Printable View
Well that's certainly a terrible way to look at it. I don't think anybody is saying that Jim Morrison's work is the best thing to hit paper, I don't even particularly like it a lot. But to dismiss a poet based on how he structures his lines or just because he was a rockstar is absurd and shallow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Don't like it, fine, I don't really care, but at least recognize him as a poet.
And as for subjectivity, everything is subjective when it comes to art. Everything.
And as for subjectivity, everything is subjective when it comes to art. Everything.
And then you grow up and realize that while every opinion in art may be "subjective"... but some opinions are far better than others. I can assure you that there isn't a single artist of any merit who cannot tell you which of his or her works is better or worse... and whether you like it or not... no matter how it may contradict your romantic notions or art... art is based upon structures and formal elements and how well or how poorly these are employed is what determines the merit of the art. There is a reason that nearly any experienced reader or any academic or any editor knowledgeable on a given writer or artist or composer will be able to discern the 10 or so strongest works by the artist in question... and these will be agreed upon to a great extent. What are Kafka's strongest stories? I assure you the Metamorphosis and The Hunger Artist and The Penal Colony and The Hunter Gracchus are going to show up again and again. What are Beethoven's 5 greatest compositions? How often do you imagine the 2nd or the 8th Symphony will be named? (And both of them are quite good) The notion of cultural relativism... the concept that there is no good nor bad in art is just a bunch of weak-thinking first wrought in academia decades ago. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.
Of course there's good and bad, but that's up to me to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
You're forgetting about the human element, and the relationship a reader has with the work. The structure and formal elements are certainly important in the creation of the work, whether it be a story or painting or poem, but those conventions are not what makes something worthy of being called art.
Art is what is taken away from the work that tugs away at your soul and makes you feel something.
Why make art such a cold thing? If I want form and structure I'd take a Calculus Course.
If you want to be able to study art you have to quantify it in some way. I agree with you and I disagree. Art is certainly something that pulls at the heart, but it has a sort of objective ability to do that. Certain poets can better than others, if read by someone educated in literature. It's an artist's ability to evoke emotions, realizations, and appreciation from his/her reader that defines him/her as an artist.
I've always seen it broken down in a triad like that, maybe I'm nuts. But this is how it goes in my head:
Emotional value/pathos: Score of 1-10
Philosophical value: Score of 1-10
Artistic value: Score of 1-10
It's all very much like Dr. Prichard's page in the Literature book in Dead Poets' Society, which Mr. Keating makes all the students tear out in rage, hah.
Granted the fact that nobody (I hope:toetap05:) is saying that Morrison is "a genius" or "the greatest ever poet" does appear to suggest that there is some little improvement going on, though the way things have been around here recently I wouldn't have been surprised if such things were said (or to compare him to Shakespeare:goof:). Anyway, maybe I am being a little shallow in dismissing pop/rock star poetry, maybe beyond Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan - who as poets are supposed to be somewhat decent, there may be something of merit in the pop/rock star world, maybe, but you'll forgive me for not rushing out and buying the next Britney Spears book of love poems on the off chance that she is anything but awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay on blues
I don't dismiss him as a poet - for what does it mean to be a poet anyway? To write poems? To have them published? To have them read? I dismiss him as good poet, based upon that awful extract above. True, as I say, some of his other stuff may be a lot better, but again, I doubt it. The poem is not dismissed just because of how a poet structures the lines, just as if that is a minor thing, it is dismissed because it brings nothing else:
The hour of the wolf
has now ended. Cocks
crow. The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.
The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear.
As has already been mentioned the way that is written on the page is awful. Read it. Does it sound anything other than really awkward? I love the breaking up for example of night/mare, totally ridiculous as previously mentioned, though you only have to get to the first two lines to feel that awkward jilt from "wolf" to "has". Aside from the fact that the way the poem is structured totally distracts from the message of the piece what is written is far from original or any good. I'm assuming that this is an extract, but even so I would be struggling from the first two lines aside from its structure. "The hour of the wolf" "cocks crow" is hardly anything but bordering on cliché, all we are missing is "somewhere an owl hooted" or something like that. I would argue that even from these two lines, the warning bells for bad poetry should be ringing - does the alliterative "cocks crow" do anything more than to suggest something akin to a nursery rhyme or a childish piece of writing?
The world is built
up again, struggling in
darkness.
"The world is built/up again" is hardly good English here, it does seem somewhat stumbling to me - are there no better ways of expressing that thought? Also I don't know why the world is "struggling in darkness" hasn't the "cocks crowing" supposed to have signified that it is morning anyway? If so what's the darkness got to do with it? The "hour of the wolf" has supposed to have ended hasn't it? So I don't quite get that to be honest. It's poorly thought out.
The child gives into night-
Mare, while the grown
Man fears his fear
I still can't get passed the split of "night" and "mare" but let that go. Read the whole thing over a few times. Does that not sound like some tag line for a cheap 80s horror film? Keep the line in your head and read it over this for example, I find it fits to some degree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KCct4RwLNM
So you'll forgive me for not finding anything of worth in those lines and I've had enough of reading bad poetry, it does nothing for me, so enough of that.
