Are Poets Born Not Made?

[ShadowsCool]

I think Nirvana has made a huge impact. And I'm sure many would agree. It's just that, there's not enough substance. I think they made 3 albums. That's hardly enough to make a lasting impression. They do have sort of a cult following. But in the long run? I can't say. It seems they fall short. Perhaps mid-teens in terms of importance.

Again, as for the poet statement. That's true obviously that no babies poll-vault out of their mother's womb. But isn't it fascinating that the human DNA seems to determine many things you or I will be stuck with.

For instance, getting a disease. It's pretty proven that some people are susceptible to certain illnesses, i.e. cancer, at an earlier age than say someone who may have the same exposure to its causes. Some people may get a certain cancer when they are relatively young, while other's may smoke away until they are 70. That tells me, genes play a huge roll. So why should that be different with the mind? Yes you can train the mind, but you can't really make someone smarter, only more informed. How many of these poets were writing at the age of 7? I bet many of them.

[stlukesguild]

I hope the Stones don't last that long, but they probably will.


Accck!!! Aaacckk!!!

First it's beer... and now the Stones!!!

Blasphemer!!! Away I say!!! Away!!!

Get thee to a nunnery!!!




Oh, the shame... the shame of it all!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3rnxQBizoU

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Me in a nunnery? That would be fun. Poor nuns.

I think Nirvana has made a huge impact. And I'm sure many would agree. It's just that, there's not enough substance. I think they made 3 albums. That's hardly enough to make a lasting impression. They do have sort of a cult following. But in the long run? I can't say. It seems they fall short. Perhaps mid-teens in terms of importance.

Again, as for the poet statement. That's true obviously that no babies poll-vault out of their mother's womb. But isn't it fascinating that the human DNA seems to determine many things you or I will be stuck with.

For instance, getting a disease. It's pretty proven that some people are susceptible to certain illnesses, i.e. cancer, at an earlier age than say someone who may have the same exposure to its causes. Some people may get a certain cancer when they are relatively young, while other's may smoke away until they are 70. That tells me, genes play a huge roll. So why should that be different with the mind? Yes you can train the mind, but you can't really make someone smarter, only more informed. How many of these poets were writing at the age of 7? I bet many of them.

Yeah, but what were they writing at 7?

I'm not disputing that some people are born with minds more inclined to the arts. That's been all but proven. My assertion is simply this: anyone can be a poet, but being a good poet is going to take practice, no matter what kind of mind.

[ShadowsCool]

Yeah, but what were they writing at 7?

I'm not disputing that some people are born with minds more inclined to the arts. That's been all but proven. My assertion is simply this: anyone can be a poet, but being a good poet is going to take practice, no matter what kind of mind.

Crap I'm sure. But they were inclined. And for what else you just said. I agree. Practice, Practice, Practice.

[stlukesguild]

As for the poet statement? I don't know about that. Aren't some athletes born to be great?

Actually, Howard Gardner's studies on the human brain and the different "intelligences" would counter this. Where traditional IQ tests focused upon verbal and mathematical thinking and problem solving, Gardner's studies of the brain (with stroke patients) discovered different zones effecting skills ranging from spatial thinking to visual thinking to collaborative thinking, etc... Gardner's and later studies in education and intelligence recognized that intelligence is far more complex than originally thought and that the mastery of skills such as the performance of music or playing basketball are just as much the result of intellect as brilliance in science. Artists, musicians, and athletes have long been spoken of as "talented". While on one level this conveys a certain awe for their ability, on the other hand it undermines it as well by suggesting that the brilliant musician, artist, or athlete was merely blessed by nature or God. What these studies have shown is that an athlete like Michael Jordan was certainly not endowed with some inherently superior physical capabilities. Rather he was able to out-think his opponents... to envision what an opponent might do, process this, and respond far more rapidly than another. In other words... he was a "genius" at basketball... talented. This "genius", however, needed to be developed through practice and study.

[ShadowsCool]

~"This "genius", however, needed to be developed through practice and study."~

The study seems to make sense on the surface. I or anyone not involved with the study could not know what went into the study to determine the results. We have only the results they provided. Yet such a study requires certain imputes, which mean everything to an outcome. Though I am not disputing such a study on a first glance, just aware of how studies work. Because I've been involved with many studies myself and are familiar with the very process. You can almost make a study say what you want them to. I'm not saying that was done here at all. Just a reminder when I see such a study done. Okay now my head is shaking LOL.

Common sense should also be a determining factor when coming up with a plausible answer. How one uses that is important too. The rule stick should be all things known and the possible unknowns. Then a determination can be made.

[IntravenousJava]

No matter how vigorously I apply myself to the mastery of certain arts, I find that I am genetically predisposed to succeed at some and fail at others.

