Why isn't poetry popular like other arts?

[Sameer Telkar]

Poets are very hard to find in the modern world.Every great poet with the exceptions of few Blakes and Shakespeares ends up being forgotten.

[cafolini]

And Shakespeare is brought up only by old farts that cannot get rid of the Lawrence Olivier fatal complex. LOL

And obviously you know very little about Blake to be able to put it at the same level as the monkey signifying nothing.

[YesNo]

As song lyrics, poetry is very popular. Many people know the lyrics to their favorite songs by heart.

[MorpheusSandman]

It seems to me your thread title and OP are asking/saying two different things. I'll address your OP first: poets aren't hard to find at all if you're looking them. There are multiple periodicals dedicated to poetry, and even a simple search for "poetry" on Google or Amazon will reveal more than enough to keep you busy for 100 lifetimes. No "great" poets are forgotten, or, if they are, we don't know about them. All of the remembered poets (and there are plenty) are great in one respect or another. Dante, Homer, Keats, Donne, Yeats, Eliot, Milton, Virgil, Whitman, Poe, Byron, Shelley, Tennyson, Stevens, Hardy, Coleridge, Auden... these are not what I'd call "forgotten". The reason most poets are forgotten, though, is the same reason most painters, filmmakers, photographers, etc. are forgotten and that's because humans are finite and can only etch so many into the canon.

Now, your thread question of "why isn't poetry popular like other arts?" is a more difficult question to answer thoroughly. If you mean why isn't it popular like film and pop music, then the answer is simply one of fashion. However, in its lack of mass popularity, poetry shares the same place of painting, photography, and modern classical music, and I don't think that's a bad company to be in. Even novels, while more popular than poetry, aren't nearly as popular as film, pop music, and TV. If you look through history, the popular art mediums change, and the popular works they produce tend to be just as forgotten as anything else (how many of Shakespeare's contemporaries can you name? Their popular works?). However, poetry is still "popular" to a certain extent, and, as the editor of Poetry Magazine once said, they've never had as many subscribers as they do now.

[Ecurb]

I think poetry is still quite popular -- it's just that modern poetry isn't. Most educated English speakers can quote Yeats and Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Whitman, Dickinson and Eliot. I consider myself a poetry lover -- but I probably can't quote any poetry from the last 30 years (well, maybe a Merwin verse or two).

I'm not sure why -- perhaps lyric poetry has been replaced by other media (recorded music, for one). Or maybe current trends in poetry just aren't very accessible. Symphonic music is similar: most of us know Mozart and Beethoven and Stravinski. But can you hum any orchestral tunes composed within the last 30 years?

[Lokasenna]

Perhaps I'm in my ivory tower, but I've got loads of friends who are interested in poetry, both in terms of consumption and composition. There always seems to be something going on with modern poetry for them. Not my cup of tea, I must admit - I usually shuffle back a few decades/centuries - but from my persepctive I'd say poetry is booming. It's certainly true to say there are more published poets living now than there has ever been.

[Charles Darnay]

You'll rarely find poets in the gossip magazines and other such tabloids. They don't have paparazzi at their door at the time (most of them) - but this doesn't mean that poetry is a dead form of art. There is always new poetry to discover and successful poets have a great place now. If all you can name is Shakespeare and Blake, then you need to dig deeper into the world of poetry. Discover your local talent - wherever you are, there is some I'm sure.

[MorpheusSandman]

I probably can't quote any poetry from the last 30 years (well, maybe a Merwin verse or two). One reason for this is the lack of meter and rhyme, which made classic poetry much more memorable (in the literal sense of the word; those endless couplets are why a poet like Pope is endlessly quotable). On the other hand, the last poem I memorized comes (almost) from the last 30 years (I'm going to type it out by hand since I can't find any online sources to copy/paste, so I might get the punctuation or a word or two wrong):

Hourglass (II) by James Merill

Dear, at death's door when you stand
I will run to let you in,
You will know me by my grin
And the joints of this right hand.

You will follow unafraid,
As one seldom does in life,
I will say to Pluto's wife,
"Please your majesty, this shade's

My friend's who always kept your spring,
Taught me how to wear your green,
Twenty winters intervene,
Yet I glow remembering."

She will then unlock a chest,
Shake our senses out like robes,
Fine and warm to naked ribs,
Make a sign when we are dressed

For one hour in which we fill
With ten thousand joys and pains,
Then, reversed, the burning grains
Back through her transparent will

Drain, and the robes are blown apart,
Two more bat shapes in a cave
Little dreaming how they have
Blessed each other heart to heart.

[stlukesguild]

Number One- Ignore the troll.

Number Two- How is poetry any less known than any other art form... excluding the popular arts? How many living painters or sculptors can you name? How many contemporary composers?

Number Three- It seems to me that the finest artists and art works in any art form or genre are of abiding importance to those who value that given art form. If you love poetry... or even literature as a whole... you will likely know of quite a few poets beyond Shakespeare and Blake.

[MementoMori]

Is it not arguable that poetry, or even the humanities in general, were at least more respected in the past? It was not too long ago that Literae Humaniores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literae_Humaniores#Famous_Alumni) was the degree of choice for young gentlemen in Britain, especially those wanting to go into politics or civil service. Now it's largely considered irrelevant and 'soft'.