Actually, the director was deadly seriously with that film, it was not supposed to be a spoof - though I suppose if you go by the notion that all art is equal in the eye of the beholder nonsense, then we have to seriously respect the opinion of someone who finds more merit in Troll 2 as a serious work of art, as we could in say Godfather 2?!?
Most of us come to art and literature not with a clipboard and hard hat, not in a cold, calculated manner, but as something that has inspired passion and feeling. I know this is why I came to it and continue to do so, but this doesn't mean that all art or opinion has to be respected as equal. Even individual opinion on a piece can change over a short space of time. I'm not denying people opinion, no one is, or the feeling that a piece evokes, but just because a person may have enjoyed it doesn't automatically make that piece any good.
You still have to be able to stand back from the work and give a fair, unbiased assessment of the work. This is something that is learnt and developed over time. No one is forgetting about the human element at all. Instinct and feeling are all important, in fact is highly important, but so is the ability to be able to stand back from the work a little as was mentioned previously elsewhere. My enjoyment of Oscar Wilde does nothing to cloud my judgement that his early poetry is anything much more than third-rate.
Now you'll forgive me for wanting a coffee and for a need to turn to something much better.
Art is what is taken away from the work that tugs away at your soul and makes you feel something.
Why make art such a cold thing? If I want form and structure I'd take a Calculus Course.
Jeremyday- If you want to be able to study art you have to quantify it in some way. I agree with you and I disagree. Art is certainly something that pulls at the heart, but it has a sort of objective ability to do that. Certain poets can better than others, if read by someone educated in literature. It's an artist's ability to evoke emotions, realizations, and appreciation from his/her reader that defines him/her as an artist.
Most of us come to art and literature not with a clipboard and hard hat, not in a cold, calculated manner, but as something that has inspired passion and feeling. I know this is why I came to it and continue to do so, but this doesn't mean that all art or opinion has to be respected as equal. Even individual opinion on a piece can change over a short space of time. I'm not denying people opinion, no one is, or the feeling that a piece evokes, but just because a person may have enjoyed it doesn't automatically make that piece any good.
You still have to be able to stand back from the work and give a fair, unbiased assessment of the work. This is something that is learnt and developed over time. No one is forgetting about the human element at all. Instinct and feeling are all important, in fact is highly important, but so is the ability to be able to stand back from the work a little as was mentioned previously elsewhere. My enjoyment of Oscar Wilde does nothing to cloud my judgement that his early poetry is anything much more than third-rate.
I agree with both Jeremyday and Neely. We are not dismissing the human or the emotional aspect of art... but entries of a teenage girl in her diary ("Does Jimmy like me? Suzy told me that Bobby told her that Sally thinks that Jimmy likes me. If he doesn't like me I'll just have to kill myself...") or even the baby crying convey human emotions... they just don't do it in a very artistic way... a way that stimulates us... even challenges us intellectually as well as emotionally. I'm certain that almost every teenager has written poetry or done drawings which they imagined at the time conveyed such profundity... and at which they will later cringe with embarrassment... much as we might cringe at Troll 2 or Jim Morrison's poetry. I would rather not talk about my teenage artistic efforts which were all, thankfully, long ago consigned to a land-fill somewhere.
Relying solely upon emotional responses is as problematic in judging art and even creating art as it is in other aspects of life. This does not mean that we shut off the emotions or that we deny their worth... but we also recognize a need to step back and assess things logically as well. There are moments of spontaneity and inspiration in art... but these are far more likely to occur in individuals who have put forth the labor in preparation. Do a little exploration as to the studies or preparation undertaken by poets such as Keats or Shelley or Rimbaud... the reading they did... their efforts in translating the poems of Greeks and Latin poets... the early, less-than-great poetic efforts.
There is a great story concerning the American painter, Willem DeKooning.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/...fe30219340.jpg
As one of the great Abstract Expressionists it was presumed that his paintings were all conceived in a sort of orgiastic frenzy. A young film-maker, wishing to compete with Hans Namuth's famous film on Jackson Pollack, talked DeKooning into allowing him to film his painting process. He showed up with the cameras and lights at the agreed upon time and spent an afternoon filming the artist as he rushed back and forth, slathering paint and scraping it off in wild abandon. After 4 hours or so, he thanked the artist and left.
A few months later, DeKooning ran into the young man in Central Park. He asked him how the film was coming, and the film-maker responded with enthusiasm, "It is to be released in a few weeks." The youth then queried the painter, "By the way, how did that painting turn out?" "That? Oh I threw that away the moment you left," he replied. Shocked, the young man asked, "but why!?" "You don't really think I paint like that?" replied Dekooning. "Do you remember that large cushy cushy chair in the rear of my studio? I spend most of my time sitting in that chair... staring at and studying the work in progress. Every now and then I get up and make a few marks and then I go back to the chair. That's how I really paint." Incredulous, the film-maker asked, "But then why did you put on that show with all the wild gestures, and slapping on paint?" The artist smiled, "Do you really believe anyone wants to watch a film of me sitting in a chair?"
