Modern Poetry

[stlukesguild]

Petrarch's Love--Usually when an era is in one of those less productive times--at the base of the "wave"--it tends to be either an innovative break with the past or an attempt to reconnect with the past in new ways that stimulates renewed creativity. If we are indeed in one of these less peak times, then one possibly invigorating approach could be to take a closer look back at some of the past traditions that may have been abandoned in the fervor of innovative rebellion and to incorporate a little of those past approaches to poetry into the contemporary mode. This is, of course, something that many poets do, and I do not mean to suggest that contemporary poets all fall neatly into the block of "innovative rebels," since clearly things are much more complicated than that. I'm also not stating absolutely that we even are in a particularly low ebb state poetically, though it is my sense that history won't be looking back at this time as one of the great heights. It is, however, very difficult to be completely accurate in one's assessment of the current day, and hindsight is always 20/20.

I largely agree. I do think that over the course of history we can discern certain peaks and certain lower points in the production of art. This does not mean that the best artists of such a "low point" cannot be brilliant... even as great as some of the greatest giants of those most peak periods. Speaking of my own field of the visual arts one can recognize certain eras: The Renaissance, the Baroque era, Romanticism, Modernism... as peak eras. In each instance they are followed by "lesser" periods: Mannerism, Rococo, Realism/Symbolism/Academicism, Late-Modernism/Post-Modernism. I might almost suggest that these eras which follow in the wake of periods of great innovation are almost a necessary lull during which the innovations of the era preceding are dissected and digested. A good deal of the art of these periods becomes "mannered"... self conscious... academic and as a result it usually takes a reexamination of older traditions or an influx of new or unexpected sources to reinvigorate the art form as a whole.

For example... following the Renaissance painting slips into nearly 100 years of a period termed as Mannerism. Mannerism was indeed an overtly "mannered"... abstracted... stylized dissection of the rules and common elements of Renaissance art. In comparison to the art of the Renaissance it often seems cold... lifeless... overly contrived. It will take the innovations of the painter Caravaggio to bust the strangle-hold and give birth to the Baroque. Caravaggio's "innovation" is merely to paint what he sees from observation. In one sense he merely returns to the Renaissance focus upon naturalism and personal observation... but he takes them to an entirely new level. He stages his models in dramatic orchestrated groupings spotlit with raking light and insists on painting them just as he sees them... no Mannerist abstractions and stylizations... but no Renaissance idealism either.

Of course this is a gross simplification... and the biggest problem with this simplification is that speaking of "peaks" and "low points" ignores the fact that there are artists of real merit in the worst of times... and the great majority of artists during the peak periods are as mediocre as during any other era. Mannerism produced Bronzino, Parmagianino, Rosso Fiorentino, Cennini, Veronese, Tintoretto, and El Greco... all artists of true merit... even genius. The period following the peak of Romanticism gave us Ingres, Courbet, Millet, John Singer Sargent, Whistler, Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley, etc... in the visual arts... and Browning, Tennyson, Oscar Wilde, Walter Pater, Baudelaire, Nerval, Rimbaud, etc... in literature.

Certainly, it is far easier to recognize... and be certain of the peaks and valleys of artistic eras as a greater deal of time has passed. I greatly suspect that we are not living in anything approaching a peak era in the arts. On the other hand... there are a great many of artists, writers, poets, composers who I find of real merit. It may be that future generations will imagine that we were living in one of the absolute pinnacles to be envied... with the only problem being that the greatest artists were not those who were recognized as such by the institutions. This, in itself, would not be new. How recognized were Mozart, Schubert, Bach, Bruckner, Van Gogh, Vermeer, William Blake, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Mallarme... even the unpublished bard himself during their own lifetimes?

Jozie is right in that if we are moving on to what the current state of poetry... or the novel... or painting... or music... needs, I think that one is something of a stumper... Or rather, it is the million-dollar question. We can easily point out what we believe to be weaknesses or flaws. The solution for reinvigorating the art form in question would seemingly not take the form of some essay (except in the case of Emerson) but rather would involve the creation of that ground-shaking work of art itself.

