Jim Morrison

[Alexander III]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ? No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

@ Jay on The Blues

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

[JBI]

@stlukesguild

But aren't you going a little too far when you say what he writes isn't true poetry? Or it's comical and offense to the "real poets?"

He's just a different poet, and one that can be more easily enjoyed without a requirement of having to be in the know of the poetry world. I agree that just because he is a celebrity he shouldn't be raised to the upper-echelon of the art. And there are examples that work in your favor. The pop singer Alicia Keys describes herself as a poet and has published a collection of them, but they are nothing more than a page ripped out of any 16 year old girls diary after a bad day at school. Her poetry is plain bad. Anyone with any kind of appreciation for words, even people who don't go on forums to discuss books like us, can see it. Bob Dylan's book of prose-poetry-ish things(it's quite the mess) Tarantula is horrible.

But to say someone like Morrison or Lennon are an insult to the art, and exclude them from the conversation is snobbish to say the least. Just because they don't follow suit with the greats shouldn't discount any of their work. Or god forbid their writing is accessible to the masses. I've heard poems that are written by the contemporary masters that I've laughed at because of the steaming self-importance that almost visibly drips from the page. People run away screaming from that kind of stuff, myself included. It's a huge turn off.

Poetry shouldn't be something that impresses itself with it's understanding of what it is. It's no use then. Morrison and Lennon's poetry is worth talking about because along with precise, intriguing language, it can keep people in the room, unlike the second one you posted where half the people just decide not to care about it or worse, run away with their fingers jammed in their ears and begin to hate poetry because they feel like they are foolish for not knowing at all what is going on.

It's not that he isn't writing true poetry, it's that he isn't writing good poetry.

[Alexander III]

It's not that he isn't writing true poetry, it's that he isn't writing good poetry.

Have to disagree with you

He is not writing great poetry, but he is writing good poetry.

[JBI]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ? No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

@ Jay on The Blues

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

I can think of 5 or more living poets as good as Blake or Rimbaud. If I stretch, I could probably come up with 200 or so poets whose poetics are more informed, and better executed than Morrison. I am no expert in contemporary verse either, and haven't yet looked into contemporary verse outside of English. Now, if I were to take the number of poets penning around 1965, the number again would be easily arrived at.

When there are no shortages of good poets, it's comical that people insist on reading bad ones. What that really attests to is the power of poetry - in that even mediocre verse can inspire those who know nothing of good verse - just think then of what would happen if people stumbled upon the good ones? Reminds me of when I found P. K. Page, and I just fell in love with her work - imagine if people were like that instead of just reading garbage song lyrics and toss poetics.

[Jeremydav]

Jim Morrison? Come on now, the lowest I stoop into faux-poetic songwriters is Dylan. :P

[stlukesguild]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ?

OK... I will grant that they are art. But it is not art of the quality that would engage me... certainly not when there are so many poets who are far better at what they do. By the same token we can discuss John Lennon's little line drawings. They have a certain quirky quality to them. But they are not likely to engage me like Lucian Freud, Anselm Kiefer, Andrew Wyeth, Avigdor Arikha, George Tooker, or any number of other modern/contemporary artists. Indeed, if I am looking for a sort of simple, minimal line drawing, George Dix, Picasso (especially his Vollard Suite and his 347 series) and any number of Japanese and Chinese artists are far more engaging... if only because they have invested far more into their art.

Comparisons are inevitable. We have but a given span of time to read, listen to music, look at paintings, etc... It only makes sense to spend this time with that which gives the greatest pleasure. With experience, amateurish poetry and art of pop stars just doesn't cut it. As jay on blues noted, Alicia Keys' poetry (and I might add Jewel's A Night without Armor) read like a page ripped from a teenager's diary. Morrison may not be quite as bad as this... but then again Morrison attained an undergraduate degree which involved courses in comparative literature and studies of Blake, Rimbaud, and Artaud (among others). Thus we might say his are the poems of a talented college student... not far removed from what is regularly posted by any number of LitNet members. But there is a big gap between this and really good... to say nothing of "great" poetry.

