying is - if you understand the rules something would stop you breaking them. How does that work? Do you have no free will?


I break the rules because the language, its structure, everything about it allows me to.

You don't. You write random words that rhyme - some of which are presumably your own creation. That's not breaking rules - it's choosing to write in your own personal language. That's fine - but don't expect anyone to make sense of it or even try.


There is such a thing as the perfect language we just have not got to it yet.
A language that is exact that makes no mistakes and allows for not odds and errors and relies not on context alone is less likely to be broken.

Computer languages are the closest - if there's an error the programme fails to run. But in literature what you are suggesting is complete nonsense.


I write firstly because I want to. Nothing can make it write if I did not want to. That is the bottom line.
Self-gratification is more like saying one likes the sound of their own voice and therefore they only do it because of the sound and the not the value of it. I do not see an issue with liking what we do. No one will give you praise like you would to yourself. You alone understand how to please you because no one else will equal that. It is a delusion to think that the only pleasure I get is the pleasures of others. The pleasure is all mine first.

Which is exactly the problem I'm referring to. Until you share your writing with others it can be a rather solitary occupation. Most writers are unable to measure their abilities until they get a response from an independent third party. That's why so many post on here, because they have no other way of judging whether their work is acceptable or not. When other members find something positive to say, or a publisher thinks their efforts have enough merit to warrant publication, they can begin to accept they really do have talent.
You happen to think your writing is wonderful. That's fine - no one asks you to think otherwise. But few others feel the same way because they can't even begin to understand what you're trying to say. So isn't your own self-belief that your writing is wonderful - regardless of other people's opinions - a delusion?

H3K

[cacian]

What you're saying is - if you understand the rules something would stop you breaking them. How does that work? Do you have no free will?



You don't. You write random words that rhyme - some of which are presumably your own creation. That's not breaking rules - it's choosing to write in your own personal language. That's fine - but don't expect anyone to make sense of it or even try.



Computer languages are the closest - if there's an error the programme fails to run. But in literature what you are suggesting is complete nonsense.



Which is exactly the problem I'm referring to. Until you share your writing with others it can be a rather solitary occupation. Most writers are unable to measure their abilities until they get a response from an independent third party. That's why so many post on here, because they have no other way of judging whether their work is acceptable or not. When other members find something positive to say, or a publisher thinks their efforts have enough merit to warrant publication, they can begin to accept they really do have talent.
You happen to think your writing is wonderful. That's fine - no one asks you to think otherwise. But few others feel the same way because they can't even begin to understand what you're trying to say. So isn't your own self-belief that your writing is wonderful - regardless of other people's opinions - a delusion?

H3K

Hi hillwalker.
I don't think my writing is wonderful far from it. What I can say however is that it is right for me.
I think my writing deserves to be written by me and that is sufficient to me.
Yes I agree not all understand what I wrote but I understand it. That in itself matters a great deal to me.
Until then I carry on writing what makes sense to me. One day someone else will understand it. It might not be now but I am pretty sure there is always one out there who will. That is well worth a wait. If it does not it really does not matter. I please myself first.
I don't count on my audience to tell me to proceed. I proceed regardless. Audiences come and go but I carry on with the aim to go on.
I am never deluded about what I write. I write because I can.
A delusion is when I write and await someone to tell me I am right or wrong.
I write everyday and produce poems without awaiting for someone permission. That is not delusion. That is reality.

[Paulclem]

Poetry is art, and the question of poetic conventions is tricky. If you try to pin down the features of poetry that make it a poem as opposed to prose, then you end up with something like how the words are arranged on the page - for example with a particular line length. I don't think this means that successful poetry can be like Wolf's examples - a free for all of meaningles words that require the reader to do all the work. The art part is leading the reader's mind through associations etc, much like an artist would lead the eye, (though I use these as an example, and not a definition, of poetry/art). The input of the poet/ artist and the interpretation of the reader/ viewer may result in many different conclusions within the context of a piece. It's this which makes poetry and an artistic piece interesting and a topic for discussion.