As a painter myself, I can tell you that such is the truth. If I take it upon myself to make a painting expressing sadness or anger, I cannot maintain the emotions of sadness or anger the entire time I am painting. Much of the process involves stepping back... looking at the work objectively... recognizing the weaknesses and the strengths... thinking about all that I know of the formal aspects of visual art... how color or line or shape work... responding to how they relate. Of course there are moments of inspiration... sometimes even extended periods of great lucidity... perhaps not unlike the "runner's high"... moments when everything just "clicks"... when one has the Duende... to use Garcia-Lorca's term. But these moments are more likely to occur when one has properly prepared and when one puts in the endless labor... as unromantic as that may sound. "Inspiration exists, but it has got to find you working." Or so said Picasso, who one might argue knew more than a little about inspiration.
Self expression alone is not enough. It is easy to convey anger or sadness or whatever... I know that certain colors will almost certainly have a desired emotional impact... just as a composer knows that by using a minor key the music takes on an inherent sad or tragic nature... but the ability to simply convey emotions does not mean the art is good. Cliche, sappy, sentimental writing, paintings, music, and films may all succeed in conveying human emotions... but they don't do it well... they don't do it in a manner that will continue to engage an audience that has a degree of experience. We all know what awaits in the basement when that one individual gos off on his own in the latest horror flick. For art to have any continued worth it must stimulate our intellect as well as our emotions.
A wake
Shake dreams from your hair
My pretty child, my sweet one
Choose the day, the sign
of your day
1st thing you see.
A burnt tree, like a giant
primeval bird, a leaf,
dry and bitter, crackling tales
in its warm waves.
Sidewalk gods will do for you.
The forest of the neighbourhood,
the empty lost museum, &
the mesa, the Mt.'s pregnant
monument above the newstand
where the children hide
when school ends
He was a genius, just not necessarily a poet. A mad mad genius who couldn't get a grasp on life, but had to experience only in the form of extremities. He was a musician with a gift that allowed him to write his own lyrics.
I agree with Jersea, he was a musical genius, and I doubt many would discredit that, his music and lyrics shows a maturity and complexity which is rather beautiful and ensures his posteriority. His poetry lacks that maturity however, we can see that his poetry though he writ from a young age never had the proper time devoted to it, to advance and improve his craft unto reaching a more mature level.
I don't know. Don't get me wrong, I am a big Doors fan, but genius? the band worked, no doubt, but I am not convinced it was due to his "Genius." Perhaps it was just its situational workability in collaboration that generated good music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Yeah i think a lot of his lyrics were actually mediocre. Some of them were really good, and i think they were head and shoulders above the lyrics of that time, but still, i don't think his musicianship can be accredited with genius. I do think, however, that as a person he was closer to 'genius', if that makes any sense at all. As Jersea said, he was experiencing life in extremes (eg alcoholism, tonnes of drugs) trying to expand his mind and attain visions.
Hmm well I think it is how we define genius. For example Shakespeare's maintains his reputation nowadays because of the influence of his work, I mean every great movement in literature (at least english speaking lit) has been influenced in some way or the other by the bard. The same can be said of the Doors and Morrison in regards to rock, all forms of rock after them were heavily influenced by the Doors, the Doors end where rock begins, so to say. So I use genius in terms of influence, as genius is a word far to complicated to define.
I mean there are geniuses in painting, math, music, writing, economics, who may be genisuises solely in their fields and then merely above average in other fields. then of course we have men like Da Vinci who was a genius amongst geniuses so to say, every field he touched he mastered. Of course then there are people who have a genius in no particular field, yet they have a genius in life, in living. In some respects those who have a genius in living may be the most fortunate. Some examples which spring to my mind are Casanova, Neal Cassidy and Byron (though he had a genius in poesy as well)
But I digress.
He had an IQ score that falls in the superior or "genius" range, whether a musician or "mad man".
That's quite interesting, i suppose with respect to his influential status within music he could be called a genius, however i would be more likely to call the other members of the doors musical geniuses, as they were masters of their instruments and were the ones who wrote the music around the lyrics. I think their improvisational style is so difficult to emulate, as is the case with legendary jazz musicians like miles davis and charley parker.
And yes, when i was thinking about people who you might call geniuses in life, Neal Cassady sprang to my mind too.
Jersea - academically i think morrison was very close to being a genius, because his literary capacity was so vast that even his teachers were left behind. He also studied psychology at university and had conversations with the lecturer that none of the other students in the class could even understand.
Well that is interesting. I suppose intellects attract other intellects, hence the formation of such a talented band.
Meh I dont think IQ is really worth much Jersea
And Morrison actually played a considerable part in not only crafting the lyrincs of songs but also the musical accompaniment. His musical genius far outweighs any poetic genius of his.