[Petrarch's Love]

Of course this is a gross simplification... and the biggest problem with this simplification is that speaking of "peaks" and "low points" ignores the fact that there are artists of real merit in the worst of times... and the great majority of artists during the peak periods are as mediocre as during any other era.

Yes, I was indeed speaking in simplified and macroscopic terms since it seemed as though this discussion first needed to sort out what sort of large scale schematics of history we were debating. I agree that there are many, many complexities that such a schema does not cover, but, just in the interests of clarifying this point in my stance for the thread, I was not envisioning a pattern of peaks and low points in which the low point hit zero, as much as a steady body of both good and bad artistic production throughout history (like a consistent large body of water) with unusually high peaks or dips occurring at the top of that body. In other words, I agree that excellent art is often produced during less stand out periods and bad art during peak periods.

[stlukesguild]

The larger sweeping generalities that are applied to all movements in the arts by academics are of course a necessity. Without such abstractions it becomes impossible to make sense of anything. All becomes an unending flow of unconnected events and creations. I know that you are something of a Borges fan... are you familiar with the tale of The Memorious Funes, that certainly explores the results of an inability to experience anything in terms of abstractions?

The more one learns, the more one realizes that all these abstractions are problematic. Impressionism is an artistic movement that many are well-acquainted with. Many have some concept of the essential elements of that movement and the key players. As one explores the individual artists generally attached to Impressionism, however, one uncovers endless inconsistencies. Degas, for example, despised plein air painting, rarely ever painted the landscape, hardly ever painted from direct observation (he was a traditional "studio artist"), was most deeply inspired by the masters of drawing such as Raphael and his beloved Ingres... rather than painterly painters... and he despised Monet's work for what he imagined as being his lack of compositional structure. Renoir was deeply enamored of the decorative paintings of Rococo. Manet would have little to do with the Rococo, but was rather profoundly inspired by Vermeer, and Velsquez and was more of a "realist" than an "Impressionist" Monet's most innovative works, his late waterlily paintings, were undertaken well into the 20th century... after the death of such Post-Impressionists as Van Gogh and Gauguin... even a decade after Cubism.

We cluster the successive generations of artists into eras and isms that we define by certain characteristics... yet know full well that almost every individual artist within these movements breaks one or another of these characteristics... perhaps the greatest artists being the least-likely to be able to be defined or contained. In many cases one can almost discern a greater affinity between the greatest artists of one generation and the greatest of another than between these same giants and the rest of their era. Surely Shakespeare shares more with Dante, Milton, Chaucer, Tolstoy, etc... in many ways than he does with Ben Jonson. In the end... what we are really left with is a collection of individuals... some greater and some lesser.

[Petrarch's Love]

The larger sweeping generalities that are applied to all movements in the arts by academics are of course a necessity. Without such abstractions it becomes impossible to make sense of anything. All becomes an unending flow of unconnected events and creations. I know that you are something of a Borges fan... are you familiar with the tale of The Memorious Funes, that certainly explores the results of an inability to experience anything in terms of abstractions?

That's such an amazing story. His description of Funes' mind provokes such a strange mixture of envy and horror! I hadn't really thought of that story as a fable about why we need abstractions. Nice example.

The more one learns, the more one realizes that all these abstractions are problematic.

Absolutely! The dangers of generalities are many and profound.

We cluster the successive generations of artists into eras and isms that we define by certain characteristics... yet know full well that almost every individual artist within these movements breaks one or another of these characteristics... perhaps the greatest artists being the least-likely to be able to be defined or contained. In many cases one can almost discern a greater affinity between the greatest artists of one generation and the greatest of another than between these same giants and the rest of their era. Surely Shakespeare shares more with Dante, Milton, Chaucer, Tolstoy, etc... in many ways than he does with Ben Jonson. In the end... what we are really left with is a collection of individuals... some greater and some lesser.