[cacian]

poetry stands hardly a chance because it is over taken by the monumental tasks of books in production over the years .
what one can say in two words is now taken a whole book to do so which means one takes longer to finish a book especially trilogies or one written in series. reading then becomes a task because one never has time to retire to poetry as a form of relaxation. the other thing is media which prolongs the agony or light whichever you feel about it books being turned into films.education also takes up a role in elaborating and widening innuendos and insignia of books for books and so really poetry stands practically no room in people's lives.

[Lokasenna]

poetry stands hardly a chance because it is over taken by the monumental tasks of books in production over the years .
what one can say in two words is now taken a whole book to do so which means one takes longer to finish a book especially trilogies or one written in series. reading then becomes a task because one never has time to retire to poetry as a form of relaxation. the other thing is media which prolongs the agony or light whichever you feel about it . then there is media books being turned into books .education also takes up a role in elaborating and widening innuendos and insignia of books for books and so really poetry stands practically no room in people's lives.

I don't think that the argument that people are distracted from reading poetry by the existence of over-long novels is justifiable. There have always been titanic works of literature, and poetry has always been popular. If people want to read a novel, they read a novel; if they want to read poetry, they read poetry. The existence of one does not preclude the other. I read poetry for pleasure very frequently, and often in the midst of reading longer prose works.

[Sameer Telkar]

What I meant to ask was,why isn't Poetry popular in the modern world?It was certainly popular in the 16th and 17th century when we had great poets like Tennyson,Keats and Shirley.Poetry was encouraged at that time.Today only traditional poets are quoted.Name one poet of 20th century who was as much of popular as those three.Everybody only talks of movies,music,animation etc.That's why I think,the art of poetry is dying.This may be because Poetry is difficult to understand and you can't get it in first read.Also the society of the 16th and 17th century was more spiritual,now its more materialistic and materialism means lack of time.

Poetry doesn't have the mainstream appeal like photography and painting.Every now and then there is a painting exhibition.Have you ever heard of a poetry exhibition?

[cacian]

What I meant to ask was,why isn't Poetry popular in the modern world?It was certainly popular in the 16th and 17th century when we had great poets like Tennyson,Keats and Shirley.Poetry was encouraged at that time.Today only traditional poets are quoted.Name one poet of 20th century who was as much of popular as those three.Everybody only talks of movies,music,animation etc.That's why I think,the art of poetry is dying.This may be because Poetry is difficult to understand and you can't get it in first read.Also the society of the 16th and 17th century was more spiritual,now its more materialistic and materialism means lack of time.

poetry does not make a film a book does. it works that way because media needs its feeds popularity and contingency. money is all this and a book is all that. a poet is a mere figment of the imagination because it takes no longer then two to three lines to fill whereas a book manages pages of it which requires time. the longer the book the less memory and the less memory means more words to produce. poetry however takes less words but more room to think and hardly any to turn into a catalogue of images and media sponsors.

[Lokasenna]

What I meant to ask was,why isn't Poetry popular in the modern world?It was certainly popular in the 16th and 17th century when we had great poets like Tennyson,Keats and Shirley.Poetry was encouraged at that time.Today only traditional poets are quoted.Name one poet of 20th century who was as much of popular as those three.Everybody only talks of movies,music,animation etc.That's why I think,the art of poetry is dying.This may be because Poetry is difficult to understand and you can't get it in first read.Also the society of the 16th and 17th century was more spiritual,now its more materialistic and materialism means lack of time.

I assume you mean Shelley, not Shirley, there...

As for the 20th century, well, how about T. S. Eliot, Philip Larkin, Dylan Thomas, W. B. Yeats (sort of), W. H. Auden, J. L. Borges, Pablo Neruda, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams? Those are names that all spring readily to mind, and some of them are easily as popular as those you mention.

[Shaman_Raman]

poetry does not make a film a book does. it works that way because media needs its feeds popularity and contingency. money is all this and a book is all that. a poet is a mere figment of the imagination because it takes no longer then two to three lines to fill whereas a book manages pages of it which requires time. the longer the book the less memory and the less memory means more words to produce. poetry however takes less words but more room to think and hardly any to turn into a catalogue of images and media sponsors.

I agree that novels constantly inspire films. But I don't think it's done always out of some shallow get rich quick intention. As for poetry, I think it just as much has the potential for giving feelings and ideas to people, which can be converted to one or a thousand images. Who's to say a films never been inspired by a poem? Or a novel or short story for that matter?

Can't say I have an example on stand by. Does anyone know of any poetic work inspiring other mediums of art?

[Sameer Telkar]

I assume you mean Shelley, not Shirley, there...