All that requires the poet/ artist to share their work and invite different conclusions, and i have to agree with Hillwalker that if poet is not sharing their work then only half the process is happening, and poetic merit cannot be confirmed.

Having said that, I think there are many more people than we think who write poetry for their own pleasure, and who will never share their lines. There was once a survey done - in depth interviews and interaction etc not just a questionnaire - which examined the literacies in a smll Northern UK town - Lancaster. What they found was that a surprising number of people wrote poetry for pleasure. If you extrapolate this, then perhaps many of of us do. I remember a colleague at work saying once that he loved reading poetry, and he found that a number of people offered him small collections of their work. He, and I, were really surprised at this. None of them had ever mentioned or talked about poetry at all.

[cacian]

Paul you do bring a very interesting point here and it is this that we all write but we do not tell about it.
In this one demonstrates that one is rather shy or demure about it and therefore would rather have it quietly if you see.
Nothing wrong with quiet poetry it is the ones that make the noise that get more attention.
Only because it is characteristically louder meaning the writer is behind them is outspoken more knows how to and knows which does what. It is down to skills but it is not necessarily ingenuity.
It is very easy to get a niche of readers/poets together because of shared similarities in the way one thinks and more often then none poetry does that to people it brings them together.
However alternative poetry that is not refined correct or appears to means nothing is because more readers tend to be the ones that already trained and think in a different way from that of alternative.
I don't know if I am making sense here haha.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well I think you find a lot of people disagree hence rules and regulations about to present a piece of poetry.

I haven't found one, whether in real life or on the internet. The idea that isn't art is preposterous.

[BienvenuJDC]

Intelorance is not good either.

I can't agree with this. I am intolerant to murderers, rapists, and other kinds of activities. The problem in this society is that we are becoming tolerant of too many things.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't agree with this. I am intolerant to murderers, rapists, and other kinds of activities. The problem in this society is that we are becoming tolerant of too many things.

Like what?

[BienvenuJDC]

Like what?

I already gave a couple examples...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I meant what are we becoming too tolerant of? Society certainly isn't tolerant of murderers and rapists--those are kind of "no duh" examples, no?

[BienvenuJDC]

Now that is subjective...but one shouldn't be expected to become tolerant against their convictions just because someone else thinks that they should. I have my convictions, but I'm expected to be tolerant of others regardless of the issue.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm assuming your evading for, oh, let's say diplomatic reasons, so I'll leave it alone.

[BienvenuJDC]

It all depends on who you are. There are some things that may be the case according to my opinion, but others might have a different list.

[TenderButtons]

I voted yes, but I have to say that the questions that follow in the original post seem kind of unrelated to me.

I believe that all poets have the right to write as they please; however, it is up to some kind of audience to determine if a poet is great or not. I think the idea of an artist being able to do whatever they want and have it accepted stems from the idea of the artist having an "artistic sense" that we should trust. Actually, I believe in this idea, but find that people often abuse it to validate the work they are doing without justification and actually use this principle to blindly defend work. Often, we might hear claims such as, "Well, I'm an artist." And we might often feel this is really saying, "Well, I'm an artist, so don't question my authority." I don't mean to imply that a poet will have all the answers (or even any answers) regarding their work, but it again seems tied up with this idea of justification. So what creates this justification?

I think there are objective and subjective things we can look at that helps create this proper justification, but being justified also is caught up in how the audience receives your work. This is another area where we have a visceral reaction against—we don't like the idea that artistic license might be granted by how our work is received, and often how it is received by critics or readers. We want to say that critics and readers are either too corrupt or too stupid to accept or understand our work, and this may be true to a certain extent. But it's hard for me to personally believe that there are all these great poets in the world that are undiscovered because their acceptance is not financially or professionally advantageous to critics and publishing houses.