I almost completely agree with this, except that the "collection of individuals" view taken too far can be just as dangerous as the abstracted view. It's important to keep a nice healthy balance between the two, alternating between viewing the individual writer as an artist, and taking a longer historical view. Absolutely, as you say, it's necessary to use some sort of abstract framework when teaching, most especially at the introductory level. It's going to be easier for students to learn in a survey if they are able to think in terms of Chaucer being a Medieval poet, Shakespeare a Renaissance poet, Keats a Romantic etc. (There's something of a trend at some schools toward teaching the collection of individuals approach at the introductory level, and the result is, in my opinion, a disaster, since students spend more time being confused than appreciating the works they are reading). It's also true that it is equally important to teach from the start that these are generalizations and convenient imaginary lines, and that there is much more blurring between the boundaries of genres and timelines than one might suspect at first. I'm planning a chapter on Chaucer in my dissertation as well as chapters on 16th and 17th century writers, and it would be disastrous for me to approach such a project with a firm line in my mind at the year 1400 (Chaucer's death). There is much that Chaucer has in common with the later poets, both by virtue of their shared talents as writers, and by virtue of the way he was influenced by and dealing with writers like Petrarch from the Italian Renaissance, in a way that in places is, arguably, almost proto-Renaissance. There are many, many advantages to working without the benefit of an historical net, and of coming to terms with writers individually and out of the context of a larger framework.

At the same time it would be equally disastrous of me to completely reject the benefits of an abstract historical framework. While it's important to develop a nuanced and flexible view toward such a framework, and sometimes to think through things without one, it is also important to periodically return to that framework. It isn't as though dealing with historical abstractions is an introductory level tool that can be completely discarded when one moves to the next level. It may be a tool that needs to be refined, but abandoning it completely can lead to abstract simplifications of another kind. You start getting anachronistic readings of texts in which Joyce and Shakespeare are analyzed together in light of Freud, and in a way that doesn't sufficiently take into account that Freud could not, in fact, be a direct influence on Shakespeare (I have a real, horrific, critical example in mind). You start getting another kind of sweeping generality about the mind of the artist throughout history that can lead to a very flat understanding of the dynamics at play in the works of individual artists. You start getting readings that project modern concerns into a work where they don't really exist (I have no objection to reading texts in light of our own times, or to some reader response criticism, both of which I think can be quite useful. I do, however object when such approaches are taken so far that they start bending a work into something could not possibly have intended). The "collection of individuals" approach can also simply lead to a less rich understanding of a writer's work. While I think it's useful not to always think of Chaucer in some sort of Medieval box, I also have little doubt that the same man, had he lived 100 years later would not have produced The Canterbury Tales as they now exist (though it seems more than likely he would have produced something equally good). There are also some things about Shakespeare's plays that are better, and more interestingly explained in terms of the things he has in common with his contemporaries than in terms of the things he has in common with other great writers. Not only research into the history of a specific era, but also the use of a large scale, abstract, framework of history is going to be necessary to fully appreciate both those parts of a literary work that are specific to its own time and the way it is or is not distinct from great works of other times.

In summation, it's probably best to equally employ both the historic generality that groups artists in terms of chronologically designated categories, and the aesthetic generality that groups artists in terms of their skill in producing their art (and the pendulum of literary criticism swings pretty reliably between the extremes of these two generalities). Of course, the most fruitful and enjoyable place to be is between these two abstract poles: keeping both generalities in mind, but primarily dealing with the specifics of the poetry itself while shunning the temptations offered by either generalist extreme.

[stlukesguild]

I agree that a balance is probably a necessity... if not the ideal. If we completely end up ignoring the historical realities of the context and the culture in which an artist lived and worked in reality all we succeed at doing is placing them within our own current culture and context. Thus we have Milton and the Bible broken down by Feminist critics and Shakespeare re-imagined in Freudian/Marxist terms. For Borges, such would have been the fantasy... as he spoke of heaven or eternity as a realm in which Shakespeare bantered with Kafka and James Joyce (or something to that effect). Such is the source of inspiration... but Borges, it must be admitted, was engaging in fiction... and had a sense of humor as well (something a great many academics are not known for... present company excepted).

I was personally fascinated with Stephen Michell's introduction to his translation of Job in which he reinterpreted the Biblical masterwork in a rather Kafkaesque manner (One day J. awoke to find all that he had cared about stripped away from him for no apparent reason...) It was certainly intriguing... the portrayal of the anonymous powers above (The Lord and the Tempter) toying with a simple servant all for the sake of a bet ("See what you have made me do to my loyal servant, Job..."). One must question, however, what was the initial intent.