As for the 20th century, well, how about T. S. Eliot, Philip Larkin, Dylan Thomas, W. B. Yeats (sort of), W. H. Auden, J. L. Borges, Pablo Neruda, Sylvia Plath, William Carlos Williams? Those are names that all spring readily to mind, and some of them are easily as popular as those you mention.
Actually I meant James Shirley.Sorry if I said something wrong,I am a newbie to poetry.I can see that some of the poets of the 19th century were indeed popular.I can see that T.S. Eliot and Yeats were popular.Also Yeats began to write in the 19th century.The rest you mentioned including Dylan Thomas,are only popular in the west or only amongst poets?Are their works included in high school syllabus?or are they known to society?I think one major limitation of poetry is that it can't evolve,like painting evolved to animation,novels/short stories evolved into films.Also don't you notice a general trend of decline in the popularity of poetry over the years?

[MorpheusSandman]

Is it not arguable that poetry, or even the humanities in general, were at least more respected in the past? I guess it depends on what you mean by "respected;" One major thing that's taken place since the 19th century is the increase in literacy and globalization, both of which has affected poetry. The former affected it because it was no longer the elite that could write, publish, and patronize poetry. So there was, once upon a time, the perception that writing poetry was a much more elitist, difficult, even divine task than it does now. It would be more difficult to get into globalization's affect on poetry, but let's just say it meant the end for a lot of the "nationalist" poetics that was such a huge part of poetry for so long. If you'll notice, poetry tends to be most popular in developing countries that need a national, representative voice, and when you're already an established country already economically connected with others, a lot of that need disappears.


I don't think that the argument that people are distracted from reading poetry by the existence of over-long novels is justifiable. There have always been titanic works of literature, and poetry has always been popular.While novels have been around for a long time they didn't attain to the level of poetry's popularity until roughly the 19th century.


What I meant to ask was,why isn't Poetry popular in the modern world?It was certainly popular in the 16th and 17th century when we had great poets like Tennyson,Keats and Shirley.Poetry was encouraged at that time.Today only traditional poets are quoted.Name one poet of 20th century who was as much of popular as those three.Everybody only talks of movies,music,animation etc.That's why I think,the art of poetry is dying.This may be because Poetry is difficult to understand and you can't get it in first read.Also the society of the 16th and 17th century was more spiritual,now its more materialistic and materialism means lack of time.I think Luke and I addressed most of this in our posts. In the 16th and 17th centuries poetry didn't have to compete with film, TV, video games, the internet, and novels (at least, not nearly as much). Poetry was only "encouraged" in that time amongst the elitists and patrons that could read and write to begin with, so it was just a pastime (for the most part) like anything else. As I said in my last post, what people talk about is merely fashion, and fashions change; I think poetry has survived long enough to say it's not a fashion, and it will survive the modern popular fashions as well. As for popular 20th century poets, you have Eliot, Yeats (yes, he wrote in the 19th century, but most of his most popular work is from the 20th), WC Williams, Thomas, Stevens, et al. More people have probably memorized Red Wheelbarrow than just about anything else. I don't know what you think societies being more "spiritual" has to do with poetry at all (its popularity or otherwise). It's not as if all the great poets were spiritual to begin with, or wrote primarily about spiritual matters. Probably the best devotional poet was George Herbert, and it's not like everyone can rattle off Herbert quotes.


Poetry doesn't have the mainstream appeal like photography and painting.Every now and then there is a painting exhibition.Have you ever heard of a poetry exhibition?Painting and photography have exhibits that are attended by a few select enthusiasts, no differently than how poetry has slams, meetings, readings, etc. that are attended by a few select enthusiasts. You can't "exhibit" poetry, nor could you ever do so, so that argument seems positively asinine.


The rest you mentioned including Dylan Thomas,are only popular in the west or only amongst poets?Are their works included in high school syllabus?or are they known to society?I think one major limitation of poetry is that it can't evolve,like painting evolved to animation,novels/short stories evolved into films.Also don't you notice a general trend of decline in the popularity of poetry over the years?I think everyone with even passing experience in poetry (in school or otherwise) would know of Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night." As to whether it's included in any syllabus, it would probably depend on the school. I heard it quoted in movies and TV before I ever encountered it in print. I don't know what you mean that poetry "can't evolve." Painting didn't evolve into animation, and novels/short stories didn't evolve into film. The invention of new technology (mainly, the invention of photography and, eventually, moving photography) created both mediums. Sure, those mediums borrow from painting and novels, but they also borrow from poetry, and plenty of filmmakers have been more influenced by poetry than anything else (Brakhage and Cocteau come to mind).

[cafolini]

Good points, Sandman.

[cacian]

Poetry doesn't have the mainstream appeal like photography and painting.Every now and then there is a painting exhibition.Have you ever heard of a poetry exhibition?

no but you could always start one if you like who is to stop you? :)

[JCamilo]

There is poetry exibitions in every library. The books are all there...

Prose was more suitable for mainstream everyday reading when in the XIX century the literacy of population increased. It goes on newspapers, magazines, etc. That is all.

By the way, it is not so easy to measure the popularity of poets when 20% of population could read. When the majority of population narratives were oral, poetic forms could be more suited but even so, one could argue, the narratives in "oral prose" were possibly more popular. Some anedoctes seems to imply Ariosto or Dante had fame enough to have his poems sung by illiterate people but they didnt had the impact of Dom Quixote, that was spreed like crazy when released.