I think some sort of craft is present in works that we think have artistic merit. Even in very experimental work, like the poems of John Cage that were composed using chance operations, there is this justified artistic sense that is present. I know this idea will not sit well with many people—we want there to be a way that definitely shows something to have value. Unfortunately, our view of art is made up of both objective and subjective criteria.

[cacian]

I can't agree with this. I am intolerant to murderers, rapists, and other kinds of activities. The problem in this society is that we are becoming tolerant of too many things.

Sure I think we will become intolerant of each other for no reason whatsoever. Practice makes perfect.
Intolerance does not rid things away . It might do for a while but it will come back to haunt again and again. It does not go away.
There other ways of dealing with people and this to show how not to and most importantly why and then offer them an alternative.
I mentioned alternative earlier regarding poetry.
People do not like changes but I happen to like changes in places where I feel it is necessary because I see it as an opportunity for progress.
Opportunities are only because one sees something new in something that has not changed for such a long time.
We are not the same everyone is different and therefore we should expect different things from each and not the same.

[Paulclem]

People do not like changes but I happen to like changes in places where I feel it is necessary because I see it as an opportunity for progress.
Opportunities are only because one sees something new in something that has not changed for such a long time.
We are not the same everyone is different and therefore we should expect different things from each and not the same.

In what way are you applying this to poetry? There are poetic forms such as sonnets, and free verse, and a lot of experimental forms. I don't think there is so much prescription. The Haiku Society, for example, insists that Haiku submitted to them are of a particular format and contain a traditional subject. That doesn't stop me from writing Urban Haiku - and although I can't submit it to that particular society's competitions, I can enter others.

[qimissung]

True to a certain extent.
What about the pleasures one takes from writing the way one wants? doesn't that cout for something?
One must weigh out what one wants to achieve and get out of it writing at the expense of readers who do not like it.
There is a fine line there.
Everyone regardless can write poetry but not everyone understands it the way YOU understand it.
That in itself is an importance.


Colette said

“Put down everything that comes into your head and then you're a writer. But an author is one who can judge his own stuff's worth, without pity, and destroy most of it."

[cacian]

In what way are you applying this to poetry? There are poetic forms such as sonnets, and free verse, and a lot of experimental forms. I don't think there is so much prescription. The Haiku Society, for example, insists that Haiku submitted to them are of a particular format and contain a traditional subject. That doesn't stop me from writing Urban Haiku - and although I can't submit it to that particular society's competitions, I can enter others.

Hi Paul it is exactly these 'forms' that I find slow me down. I have tried all sorts of forms and yes they make a point but for me I decided I would rather sway from them. I cannot write within a tight frame of work/space/time. I like to write not knowing what I am going to achieve.
It is like the ether but in reverse. I fill up one ether with words which should lead me to another unknown/ether which I will discover as I finish a piece say.
That is the idea behind why I write. I compose because I don't know what I am going to get. I hope this makes sense.
To excite is to bequit what is known. I enjoy the unknown when I am in control of it. It is the best of both world and writing does exactly that to me.

Colette said

“Put down everything that comes into your head and then you're a writer. But an author is one who can judge his own stuff's worth, without pity, and destroy most of it."

Hi qimissung I feel I am no sure about the last words.
Destroy most of it
It got my attention.
What do you think this mean? Because I know some think destroying is art. I watched a clip of this Japanese who set up to play the piano on this beach somewhere whilst it was set on fire. Incredible stuff because it reminded me of the film the Piano.

The one thing I have to add is that I always take pity because I am not destroying something without feeling sorry for it. That is me. I care for what I write.
For this reason I must write with no destruction in mind, ie I must get better at it quicker or accept it as it till I learn to like it. I think the second option is best.
Destruction is what makes one more down more then anything else. Pessimism about what one writes stands in the way of development. Self acceptance I value more.
One must believe they are good at what they do first before they can believe others.
Just because someone says this good does not mean I am going to believe them.