Likewise, I am certain that many potentially great artists have faded into oblivion with talents unrealized for lack of application.

So, in answer to the original question, both: some poets are born and others made, but the best are those who apply themselves to the utmost realization of innate aptitude.

[ShadowsCool]

My "hunch" unscientific theory in spatial terms.

Let's say an average Joe has a writing ability (or any talent) of a 20 out of 100. Let's say that is the lowest limit of the ability of an average human being in the gene pool. Now let's take an exceptionally "gifted" writer like (fill in the blank) and say he has a 80 out of 100. Let's say that is the upper limit of human writing ability you are born with.

Now if example B, just applied himself 40% in terms of developing his craft, and say example A, applied himself 100 percent in terms of developing his craft, then both come out to a 120. But if (B) applies himself 80% of full ability then you got a master genius in that field.

That's just a "hunch" I have with the human gene pool. This seems very plausible because it pools together many evidences acquired.

I don't want to come across as a smart-person, cause I'm not

[MorpheusSandman]

Of course the very notion of a "born artist" in any genre is naive... if not sophomoric... The idea that one might become "too learned"... "too well practiced" etc... is simply moronic... and in all likelihood based in a degree of envy... and/or laziness.

Indeed. I can do little but:

As another example, I always loved Mozart's quote on his art (considering Mozart is thought of by many as a "born composer," someone who "had it" since birth): "People are wrong who think my art comes easily to me. I assure you, nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I."

The idea of a "contemporary classic" or the "contemporary canon" is an oxymoron.

What some call the "contemporary classic/canon" is what I call the "potential canon," simply works and artist that have the potential of one day being considered amongst the best.

[MorpheusSandman]

Top 10 Artist of the Rock era:

1. Beatles**
2. Dylan**
3. Presley*
4. Stones*
5. Hendrix
6. James Brown
7. Ray Charles
8. Bob Marley
9. Michael Jackson
10. Led Zeppelin

Can't really disagree with this list in terms of historical influence/importance. I do hope Hendrix is remembered, as after Beatles and Dylan he's my favorite from the list.

Top Poets of all time:

1. Shakespeare
2. Dante
3. Chaucer
4. William Wordsworth
5. John Keats
6. T.S. Eliot
7. John Milton
8. William Blake
9. W.B. Yeats
10. ?

Wordsworth, Keats, and Eliot before Milton? BLASPHEMY! Personally, I'd have Milton ahead of Dante and Chaucer, but he at least deserves to be in that quartet. Although, if we're including foreign writers, how does one not have Homer and Virgil in the Top 10?

[miyako73]

miyako73- born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

MorpheusSandman- So you get to arbitrarily decide based on subjective reaction of what is 'exciting' and 'boring' whether a poet was born or made? So, if I think your poetry is boring, then I get to call you a 'made poet'?

Well... actually it would seem that if her poetry is boring then we simply must assume that she's not a born poet... and as poetry is something either one was born with or not... then it seems obvious that she's simply not a born poet and thus never has the least chance of becoming a poet... regardless of effort, education, etc...

Of course the very notion of a "born artist" in any genre is naive... if not sophomoric. All art forms involve a language... and all languages must be learned. Certainly, studies of the human brain have proven that certain individuals are more predisposed toward rapidly mastering a given set of skills or knowledge than another... but to rise to the level of true mastery in any art form a degree of discipline... study and practice is involved.

The idea that one might become "too learned"... "too well practiced" etc... is simply moronic... and in all likelihood based in a degree of envy... and/or laziness. The idea that the well-informed or scholarly artist is more likely to follow some lock-step mentality while the intuitive "natural" artist is willing to break the rules is little more than Romantic claptrap... and surely not supported by the examples of cultural history. Was Cervantes illiterate? It seems to me that he was more than well versed in the traditional Romances that his novel parodied. Was Michelangelo just naturally talented? from what I recall, he had one of the most intense formal training and education possible.

Silas Thorne- MorpheusSandman is making a criticism of people that write poetry in a particular way, saying that they consider themselves 'geniuses,' by using Clive James' views on Ezra Pound.

More like I'm criticizing people that choose to dismiss/ignore the poetic tradition while (ironically) being allowed to do so because of that tradition... What I'm really criticizing is the anti-intellectual attitude (which I think is born out of xenophobia and laziness, more than anything) that poets are just these divinely inspired creatures that don't need to work at or learn their craft.

Exactly!

paradoxical- I didn't say the cannon was necessarily wrong, just too conservative and slow to acknowledge what is new... I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid.

Canons have ALWAYS been slow, though. It's not as if those in the 17th Century considered Shakespeare as the greatest writer ever in the English language. He owes much of that reputation to the 19th Century and, especially, the German intellectuals. So criticizing the canon for being slow is bizarre to me, because all canons are formed via a "consensus" of what emerges out of criticism over a long period of time.