[Lokasenna]

Actually I meant James Shirley.Sorry if I said something wrong,I am a newbie to poetry.I can see that some of the poets of the 19th century were indeed popular.I can see that T.S. Eliot and Yeats were popular.Also Yeats began to write in the 19th century.The rest you mentioned including Dylan Thomas,are only popular in the west or only amongst poets?Are their works included in high school syllabus?or are they known to society?I think one major limitation of poetry is that it can't evolve,like painting evolved to animation,novels/short stories evolved into films.Also don't you notice a general trend of decline in the popularity of poetry over the years?

No need to apologize - it's an interesting debate! Well, I would argue that James Shirly is a relatively obscure figure - hence why I had assumed you had just made a typo for Shelley. I would suggest that the ones I mentioned eclipse him entirely. And I would think that their popularity is probably not limited to a purely western audience, or amongst poets. There are of course certain national poets who are very popular in their own country (Dylan Thomas is very popular in my homeland, though he does have a significant profile internationally); I might have listed John Betjeman, but whilst a great many British people could quote some snatches of his poetry he is probably much less well known outside the UK.

[stlukesguild]

Is it not arguable that poetry, or even the humanities in general, were at least more respected in the past? It was not too long ago that Literae Humaniores was the degree of choice for young gentlemen in Britain, especially those wanting to go into politics or civil service. Now it's largely considered irrelevant and 'soft'.

It's arguable... but not supported by fact. What we deem the "fine arts" and "humanities" have long been the preserve of a predominantly wealthy elite. The peasants in the Renaissance weren't reading Dante, discussing Michelangelo and Raphael, and attending performances of Gesualdo and Monteverdi. With the development of mass-production techniques (the Gutenberg press, sound recording, the camera, etc...) as well as the increase in "free time" and expendable income there followed an increase in literacy and a greater demand for the arts as entertainment. Still... the appreciation of the "fine arts" remains an "elitist" endeavor... but it is an "elitism" of choice not birth and wealth. Those who elect to put forth a great deal of time, effort... and even income in the study, appreciation, promotion, and preservation of any given art form remain a small percentage of the populace as a whole. In spite of this, the number of individuals reading Dante or listening to Mozart or studying Michelangelo today is far larger than it was during the lifetime of any of these artists.

What I meant to ask was,why isn't Poetry popular in the modern world?It was certainly popular in the 16th and 17th century when we had great poets like Tennyson,Keats and Shirley.Poetry was encouraged at that time.

I would be interested in where you got your facts to support this notion. As I recall, Keats' premature death has generally been ascribed (in part) to negative criticism. By the way... Keats and Tennyson lived in the 19th century, and Shirley was a dramatist... and "surely" no where near the finest of the era.

Poetry doesn't have the mainstream appeal like photography and painting.

Mainstream appeal? Really? Somehow as an artist I've missed out on this mass audience that exist hungry for paintings.

Every now and then there is a painting exhibition.Have you ever heard of a poetry exhibition?

Every now and then you hear of a poetry reading or the publication of a new collection of poetry by a given writer. I've rarely heard of such for a painter.

[OrphanPip]

Poetry's popularity as a commercially viable artform actually peaked in the Victorian era. The explosion of periodicals and news papers during the period also created new spaces for poetry, every periodical serializing the latest Dickens or Trollope was also publishing poems in the same editions. Poetry anthologies were also significantly popular during the period. Tennyson was immensely popular and he was a household name on both sides of the Atlantic. Prior to the 19th century the popularity of certain poets is harder to assess. Publishing books of poetry was a difficult undertaking because of the relatively higher cost of printing in the period. Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads only sold roughly 100 copies, and this was considered to be a massive success in terms of poetry.

[JCamilo]

Yes, but what was commercial in XIX century is not like today, it could not imply a massive success, even if The Raven was a succes for a poem, it did not make Poe life a blast. Anyways, there was a list of poets who were quite popular even if not exactly best-sellers. Byron, Walter Scott, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Longfellow but I dunno how he measure to "Other arts" considering literature is alongside cinema and music the most suited for mass media.

[Sameer Telkar]

Mainstream appeal? Really? Somehow as an artist I've missed out on this mass audience that exist hungry for paintings.
Overtime painting has evolved into animation.Painters enjoy opportunities in animes and mangas unlike poets.

By the way... Keats and Tennyson lived in the 19th century
Yeah sorry for that error.




Every now and then you hear of a poetry reading or the publication of a new collection of poetry by a given writer. I've rarely heard of such for a painter.
Sandman was right,we cannot exhibit poetry.Poetry reading is very rare and may be only popular in the west.

[MorpheusSandman]

Painting didn't "evolve" into animation... that's got to be one of the weirdest claims I've ever read, especially since the art of painting and animation are entirely different; and poets most certainly have the opportunity to, eg, write screenplays or stage plays or novels in order to make money. They can also (as most do) turn to teaching poetry.

Also, poetry readings aren't rare at all if you know where to go. Most every poet publishing with major publishers get booked to do readings, and there are more informal ones everywhere. Poetry slams, eg, have become quite popular in the US.