No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Blake...? Perhaps. Yet I am basing this solely upon what I know of in English or in translation. As JBI suggests, there may be at least a handful as good... as good a Rimbaud at least. I'd surely suggest Homero Aridjis, Seamus Heaney, Anne Carson, Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Adam Zagajewski, John Ashbery, and a number of others might be a strong as Rimbaud.

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

Why is it unjust. Whitman, Pessoa, Neruda, Rimbaud, Baudelaire (is his prose poems), and endless other poets wrote or continue to write in a form of free verse... and the results stand up to comparison with formal structured verse. No, we don't criticize Whitman for not using a set meter or rhyme (although he does employ as much at times). But the work does have its own inherent "music" and makes powerful use of language, metaphor, etc... Seriously, the notion that we cannot or should not compare different works of art because of stylistic differences becomes something of a defense mechanism: "Well certainly you can't compare Pablo Picasso with Michelangelo". But we do... yet we recognize that we don't make the comparison based solely upon the strengths of one or the other. We recognize that if Picasso cannot withstand comparison to Michelangeo, he has little chance of survival. Ultimately we may recognize that Picasso does not surpass the Italian master... but he does not come off looking ridiculous, either. Morrison, I would suggest, does. He looks ridiculous compared to Rimbaud... and he looks ridiculous compared with any number of contemporary/modern poets who employ verse forms that are every bit as open or non-formal: Neruda, Alberti, Aridjis, Ashbery, Carson, Octavio Paz... even Ginsberg.

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

I'm going to assume that JBI actually has some experience in reading poetry considering his past postings. I'll even go so far as to suggest that I might actually know how to read a poem. So let's look at the Morrison poem:

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.

Does the manner in which he has broken up the lines contribute in any way to the poem... or guide us in our reading? Or is it merely Disch's "snapped verse"? Do we actually read this poem as:

The hour of the wolf (pause)
has now ended. Cocks (pause)
Crow. The world is built (pause)
up again, struggling in (pause)
darkness (pause)

The child gives in to night-(pause)
Mare...

Of course that sound ridiculous. I personally read the poem as:

The hour of the wolf has now ended.
Cocks crow.
The world is built up again, struggling in darkness.

The child gives in to Nightmare...

The form Morrison has employed does nothing... adds nothing to the poem.

By way of comparison each of the breaks in Rimbaud make sense in terms of rhythm... and in the break in a phrase or image:

As I came down the impassible Rivers
I felt no more the bargeman's guiding hands,
Targets for yelling red-skins they were nailed
Naked to painted poles.

What did I care for any crews,
Carriers of English cotton or of Flemish grain!
Bargemen and all that hubbub left behind'
The waters let me go my own free way.

In the furious lashings of the tides,
Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And great peninsulas unmoored
Never knew more triumphant uproar than I knew!

Even the break in the lines...

Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And the great penninsulas unmoored...

(And this break exists in the original French) is clearly thought out and intentional. "I through that winter... RAN!! Bam!! He want's to emphasize that word... even adding an exclamation... and so it carries over to the start of the next line where it stands out. Is there some reason that Morrison split the word "night-Mare?" Does he desire us to emphasize "Mare"? Do we even read it in the matter in which it is broken up into lines... or is it merely broken up into lines because that is what a poem "should" be? The latter would seem to be so.

[Alexander III]

St.Lukes I agree Morrison is not of the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean his poetry is not art ? does that mean we cannot discuss him and admire his poetry ?

OK... I will grant that they are art. But it is not art of the quality that would engage me... certainly not when there are so many poets who are far better at what they do. By the same token we can discuss John Lennon's little line drawings. They have a certain quirky quality to them. But they are not likely to engage me like Lucian Freud, Anselm Kiefer, Andrew Wyeth, Avigdor Arikha, George Tooker, or any number of other modern/contemporary artists. Indeed, if I am looking for a sort of simple, minimal line drawing, George Dix, Picasso (especially his Vollard Suite and his 347 series) and any number of Japanese and Chinese artists are far more engaging... if only because they have invested far more into their art.