More recently I have begun to study Asian art with a greater degree of effort than ever before. Coming upon the famous Kandariya Mahadeva temple...

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

...in India I was absolutely stunned by the sensuality... nay the blatant eroticism... of the sculptural decorations. From a distance the work teemed with figures in a manner that echoes the horror vacui of medieval European cathedrals... with the exception that these were not scenes teeming with figures of the damned, Last Judgments, and the birth of Christ... these were teeming scenes of unedited sexuality in every possible configuration... in the open and on a grandiose scale. The professor in the course mused over what he imagined must have been the initial British response to these works... stiff upper lips quivering... monocles popping out... One cannot help but experience these works from one's own Western cultural perception... but it must be admitted that such a view is skewed at best.

Even in the elementary level there is constant talk of "higher order thinking skills"... which I feel cannot be applied prior to the student first developing a solid knowledge base... a collection of facts upon which to base analysis, synthesis, comparison, etc... Too often on these boards... and in real life... it seems I come across one extreme of another: the self-proclaimed iconoclast who lacks any real experience of basis of knowledge upon which to base rebellion... or the student who imagines that everything must be taken at face value... who doesn't understand that he or she can disagree with Plato, dislike Iago and Polonius, and find Francis Bacon's (the painter) world view to be deeply disturbing... and still acknowledge and even appreciate Plato's/Shakespeare's/Bacon's brilliance as artists. MortalTerror speaks of Cicero as being worthy of being read "but not in an unguarded way". That would seem the proper approach to all art... and the more the artist proclaims that he or she has all the answers or is only telling the truth, the more wary one should become.

[Virgil]

StLukes, Petrarch, you two are having one great convesation. Thanks for the reading pleasure.

We cluster the successive generations of artists into eras and isms that we define by certain characteristics... yet know full well that almost every individual artist within these movements breaks one or another of these characteristics... perhaps the greatest artists being the least-likely to be able to be defined or contained. In many cases one can almost discern a greater affinity between the greatest artists of one generation and the greatest of another than between these same giants and the rest of their era. Surely Shakespeare shares more with Dante, Milton, Chaucer, Tolstoy, etc... in many ways than he does with Ben Jonson. In the end... what we are really left with is a collection of individuals... some greater and some lesser.

This is an incredibly insightful statement. I couldn't agree with you more.

I almost completely agree with this, except that the "collection of individuals" view taken too far can be just as dangerous as the abstracted view. It's important to keep a nice healthy balance between the two, alternating between viewing the individual writer as an artist, and taking a longer historical view.

You sound like a raging moderate.

Absolutely, as you say, it's necessary to use some sort of abstract framework when teaching, most especially at the introductory level. It's going to be easier for students to learn in a survey if they are able to think in terms of Chaucer being a Medieval poet, Shakespeare a Renaissance poet, Keats a Romantic etc.

Or a frustrated teacher.

(There's something of a trend at some schools toward teaching the collection of individuals approach at the introductory level, and the result is, in my opinion, a disaster, since students spend more time being confused than appreciating the works they are reading). It's also true that it is equally important to teach from the start that these are generalizations and convenient imaginary lines, and that there is much more blurring between the boundaries of genres and timelines than one might suspect at first. I'm planning a chapter on Chaucer in my dissertation as well as chapters on 16th and 17th century writers, and it would be disastrous for me to approach such a project with a firm line in my mind at the year 1400 (Chaucer's death). There is much that Chaucer has in common with the later poets, both by virtue of their shared talents as writers, and by virtue of the way he was influenced by and dealing with writers like Petrarch from the Italian Renaissance, in a way that in places is, arguably, almost proto-Renaissance. There are many, many advantages to working without the benefit of an historical net, and of coming to terms with writers individually and out of the context of a larger framework.

When I went to school, there seemed to be two approaches even then, a historical approach and a genre approach. I think both are valid. But I do think it silly say that writers of a period think the same. Just look at the difference between Wordsworth and Keats. Both are Romantics yet frankly I think they are as different as Shakespeare and Milton.