[mortalterror]

I think that literature is as popular as visual arts or music, but poetry is just one part of literature like sculpture is just one part of visual arts. Thus the question becomes, "Why isn't poetry as popular as prose" and the answer is simple: education. A child's education in literature consists largely of prose novels and short stories and we now spend less time learning to read and write poetry, because those skills have less crossover into useful career skills. Functional prose can help a person navigate the business world, surf the web, or read directions and modern education focuses on utility and practical life skills.

[stlukesguild]

Overtime painting has evolved into animation.Painters enjoy opportunities in animes and mangas unlike poets.

As MorpheusSandman suggested, this is without a doubt one of the weirdest claims I've ever heard concerning painting. I am a painter and my work most certainly has not evolved into animation or anime. Animation and anime are but one sub-category of the visual arts... more specifically one sub-category of the largely commercial aspect of the visual arts. You might as well suggest that poetry has evolved into writing lyrics for pop music, blurbs for Hallmark cards, TV commercials, or screenplays for TV sitcoms.

Painting is an art form that is very much alive... but like most art forms outside of those supported by popular culture and the mass-media, even the finest practitioners are largely unknown outside of the circle of those who are well informed painting lovers. By the same token... as a poetry lover I can easily rattle of a list of poets of real merit who have been active over the last 50 years.

Sandman was right,we cannot exhibit poetry.Poetry reading is very rare and may be only popular in the west.

Poetry is rarely "exhibited" in the manner of art... because it is not a visual art form. Rather, it is published... or read as part of poetry readings, discussion groups, etc...

[mortalterror]

I agree that novels constantly inspire films. But I don't think it's done always out of some shallow get rich quick intention. As for poetry, I think it just as much has the potential for giving feelings and ideas to people, which can be converted to one or a thousand images. Who's to say a films never been inspired by a poem? Or a novel or short story for that matter?

Can't say I have an example on stand by. Does anyone know of any poetic work inspiring other mediums of art?

I know that Beowulf, El Cid, Troy, Jabberwocky, and Gunga Din were definitely inspired by poems. Paintings inspired by poems, didn't StLukesGuild do a thread on that once? There must be thousands. Dore's illustrations of The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Orlando Furioso, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Raven, and Idylls of the King spring to mind. Besides their titles, I know there have been a few novels inspired by poems. Stephen King's Dark Tower series was inspired by Robert Browning's Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came.

[Ecurb]

More films inspired by poems: "Howl", "Man from Snowy River", "Braveheart", and "Under Milkwood".

The movie Gunga Din wasn't much like the poem, but it was a great movie, is you can ignore the '30s era racism.

[MorpheusSandman]

All of Stan Brakhage's films have been inspired by his love for poetry. He's said in interviews that his experiments in film come from his wish to create a poetry of film after his failure at being a poet in print.

[Pierre Menard]

Tarkovsky's films also contain quite a lot of poetic influence.

[MorpheusSandman]

Tarkovsky's films also contain quite a lot of poetic influence.Can't believe I forgot him! It especially makes sense considering his father one of the great 20th Century Russian poets.

[Shaman_Raman]

It appears the argument that poetry is out of style has pretty much been squished, lol. However, the OP gave a valid point, that older poets seem to be held in a much higher regard than modern ones. But looking at any form of art, I'd say this is true, whether it's paintings, novels, films..."To Kill a Mockingbird" is considered one of the best novels and films ever, and I'm not really sure as to why. "The Great Gatsby" is another one of those, which I wasn't really too fond of the novel, but Fitzgerald is still being praised for his genius. But what movies or novels written recently have been put up in the category with those that are old? I don't see any modern film replacing "Gone with the Wind" anytime soon, if ever.

It's like antiques. Humans spent so much time making new things over and over, but now we collect old things and place higher value on them.

[MorpheusSandman]

But what movies or novels written recently have been put up in the category with those that are old? I don't know about novels, but Mulholland Drive and In the Mood for Love have already cracked TSP's Top 100, (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm) both quite a bit ahead of Gone with the Wind. I actually agree MD is better (it's been in my top 10 since I first saw it), but I think ITMFL is terribly overrated. Yi Yi (at 168) is far superior.

In general, though, your point is valid; it takes time for novels, films, poems/poets to enter the canon. It's very rarely instantaneous. I'd still claim, though, that there are several modern poets that certain readers and critics would hold up to the best older ones.

[mortalterror]

It appears the argument that poetry is out of style has pretty much been squished, lol. However, the OP gave a valid point, that older poets seem to be held in a much higher regard than modern ones. But looking at any form of art, I'd say this is true, whether it's paintings, novels, films..."To Kill a Mockingbird" is considered one of the best novels and films ever, and I'm not really sure as to why. "The Great Gatsby" is another one of those, which I wasn't really too fond of the novel, but Fitzgerald is still being praised for his genius. But what movies or novels written recently have been put up in the category with those that are old? I don't see any modern film replacing "Gone with the Wind" anytime soon, if ever.

It's like antiques. Humans spent so much time making new things over and over, but now we collect old things and place higher value on them.

While Gone With the Wind is probably about the fifth greatest film of all time, there are recent additions that compare. For instance, Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, and Goodfellas are as good. Of the really recent batch there are a number of great films.