Comparisons are inevitable. We have but a given span of time to read, listen to music, look at paintings, etc... It only makes sense to spend this time with that which gives the greatest pleasure. With experience, amateurish poetry and art of pop stars just doesn't cut it. As jay on blues noted, Alicia Keys' poetry (and I might add Jewel's A Night without Armor) read like a page ripped from a teenager's diary. Morrison may not be quite as bad as this... but then again Morrison attained an undergraduate degree which involved courses in comparative literature and studies of Blake, Rimbaud, and Artaud (among others). Thus we might say his are the poems of a talented college student... not far removed from what is regularly posted by any number of LitNet members. But there is a big gap between this and really good... to say nothing of "great" poetry.

No living poet (that Ive read) is near the calibre of Rimbaud or Blake, does that mean that we should discard contemporary poetry ?

Blake...? Perhaps. Yet I am basing this solely upon what I know of in English or in translation. As JBI suggests, there may be at least a handful as good... as good a Rimbaud at least. I'd surely suggest Homero Aridjis, Seamus Heaney, Anne Carson, Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Adam Zagajewski, John Ashbery, and a number of others might be a strong as Rimbaud.

Also the comparison you made is rather unjust

Morrisons poems were mostly written in a free verse style which mimics that of Rimbaud's Illuminations. So comparing the style of Le Batteu Ivre and one of Morrisons poems is unjust, as the poetic structure of the two poems is utterly different.

Why is it unjust. Whitman, Pessoa, Neruda, Rimbaud, Baudelaire (is his prose poems), and endless other poets wrote or continue to write in a form of free verse... and the results stand up to comparison with formal structured verse. No, we don't criticize Whitman for not using a set meter or rhyme (although he does employ as much at times). But the work does have its own inherent "music" and makes powerful use of language, metaphor, etc... Seriously, the notion that we cannot or should not compare different works of art because of stylistic differences becomes something of a defense mechanism: "Well certainly you can't compare Pablo Picasso with Michelangelo". But we do... yet we recognize that we don't make the comparison based solely upon the strengths of one or the other. We recognize that if Picasso cannot withstand comparison to Michelangeo, he has little chance of survival. Ultimately we may recognize that Picasso does not surpass the Italian master... but he does not come off looking ridiculous, either. Morrison, I would suggest, does. He looks ridiculous compared to Rimbaud... and he looks ridiculous compared with any number of contemporary/modern poets who employ verse forms that are every bit as open or non-formal: Neruda, Alberti, Aridjis, Ashbery, Carson, Octavio Paz... even Ginsberg.

That second poem which st.lukes posted which you find ugly is a easily accessible poem, just you must read it like a poem, not like prose, that is why many people find some poetry inaccessible, if you read poesy like you read prose it just doesn't work. The poem is very beautiful one of my favorites of his after Lives and Childhood.

I'm going to assume that JBI actually has some experience in reading poetry considering his past postings. I'll even go so far as to suggest that I might actually know how to read a poem. So let's look at the Morrison poem:

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.

Does the manner in which he has broken up the lines contribute in any way to the poem... or guide us in our reading? Or is it merely Disch's "snapped verse"? Do we actually read this poem as:

The hour of the wolf (pause)
has now ended. Cocks (pause)
Crow. The world is built (pause)
up again, struggling in (pause)
darkness (pause)

The child gives in to night-(pause)
Mare...

Of course that sound ridiculous. I personally read the poem as:

The hour of the wolf has now ended.
Cocks crow.
The world is built up again, struggling in darkness.

The child gives in to Nightmare...

The form Morrison has employed does nothing... adds nothing to the poem.