[Charles Darnay]

Hi qimissung I feel I am no sure about the last words.
Destroy most of it
It got my attention.
What do you think this mean? Because I know some think destroying is art. I watched a clip of this Japanese who set up to play the piano on this beach somewhere whilst it was set on fire. Incredible stuff because it reminded me of the film the Piano.

It means that there is a distinction between just writing something and being a writer (or author).

It is fine to just write what comes to your head; this is a great way to get things going. But if you want to really focus on the "craft" than you have to accept that a good amount of what you initially write is garbage, and be willing to re-write and refine.

[JCamilo]

It only means Colette thoughts too high of the authors and too little of her writers.

[cacian]

It only means Colette thoughts too high of the authors and too little of her writers.

I think this makes more sense because there is no point in wishing in authorship if everything one does is look down on what one writes.

[hillwalker]

I think this makes more sense because there is no point in wishing in authorship if everything one does is looks on what one writes.

Did you look at this? I've no idea what you just wrote here.

H

[cacian]

Did you look at this? I've no idea what you just wrote here.

H

Oh hi hillwalker.
Thank you for letting me know. The word 'down' was missing.

[Paulclem]

Hi Paul it is exactly these 'forms' that I find slow me down. I have tried all sorts of forms and yes they make a point but for me I decided I would rather sway from them. I cannot write within a tight frame of work/space/time. I like to write not knowing what I am going to achieve.
It is like the ether but in reverse. I fill up one ether with words which should lead me to another unknown/ether which I will discover as I finish a piece say.
That is the idea behind why I write. I compose because I don't know what I am going to get. I hope this makes sense. S
To excite is to bequit what is known. I enjoy the unknown when I am in control of it. It is the best of both world and writing does exactly that to me.


Hi qimissung I feel I am no sure about the last words.
Destroy most of it
It got my attention.
What do you think this mean? Because I know some think destroying is art. I watched a clip of this Japanese who set up to play the piano on this beach somewhere whilst it was set on fire. Incredible stuff because it reminded me of the film the Piano.

The one thing I have to add is that I always take pity because I am not destroying something without feeling sorry for it. That is me. I care for what I write.
For this reason I must write with no destruction in mind, ie I must get better at it quicker and accept it as it till I learn to like it. I think the second option is best.
Because destruction is what makes one more down more then anything else and that is what I am wishing to get rid off pessimism. Self acceptance I value more.

Writing in poetic forms can be good discipline but there are lots of poets who write in free verse. The thing with forms is that they train your thoughts. With a bit of practice you can come up with sonnet length lines - 10 syllables for example.
Ithink there's a problem with relying upon inspiration alone in compoding poems. I think the successful ones are crafted - free verse or form. Of course you might be brilliant straight away, but is that your and others' experience? That's why it is good to get the opinions of others.

[MorpheusSandman]

Of course poetry is art, but I'm not sure what that question has to do with these:
If so should a poet be allowed to break the rules of conventions and write as freely as the wind?Sure, if they know why they're breaking them. Rules exist because they serve some purpose, and breaking them should serve a purpose too.


Or it is up to the reader to decide whether a poet is great or not?Readers ultimately do decide this. Can you think of any authors you only consider great because they thought they were?


]I see poetry as the creator of new fields of thinking and vision because it moves from the obvious everyday to the unusual or unthinkable.Poets create new fields of thinking? Are you sure you aren't thinking of philosophers? I can't think of any poets that created new fields of thinking.

Anyway, the idea that originality and newness is equated with "breaking the rules" is a bit of an old idea anyway. Coleridge had it right when he said "Every reform, however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess, that itself will need reforming." However, Eliot was also onto something when he spoke of originality, of the individual talent, as being more of an assimilation of tradition rather than an ignorance and denial of it. It was only through understanding tradition that the modernists were able to creatively deviate from it, and much the same could be said for all the best poets. The thing is, ignoring such rules, such tradition, usually results in the most banal and recycled sentiments, phrases, images, epithets, etc. because the poet is unaware that they're recycling received-to-the-point-of-cliche things. The more a poet digests of tradition, the more likely they are to regurgitate something that's new, different, and original because of the complex combination of those influences, as opposed to the person that ignores tradition and ignorantly churns out cliches that they don't recognize as such.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Good to see you, Morpheus.