2012 Cloud Atlas, The Hobbit, Django Unchained
2011 The Tree of Life, Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale
2010 I Saw The Devil, Inception, The Yellow Sea
2009 The Secret in Their Eyes
2008 The Good The Bad The Weird, In Bruges, John Adams
2007 No Country For Old Men, The Man From Earth
2006 Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, The Fountain, Curse of the Golden Flower
2005 Serenity
2004 Downfall, The Aviator, Tai Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War,
2003 Master and Commander, LOTR Return of the King, Oldboy, The Best of Youth, The Fog of War
2002 Infernal Affairs, City of God, Bowling For Columbine, 28 Days Later, LOTR: The Two Towers, Hero, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance,
2001 Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Band of Brothers, The Devil's Backbone, Black Hawk Down, Spirited Away, Amelie, A Beautiful Mind, Training Day
2000 Battle Royale, Memento, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Requiem For a Dream, Traffic

And the best of the last decade is probably Pan's Labyrinth. People are going to remember that one for a long time.

I could tell from the first chapter that Cloud Atlas was going to be a classic, and it's been on my list of books to read for what seems like forever. I almost didn't see the movie last year because I wanted to read the book first, but I'm glad I did. Best movie of the year. I'm sure the book is even better. As for other novels, while I didn't really love Blood Meridian, enough smart people have gone against me that I'm probably wrong. That was published in '85. My Name is Red by Orham Pamuk 1998, really liked what I've read. Pretty much anything by Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Haruki Murakami is going to be a classic. I've been hearing nice things about Infinite Jest since I was in college. 2666 by Roberto Bolano was written in 2004 like Cloud Atlas and that's supposed to be really really good. We've definitely got a few new guys muscling into the canon.

Stelios Faitakis, Michael Triegel, Gottfried Helnwein, and Odd Nerdrum are going to be in the painting canon eventually for their recent work. Depending how their careers go Sterling Hundley and James Jean might do something interesting too. But for classical music and poetry I'm almost completely in the dark about new and emerging talents. I hear names from time to time but they are usually garbage when I check them out. I sort of like Steve Reich but the last thing I heard which I'm sure is a classic was Symphony of Sorrowful Songs by Gorecki written in '76.

[Ecurb]

"The Hobbit"? Surely you jest. It's one of the worst movies I've actually gone to a theater to see. (I'll grant that a taste for long, boring battle scenes might lead one to admire both "The Hobbit" and "Django Unchained".) "Gone with the Wind" isn't a great movie artistically, but it's the definitive "studio" movie -- a blockbuster novel turned into a reverent souffle with all the trimmings: handsome casting, dramatic music, historical drama, and all of those sunsets to frame the pretty pictures.

As far as poetry I've memorized from the last 60 years -- I probably know three or four Tolkien poems by heart -- but I wasn't counting them, for some reason, perhaps because they don't qualify as great poetry (althugh they're fun). "One ring to rule them all....."

[Shaman_Raman]

This link fits the LOTR arguement best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKbyWSwd7hk

I guess in the end, it doesn't really matter a whole lot what ranks ahead of what. Any unpopular piece of art will have someone out there that thoroughly enjoyed it. And the opposite...Citizen Kane? Really? Was never too moved from that one.

[MorpheusSandman]

"Gone with the Wind" isn't a great movie artistically, but it's the definitive "studio" movie I don't agree with either of these statements... though it probably depends on what you mean by "artistic." As for "definitive 'studio' movie," I don't even know how you'd begin to define such a thing... I mean, it's the studio system working on the grandest scale, but is it any more definitive than, say, The Wizard of Oz or Metropolis or Rear Window or Citizen Kane or...

[Sameer Telkar]

I see painting hasn't evolved into animation but one needs painting skills to learn animation.So painters enjoy opportunities in animation.

[MorpheusSandman]

I see painting hasn't evolved into animation but one needs painting skills to learn animation.No, again; the two are just completely different arts that don't use the same tools (canvass VS paper, paintbrushes VS pencils), or the same techniques. There are a few similarities that apply, but those similarities are shared in all of the visual arts (including photography).

[astrum]

Is it not arguable that poetry, or even the humanities in general, were at least more respected in the past? It was not too long ago that Literae Humaniores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literae_Humaniores#Famous_Alumni) was the degree of choice for young gentlemen in Britain, especially those wanting to go into politics or civil service. Now it's largely considered irrelevant and 'soft'.

I wonder if current trends in grade inflation played a role?

[tonywalt]

Part of the reason for the boom in poetry consumption is the internet. The last few presidential inaugurations, and the tradition is likely to stick even with a change in party, have had well known poets read. This year it was Richard Blanco with "One Today".

[Nick Capozzoli]

As song lyrics, poetry is very popular. Many people know the lyrics to their favorite songs by heart.

Excellent point, and true!

The perennial popularity of song indicates a natural human fascination for words combined with music. Music unassociated with words has also always been popular. This includes purely instrumental music, vocal music without formed words (e.g. humming a tune), and music associated with dance (with or without song).

Pound said that poetry withers the farther it gets from music, and music withers the farther it gets from dance. I guess that means he felt that the basic impulse for all art is dance (including painting, sculpture, and architecture)... You may or may not agree, but it is an interesting idea.