By way of comparison each of the breaks in Rimbaud make sense in terms of rhythm... and in the break in a phrase or image:

As I came down the impassible Rivers
I felt no more the bargeman's guiding hands,
Targets for yelling red-skins they were nailed
Naked to painted poles.

What did I care for any crews,
Carriers of English cotton or of Flemish grain!
Bargemen and all that hubbub left behind'
The waters let me go my own free way.

In the furious lashings of the tides,
Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And great peninsulas unmoored
Never knew more triumphant uproar than I knew!

Even the break in the lines...

Emptier than children's minds, I through that winter
Ran! And the great penninsulas unmoored...

(And this break exists in the original French) is clearly thought out and intentional. "I through that winter... RAN!! Bam!! He want's to emphasize that word... even adding an exclamation... and so it carries over to the start of the next line where it stands out. Is there some reason that Morrison split the word "night-Mare?" Does he desire us to emphasize "Mare"? Do we even read it in the matter in which it is broken up into lines... or is it merely broken up into lines because that is what a poem "should" be? The latter would seem to be so.

I will grant you those points you mention, However you do loose me when you use examples of paintings and painters, as I am VERY limited in my knowledge there. Of the poets you mention I have read both Heaney and Ginsberg only. I would class both of them far behind Rimbaud, of course Heaney's style never did agree with me so I may be unjust, Its that his poems are very focused and Politically and Socialy centered. His greater focus is on the two above rather than on simple and pure aestheticism. I found his translation of Beowulf to be superb though, and I do consider him the greatest living writer (naturally out of those I have read)

However I think you misread my other post as I was not talking to JBI and I was not talking about Morrison's poem.

I was talking to Jay Blue about Rimbaud's poem, After The Deluge, of which you posted a small fragment.

[Alexander III]

Ah and I forgot to mention, that yes your point about Morrisons line breaks seems very valid, however he may have chosen those line breaks simply for the visual aesthetics of the poem, how that is to be judged I do not know. I am only providing the WHY as to his choice of line breaks.

I think it is unjust to compare Morrison's poem and Rimbaud's Batteu Ivre on stylistic grounds. Rimbaud's line breaks are highly determined by the fact that his poem was written in quartettes, each line of 12 syllables, and a rhyme pattern.

[Jay on blues]

It's not that he isn't writing true poetry, it's that he isn't writing good poetry.

Whether it's good poetry or not is completely subjective, and that's not really the argument.

It's about respecting the poet and not dismissing him or calling him an embarrassment to the art because his words don't adhere to whatever literary convention you chose to impose on his work.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Whether it's good poetry or not is completely subjective, and that's not really the argument.

It's about respecting the poet and not dismissing him or calling him an embarrassment to the art because his words don't adhere to whatever literary convention you chose to impose on his work.

Leaving aside the suggestion that good poetry is "completely subjective" which is nonsense, the poem above is nothing much more than pretty awful. I've never read any of his stuff before (probably because I'm none too fussed about pop/rock star poetry - I just expect it to be average at best) but there is nothing much subjective about that piece. Really, I think based soley on that extract "mediocrity" is high praise indeed.

Of course it could be that some of his other pieces are a lot better than that and I am being entirely harsh, however somehow I doubt it. With no time to read 1% of the quality stuff available out there, I certainly don't want to be exploring the realm of average, or indeed awful.

[Jay on blues]

Leaving aside the suggestion that good poetry is "completely subjective" which is nonsense, the poem above is nothing much more than pretty awful. I've never read any of his stuff before (probably because I'm none too fussed about pop/rock star poetry - I just expect it to be average at best) but there is nothing much subjective about that piece. Really, I think based soley on that extract "mediocrity" is high praise indeed.

Of course it could be that some of his other pieces are a lot better than that and I am being entirely harsh, however somehow I doubt it. With no time to read 1% of the quality stuff available out there, I certainly don't want to be exploring the realm of average, or indeed awful.

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.

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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[Jay on blues]

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.

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.

[Jeremydav]

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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

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.

Granted the fact that nobody (I hope) 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). 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.

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.