[MorpheusSandman]

Hey, man; good to see you too. I've been lurking for a while, but mostly focusing on reading and working so I've tried to stay away from the black holes of time that are message boards. :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Haha, I understand. :nod:

[hillwalker]

Oh hi hillwalker.
Thank you for letting me know. The word 'down' was missing:
I think this makes more sense because there is no point in wishing in authorship if everything one does is look down on what one writes.

But it still makes no sense - what is 'wishing in authorship'? Do you mean there's no point trying to be a writer if all one does is look back at what one has written? If so - that suggests you never edit what you write... hang on. Now I get it.

H

[cacian]

But it still makes no sense - what is 'wishing in authorship'? Do you mean there's no point trying to be a writer if all one does is look back at what one has written? If so - that suggests you never edit what you write... hang on. Now I get it.

H

I mean that one needs to accept that all writing deemed good or bad is part of the writing experience and the more one stands for what one writes the more one makes a difference.
If we were to decline our writing because a rule said so then all writing will be so similar that one is not able to tell who is who.
I would rather write to my likings at least I know someone will know that is me regardless of what one thinks of it.
I self correct and self accept because writing is not about perfection and exactness but it is about the little imperfections that we make as we write.
Imperfections tell a story and allow us to keep coming back to the same piece until we get it right or to a certain level of what we deem to be perfect according to us and no one else's.
I write pieces all the time that I revisit more then once and I can see where I went wrong but it is not about the wrongness but it is about the ability to know where we went wrong.
The more we write and the more we perfect and the more we know that we have at least and never given up.

[Paulclem]

I mean that one needs to accept that all writing deemed good or bad is part of the writing experience and the more one stands for what one writes the more one makes a difference.
If we were to decline our writing because a rule said so then all writing will be so similar that one is not able to tell who is who.
I would rather write to my likings at least I know someone will know that is me regardless of what one thinks of it.
I self correct and self accept because writing is not about perfection and exactness but it is about the little imperfections that we make as we write.
Imperfections tell a story and allow us to keep coming back to the same piece until we get it right or to a certain level of what we deem to be perfect according to us and no one else's.
I write pieces all the time that I revisit more then once and I can see where I went wrong but it is not about the wrongness but it is about the ability to know where we went wrong.
The more we write and the more we perfect and the more we know that we have at least and never given up.

If a person's writing is for them alone, then there's no problem; they can write what they like to whatever standard.

If a person is writing for others - an audience, then they need to be aware how best to present to that audience, otherwise no-one will read more than the first bit.

the more one stands for what one writes the more one makes a difference.

This is only true if you have an audience, if the writing is of a good standard, and it is for a particular purpose.

[kelby_lake]

The poll question is a bit of a no-brainer.

As for whether poets should break the rules or not, it can lead to self-indulgence if simply done in an attempt to be clever. If they're publishing their poetry, then they ought to rid it of some of the more self-indulgent aspects that are fine when the poetry is private but not when you are publishing it. I think it would be arrogant of a poet to publish their unedited spewings.

[cacian]

Indeed kelby-lake you do raise a point.
I think the idea is that the writing process is all in the 'spewing' as you say.
That is the best bits because that is what one calls free form/thoughts without the rules and regulations.
To write for an audience that is already trained to read like a robot because let's face it we do.
We read with rules in mind and without them we are lost.
And so a writer that produces for an audience is like a picture that is being photoshoped the good bits are the ones that you do not see.
That is how I see art the before the shinning of a piece if you like.