There may be a kind of hierarchy of art forms, in terms of their immediate "attractiveness" to an audience. As regards aural art, it does seem that a catchy tune or rhythm engages listeners quite easily, and thus become "popular." Words associated with such musical accompaniment (i.e. song lyrics) benefit from this association. In part because of this association they become "memorable." Think of the various advertising "jingles" you can't seem to get out of your head. "Call Roto-Router, that's the name, and away go troubles down the drain. Roto-Router!" etc... Modern advertising copywriters are, in a sense, consummate poets. They may not get much academic recognition, but at least they are well paid... e.e. cummings did write fine poetry incorporating advertising jingles.

But we are not talking about successful advertising jingles or popular song lyrics, both of which are by definition "popular." We are talking about "pure" poetry and whether or not it is or can be "popular."

I think a reasonable answer is that such poetry can be popular if it is "memorable" in much the same way that advertising jingles and song lyrics become memorable.

[YesNo]

Pound said that poetry withers the farther it gets from music, and music withers the farther it gets from dance.

Pound said that? I thought he was one of those "imagists".

[Jassy Melson]

I think it's undeniable that before the advent of media such as TV, radio, film, and the mass printing of paperbacks, that poetry was more popular with the reading public. The nineteenth century abounded with popular poets such as Byron, Wordsworth, Tennyson and the Brownings. The advent of mass media has caused poetry to decline in popularity. Why this is so remains somewhat of a mystery.

[AuntShecky]

You're absolutely right-- poetry is not popular.

But it's true only if you make a distinction between reading and writing poetry, the latter much more prevalent than the former. Of course, there may be some disagreement over whether the disjointed, abstract, intensely "personal," drippingly earnest, grammatically questionable, and often incoherent scribbles set down in millions of spiral notebooks and online pages can indeed be called "poetry."

[Nick Capozzoli]

Poetry doesn't have the mainstream appeal like photography and painting.Every now and then there is a painting exhibition.Have you ever heard of a poetry exhibition?

I think they are called "slams." I recall going to a few of them a few years ago. They were held at a coffee house on Clay and Carl in SF. Don't know if they still have this kind of "exhibition." There are also lots of poetry readings with one or more poets, hosted by bookstores. These sometimes resemble gallery exhibitions of photos and paintings in that they offer books and CD's for sale... Ditto for "book signings."


I think that literature is as popular as visual arts or music, but poetry is just one part of literature like sculpture is just one part of visual arts. Thus the question becomes, "Why isn't poetry as popular as prose" and the answer is simple: education. A child's education in literature consists largely of prose novels and short stories and we now spend less time learning to read and write poetry, because those skills have less crossover into useful career skills. Functional prose can help a person navigate the business world, surf the web, or read directions and modern education focuses on utility and practical life skills.

Actually the earliest literary "education" involves learning and reciting nursery rhymes. Even before that we start them on the path to linguistic mastery by exposing them to sing-songy cooing, babbling, and baby talk, all of which is more melodic and rhythmic than meaningful. This seems to be the way its done across cultures. I'd guess the music varies according to the sounds of the adult language, but I'm not sure...If it hasn't been studied it would make for an interesting PhD thesis. Anyhow, this does suggest that our earliest linguistic and "literary" experiences are closer to song and poetry than to prose.

[hypatia_]

i've noticed in my schooling thus far that people simply don't read as much anymore, thus their understanding of poetry will suffer. if they can't understand the expression, they'll quit pretty quick.

[JCamilo]

Actually the earliest literary "education" involves learning and reciting nursery rhymes. Even before that we start them on the path to linguistic mastery by exposing them to sing-songy cooing, babbling, and baby talk, all of which is more melodic and rhythmic than meaningful. This seems to be the way its done across cultures. I'd guess the music varies according to the sounds of the adult language, but I'm not sure...If it hasn't been studied it would make for an interesting PhD thesis. Anyhow, this does suggest that our earliest linguistic and "literary" experiences are closer to song and poetry than to prose.

It suggest the earlier education is oral and not written. But as soon you get in school and reading is taugth there is a strong tendency to prose, which is also the most common form of reading in the addult world for quite a while

[osho]

Poetry is very popular in fact more popular than the rest of other disciplines since humans beings have been reading poems since they could not even write. One generation passed down it to another audibly and earlier on people had a wonderful memory and they just rote memorized books.

I know communities wherein people still have a tradition of passing down poetry from one generation to another orally.

[seaofmilktea]

One contibuting reason might be that poety collections aren't well stocked in book shops. Also, people don't think they 'get' poetry. If none of the people around you read poetry, it's unlikely that you'd suddenly decide to try it unless you have a great lit teacher or syllabus.


By the way, Pan's Labyrinth was good, but I wouldn't say it was great. I'm kind of interested in the Spanish Civil War myself, but sadly I've only read For Whom The Bell Tolls and watches two other films about it ( 13 Roses and Las Lenguas De Las Mariposas. Don't quite remember the titles)

[WICKES]

You're absolutely right-- poetry is not popular.

