I see painting hasn't evolved into animation but one needs painting skills to learn animation.So painters enjoy opportunities in animation.
Printable View
I see painting hasn't evolved into animation but one needs painting skills to learn animation.So painters enjoy opportunities in 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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sameer Telkar
I wonder if current trends in grade inflation played a role?Quote:
Originally Posted by MementoMori
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".
Excellent point, and true!Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.
Pound said that? I thought he was one of those "imagists".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
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.
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."
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Sameer Telkar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
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.
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 whileQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
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.
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by virtuoso
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.
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.