The notion of "the canon" or the "classics" is based upon something which has survived for a reasonable period of time and garnered the continued admiration or consensus of those who have invested the most into the study of a given art form. The idea of a "contemporary classic" or the "contemporary canon" is an oxymoron. This is not to say that none of the literature of here and now has any worth... nor that none of it will eventually rise to the status of a "classic"... but how is this process too conservative? Of what value is gushing over every best-seller and proclaiming equal to Shakespeare?

I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up.

Hey, I dig Burroughs, but it seems like what you're hankering for is some kind of sensationalist shock. It's been done and, quite frankly, I feel more "awakened" by Blake than I do by Bukowski (whom I don't like) or Burroughs (whom I do).

I quite agree.

That I am a poet is debatable; that I write what seem to me as poems is not. I have no education in writing poetry. I haven't attended any workshop. I used to do readings and slams. I don't know if they are counted as poetic education.

I also don't write at my whim. Without my mood, I can't think of apt words to use. Without my sensitivity, I am blind to the images in my head. Without my emotions, my metaphors are stale. My writing skill may not be natural or inborn, but my mood, sensitivity, and emotions are.

As I said, poetry is an acquired taste. In my case, I would rather read or listen to the works of that rapper named Tai Mahmud than waste my time on Dr. Maya Angelou's lecture notes she and her fans call poems.

[MorpheusSandman]

My writing skill may not be natural or inborn, but my mood, sensitivity, and emotions are.

Everyone has inborn moods, sensitivities, and emotions; not everyone can write like Milton, Keats, Heaney, etc.

[Silas Thorne]

I used to do readings and slams. I don't know if they are counted as poetic education.

Yes, why not? And when young, reading nursery rhymes, nonsense poems, Dr Seuss, well-written childrens' books that care about the weight of words, the joy of words, can all be part of a poetic education. Which is why I've have to now take the stand with those who believe that poets are made not born, but who use their own natural mood, sensitivity and emotions, as you have said that you do to produce their poetry. Parents can help to instill a love of language, but I think as to whether they will become poets or not depends on people's influences.

Although personally I value poetic form a great deal now, I think a problem can come with forcing form on language too much, which can interfere with our own natural poetry.

Maybe I've lost the logic of what I was writing about. If so, oh well. I'll find it later.

[miyako73]

Everyone has inborn moods, sensitivities, and emotions; not everyone can write like Milton, Keats, Heaney, etc.

Can you fix your logic in this one?

[stuntpickle]

This thread has devolved into reciprocal back-patting and cliched thinking. I mean, consider for a moment that you're having a discussion about music, which includes mention of the Beatles, Michael Jackson and Nirvana, and another about literature, which includes mention of Shakespeare, Milton and Keats. The discussion about music largely concerns culturally relevant artists from the last fifty or so years, whereas the discussion of literature concerns relics as far back as antiquity (Virgil!). Has the disparity occurred to no one?

The distinction between the different varieties of education appropriate to artists and scholars is a well established convention. For instance, a musician attending Berklee, a top tier jazz conservatory, is generally considered a failure if he actually graduates since that means that he didn't get picked up by some pro group before then. Of course, a performing musician must "learn" things, but what he must learn and how he must learn it are entirely different from what someone studying to be an historian of music or a professor of theory must learn. Being able to articulate various theoretical justifications for this or that solo is absolutely irrelevant to the playing of one. Most often the performing musician is more concerned about developing chops and a good ear. J was absolutely correct when he talked about artists developing a "craft" as opposed to becoming scholars.

Writers too are interested in developing an ear. They are far more concerned with practical ability rather than theoretical understanding. Moreover, it is generally acknowledged that a preoccupation with literary theory, on the part of postmodern writers, has had a corrosive effect on the literature of the last fifty years.

You guys can keep patting one another on the back and reassuring each other how central this or that Elizabethan is to the Canon, but being conversant in Romantic verse and Structuralist inanities has little to do with being a writer in the 21st Century. Should a writer be familiar with his predecessors? Of course. But he has a more immediate need to be familiar with his immediate predecessors. He isn't concerned with an academic approach to the Canon, but rather his immediate cultural antecedents. And he's interested not in applying the mechanisms of critical evaluation, but in emulating the mechanisms of artistic generation, and these are not the same. One needn't know what a foil is to write one. The learning an artist does is more osmotic than analytic. And this is well understood among the initiated.

Sorry, there are "born" artists, which is not to say they fly out of the womb composing symphonies, but rather they are predisposed to certain endeavors. The hard-work canard just makes people feel better. The truth is that work is the easiest thing to do; all one has to do is DO IT. Being a great artist requires some amalgamation of mysterious abilities that we do not entirely understand.

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