[mounamrit]

Poetry is an art form that flows from a creative mind that is in sync with the spirit.

[cacian]

Poetry is an art form that flows from a creative mind that is in sync with the spirit.

spirit? I am wondering whether a spirit gives up when poetry comes out.
You mention creative mind. I would say one is creative only when one writes poetry. The act of writing something is art as oppose to saying nothing which is not.

[Scheherazade]

Is poetry art?Only on the days that end in "y".

[cacian]

Only on the days that end in "y".

And months too.:D

[blazeofglory]

Poetry is the outpouring of something that is convulsing within a mind. What sets apart a poet from the rest is his or her ability to give vent to the core feeling that usually remains veiled inside for want of good words and skills.

[cacian]

I agree blazeofglory poetry is potent when it is real.
Art is a piece of poetry that one that speaks with you as you ponder at the wonder of words.
Wonderful isn't it that art can allow such divine feelings.

I the poet
I art my day
and a word is clay
to a mind that may

[Delta40]

Anyway, the idea that originality and newness is equated with "breaking the rules" is a bit of an old idea anyway. Coleridge had it right when he said "Every reform, however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess, that itself will need reforming." However, Eliot was also onto something when he spoke of originality, of the individual talent, as being more of an assimilation of tradition rather than an ignorance and denial of it. It was only through understanding tradition that the modernists were able to creatively deviate from it, and much the same could be said for all the best poets. The thing is, ignoring such rules, such tradition, usually results in the most banal and recycled sentiments, phrases, images, epithets, etc. because the poet is unaware that they're recycling received-to-the-point-of-cliche things. The more a poet digests of tradition, the more likely they are to regurgitate something that's new, different, and original because of the complex combination of those influences, as opposed to the person that ignores tradition and ignorantly churns out cliches that they don't recognize as such.

Very good food for thought.

[cafolini]

I don't agree with the cliche part. Probably the only ones who were original were Adam and Eve. Kids don't have an alternative but to pickup what's available. But the part on tradition is very good. It must be understood before we can go beyond and evolve. Good point.

[cacian]

Having thought the of the reader as king for some time, I am starting to think that it is in fact language that rules the roost.

I am not so sure language rules the roost as much as the thoughts we put into it. One never knows what one is thinking.
Language however reveals some but silent words say nothing about the state of any mind.
Poetry is one way of letting out without too much perspiration on others or ourselves for that matter.

[jayat]

The reader is king, as far who is great or not, but the truth be told most of us poet's write for ourselves first and foremost, as for what defines art, well my definition, is anything of original creation that gets a reaction, be it negative or positive, indifference is the enemy,

Could you specify what you understand by "original creation"? just a new way of telling the very old subjects? Are they new ways of talking or just a walk-again-by-that-old-path and release it as it was truly and astonishingly new... Accepting that Poetry means 'personal' to me, and by the moment that is the view through which I choose (or Poems choose me as it is said, philosophically talking) J.V.Foix' rude poetry or elaborated Josep Carner with his "Trees", Joan Fuster in a more flat but not less mindly edible than the others social poetry. I feel that a stark, well-written poem discovers me. Line to line, it's like a mirror in front of my thoughts, feelings and fears. For me Poetry must be blunt, direct and nacked. i don't care if it is original or not. I really don't mind.
Yes, to sum up poetry is art and anything else than art(ifice).

[jayat]

I am not so sure language rules the roost as much as the thoughts we put into it. One never knows what one is thinking.
Language however reveals some but silent words say nothing about the state of any mind.
Poetry is one way of letting out without too much perspiration on others or ourselves for that matter.

Well, poetry is working, definitely. Show a languid face if your feelings need to do it, but write more, and read even more. Poetry it's a human activity, like any other else, which implies, all in all, ability. Making a so much effort on the desk every morning and afternoon, and sleeping at nights to recover, untill your elbows hurt and your eyes become more blurred with another diopter is a good beginning to achieve it.