In summation, it's probably best to equally employ both the historic generality that groups artists in terms of chronologically designated categories, and the aesthetic generality that groups artists in terms of their skill in producing their art (and the pendulum of literary criticism swings pretty reliably between the extremes of these two generalities). Of course, the most fruitful and enjoyable place to be is between these two abstract poles: keeping both generalities in mind, but primarily dealing with the specifics of the poetry itself while shunning the temptations offered by either generalist extreme.

I would agree with that except for contemporary works. Anything within the last fifty years should just be left as individuals. I don't think we can make sweeping statements when we are that close to a work.

[mortalterror]

bump!

[stlukesguild]

With Scher having killed the other thread on contemporary poetry at the OP's request we might continue on with this thread.

I just received my copy of The Essential P.K. Page (and so I will explore JBI's Great White... or Great Northern Hope). Unfortunately, it seems I've been bombarded with new poetry collections... a result of a number of Christmas gift cards: Vicente Huidobro's Altazor, Wisława Szymborska's Monologue of a Dog, Galway Kinnell's Strong is Your Hold, Yves Bonnefoy's New and Selected Poems, and several others... including a collection by Gu Cheng.

[Jozanny]

I quibbled over creating a new thread on aspects of contemporary poetry, to look at established poets--not including myself--but then saw a headache coming over who is and who isn't contemporary, so maybe modern poetry will do. I don't actually mind discussing my work, but my only collection comes out of the Chicago school of the late 80's, and I am more properly still emerging, in fact unheard of in the major reviews pecking order, and even Robert, who has me on the decent collection issue, is probably still emerging, even though, like with luke, we are generationally proportionate.

However, me would like to chat about some living poets, not quite grand old men or dames, who I like, maybe not quite as established as Levine, but I will not pick individuals simply in zine journals still moving up.

I have been quiet for quite some years, but I am on the first book circuit, which I don't doubt will happen soon unless I stop submitting. My reason for this confidence is when I was young I was stupid and had a couple book length offers, but had a chip on my shoulder that I have since scuttled.

[Petrarch's Love]

Hi Joz--I would enjoy hearing some recommendations of contemporary poets you like reading. I'm so wrapped up in my scholarly reading lately that I find I don't have the time to properly read around in the very right now stuff and recommendations are always welcome. Otherwise basically the only contemporary poetry I end up reading are things by people I've met or who are friends of friends.

[stlukesguild]

Petrarch... I seriously think that you would enjoy Anne Carsen. I'd recommend the Autobiography of Red or Plainwater. She is perhaps something of an ideal: the scholar/poet. Beyond her poetry, she has published essays and several intriguing books of translations including the poems of Sappho and a unique take on the Oresteia:

http://www.amazon.com/Oresteia-Agame...4315399&sr=1-5

I'll throw some other suggestions as I have the time... and no doubt JoZ and JBI will chime in as well.

[Jozanny]

When we were doing the poetry readings, I had once nominated The Ice Lizard by Judith Johnson, and I am going to quietly give her a little more limelight here, as well as bookmark her page that I just listed, because I do not own this collection.

An editor loaned an edition to me, and I had to return it, so I cannot offer specific comments about what truly impressed me, but I was very moved, and she turns the sonnet on its head, rescued it for me from a tired trinket to a powerful casting off of emotional wounds.

She knows the terrain of the Black Mountain school, but her incisive voice transcends the ironic limitations of the group as a whole, and when I allow myself to purchase another collection, this should be near the top of my list.

[ennison]

Richard Wilbur is not mediocre

[stlukesguild]

Another poet that Petrarch... as an academic versed in literary history... may enjoy, is Richard Howard. Howard is commonly compared to Robert Browning with whom he shares a penchant for poetic monologues. He poems are often written in the forms of letters or other forms of communications between various sophisticated personae: 19th-century French and English writers and artists, John Ruskin, Henry James, the early photographer Nadar, Proust and Jane Morris (William's widow), Madame Curie, Wallace Stevens, secretaries and intimates of other great artists, Robert Browning himself or the aged Walt Whitman in imagined critique of the closeted Bram Stoker.

[Petrarch's Love]

Thanks to both Jozanny and St. Luke's Guild for the recommendations. I don't believe I've read the works of any of those poets before. I've set them on my library list.