But it's true only if you make a distinction between reading and writing poetry, the latter much more prevalent than the former. Of course, there may be some disagreement over whether the disjointed, abstract, intensely "personal," drippingly earnest, grammatically questionable, and often incoherent scribbles set down in millions of spiral notebooks and online pages can indeed be called "poetry."

That's a very good point. Carol Ann Duffy, the English-British poet laureate, said recently that she is sick of people presenting her with their poems and then proudly informing her that they write poetry rather than read it. The works of such people are always, she says, worthless. Stephen Fry has also been very critical of amateur poets. He believes everyone has poetry in them, but that virtually no-one realizes just how much time, effort and above all discipline is required to produce good poetry- or even poetry that is readable. Poetry, he says, is not about pouring out your angst all over the page, that's a modern, romantic view (which also no doubt has a lot to do with the therapy/ TV confessional age in which we live). Real poetry comes from deep thought and emotion which is then controlled and channelled. It is a craft to be learnt and worked on.

Maybe poetry is unpopular because the 'great poets' of the last 100 years, in the English-speaking cultures at least, have often been difficult. I guess the most famous and important poet who wrote in English in the 20th century was T S Eliot. Now he is difficult. Any ordinary reader who is curious about poetry and picks up The Wasteland or The Four Quartets is going to think "Christ, poetry is not for me". That wasn't the case in the 19th and 18th century. Any reasonably intelligent person could understand Tennyson's In Memorium or Wordsworth's Prelude. The other problem is that poetry, even relatively easy poetry like that of Larkin or Betjeman, is still more demanding than watching TV or playing computer games. It's also taught very badly (at least here in the UK). Children should be taught to appreciate rhythm, and this can only be done if poetry is read aloud to them, and by them, every day.

Maybe poetry is more popular in countries like France and Italy. The 'English-speaking peoples' have a deep suspicion of art and a tendency to regard poetry as effeminate. I live in England and I'd never admit to loving poetry. I have to keep my interest hidden like some shameful secret, which is kind of depressing when you live in the land that produced Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Blake and Keats. I know that wouldn't be the case if I moved to Paris. Perhaps the best living British poet, Geoffrey Hill, is virtually unknown here. I have never once seen him interviewed and can't ever remember seeing a documentary on him.

[MorpheusSandman]

The other problem is that poetry, even relatively easy poetry like that of Larkin or Betjeman, is still more demanding than watching TV or playing computer games. I'm usually cautious about making such generalized claims like this. What poetry demands of us is merely different than what TV, films, and video games demand of us. I think the problem here is more one of preconceptions regarding these mediums. Most people look at language as little more than a "message delivery system," a means for communicating coherent thoughts, needs, wants, desires, etc. Poetry, however, brings a certain aesthetic experience to language that is similar to the experience of listening to music (ie, one can enjoy the experience without being concerned with "meaning"). The fact that poetry often subverts the "language as coherent message delivery system" paradigm is why, I think, many find it difficult. I mean, video games are designed to be a difficult challenge, but because gamers expect to be challenged they are more prepared to engage the problem solving portions of their brain when playing games. Similarly, films/TV employs a kind of visual semiotics that I think people have acclimated to it, so there is a more intuitive understanding of how it functions now that's (only rarely) subverted; but even then, most viewers tend to be blind to a lot of nuances and subtleties in the best films/TV (put another way; the average viewer both perfectly comprehends a Hitchcock film, and simultaneously doesn't understand anything). Really, I find children respond best to poetry as they do seem innately more capable of appreciating language as a medium of rhythm, sound, even melody. It reminds me of Kubrick once saying that children understood 2001: A Space Odyssey better than adults, as children were more capable of appreciating film as an aesthetic medium, rather than having to be fed a comprehensible story with an easily digestible meaning.

[virtuoso]

Poetry is a vapid, vain exercise today. The elites write for their fellow scholars. They deconstruct each others strerile verses. Modern poetry does not appeal to the masses, and the scholarly community doesn't care. Why should I care?

[Pierre Menard]

Poetry is a vapid, vain exercise today. The elites write for their fellow scholars. They deconstruct each others strerile verses. Modern poetry does not appeal to the masses, and the scholarly community doesn't care. Why should I care?

What masses? As in, purely in number form? The greatest poets of all time weren't read by the majority of society...today is no different. Why does one have to appeal to the masses anyway? Who are the elites? What scholars are they writing for? And who is deconstructing whose poetry?

I'd agree that poetry today is in a somewhat average shape...but your post seems rather lacking in any in-depth thought or analysis as to why.

[WICKES]

The sad thing is that poetry is so natural to humans, yet many regard it as some kind of specialist art form open only to those who've studied literature at University. I once heard a professor say that most of his students assumed all cultures began by writing prose and, later, as they grew more sophisticated, developed poetry. In fact, he said, prose is the refinement; most cultures begin with poetry. That makes sense to me. I suspect that poetry has its roots way back in our Neolithic past and is related to the shaman and the camp fire, to the dance and the drum. I remember when Obama was elected watching news footage of people celebrating somewhere in Africa- they were dancing and chanting in the street and it was so well-timed, like they were chanting to a pre-arranged beat. I could just imagine one individual among them with a talent for language working that rhythm up into a poem.