How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 For Brad   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

For Brad

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


0 posted 02-09-2009 02:12 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi Brad,

quote:
"Turtle

Are you nuts"


Apparently you think so. Maybe you should explain yourself Brad.

I would think, this should be a private disscusion, but
if you want to do this in public, be my guest.

Perhaps we could all learn something, including me.

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum28/HTML/002432.html

turtle


[This message has been edited by turtle (02-09-2009 03:17 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 02-09-2009 04:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Interesting....I'd like to hear the answer to this one, too
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


2 posted 02-09-2009 06:33 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Sorry, it was not at attack. I was trying to play. Obviously, it didn't work.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 02-09-2009 07:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Knowing Brad, I agree. It's one of those things that would obviously be recognized as a joke in person but can be misconstrued in print with no smile or facial expression to key on.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


4 posted 02-09-2009 08:52 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

That's certainly understandable Brad. As I said, I was half asleep, I'm currious though what you did mean.
There must be some reason that you asked me that???


If there's something with my critique that you question, or disagree with you should tell me Brad.
Whether here or in an email.

That being said, Hey, I like to play and I'd just a soon play here. If anything we might all get to know one
another a little better.


Turtle


/Please go ahead and delete the post in the critique forum. Thank you.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


5 posted 02-09-2009 08:58 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

BTW, I'm looking for an old friend.

Me leeetle yellow emoticon.

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum13/HTML/001447.html
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


6 posted 02-09-2009 11:36 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
That being said, Hey, I like to play and I'd just a soon play here. If anything we might all get to know one
another a little better.


You're making solid contributions to CA. That I disagree with a lot of it is always a good sign.

By the way, I use "nuts" a lot because I love the WWII story: "From the American commander to the German commander: Nuts!"

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 02-09-2009 11:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

ESPECIALLY when Brad disagrees with rhyming techniques! That IS a good thing!
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


8 posted 02-11-2009 01:54 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hey brad,

Do you mean sort of like chipmunks that sling nuts? lol (kidding)

Really, I prefer criticism. I usually learn more and find a greater perspective.

To me, the most important thing that a writer needs to consider is how he can
shape  the readers understanding. I think. the need for the poet's perspective is
greater,  at this moment in time, than it has been in many years.

I know that poets like myself and Balladeer are considered to be dinoraurs
in poetry circles. But for the common man, structured verse, when done well,
is more memorable, inspirational, and what they expect to read when they
read poetry. That is not to say that free verse is not important. It is. But, it
usually appeals more to the informed and cerebral reader.

(before this post is moved to philosophy 101)

My desire to help others find their own voice is more about my love for and
belief in poetry.

The first thing that I noticed about Allogenes poem is that he chose the wrong
form for the the idea/emotion he was trying to convey. I have probably written
more sonnets than anything else. The large majority of at least the first half
of them, range from the mundane to the absurd.

The most important part of the sonnet is the turn. In his poem the turn is neither
needed, or supported. It also forces a conclusion on a poem that should not have
a conclusion. The sonnet could be used to make an argument, but their are better
forms that can make an argument more clever and profound.

The sonnet is intended as a suitors verse to be used to convince his beloved that
there is only one conclusion she can reach......his. This is probably the only
thing that it works well for.

I didn't tell allogenes this because I know from experience that much can be gained
by writing sonnets. They are a great way to practice and learn structure.

Brad, by now you're probably thinking I'm all puffy and full of myself....I probably am  lol
but because you are the moderator of the crit forum you deserve to have some insight
into what I am about.

turtle  
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


9 posted 02-11-2009 02:10 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Turtle, I had to smile at this...

quote:
I know that poets like myself and Balladeer are considered to be dinoraurs
I can be the queen of typos, but somehow dino-raurs simply tickled my funnybone...



Thanks!


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 02-11-2009 04:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, we DO roar on occasion!
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


11 posted 02-11-2009 06:12 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle



Where's my coffee?

For a minute there I think I must have slipped back into the 'raurin' twenties

Turtle  
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


12 posted 02-20-2009 06:10 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Turtle!  Form is still very fine.  At the same time, I'll contend that free verse can be highly structured, making it hardly "free" at all.  

Even though I have promised in these forums never to mention Wallace Stevens again, I haven't mentioned him to you.  Stevens is a formalist.  It's extremely clear in poems such as "Peter Quince at the Clavier. The formality, or structure is less overt in something like "Twenty Ways of Looking at a Blackbird," yet the poem seems clearly structured, and is "of a piece."

I've been thinking lately about the nuances of direct vision and peripheral vision as they relate to poetry.  "Direct Vision," in this train of thought, relates to certain forms, the ballad in particular, an attempt to tell a straightforward story on the poet's part, and an expectation on the reader's part to be able to readily understand both the poet's tale and the poem's intentions.

No problem with that, if that is to one's taste, poet or reader.  But, in some sense, and speaking metaphorically, it's a bit like being a dray horse with blinders on so he/she only sees what's immediately in front of his/her face.

"Peripheral vision," again metaphorically, opens up the possibility of recognizing, uh, metaphor, for one.  The writer/reader not only sees what is in front on them, but also gets a sense or what might actually be going on, a "freedom" in both the writing and reading process.  

Part of what this leads to is referential imagery, or left half of the brain thinking/writing/reading.  When done well, it's not terribly important where the reader goes with the imagery, as long as it moves the reader to go someplace, moves them, as it were.  This is achievable, in part, because of the emotive/structural context in which seemingly structure less, or "free" verse is composed.  

It's a discipline few master (just like every other form of poetic discipline) and leads to the unfortunate amateur notion that if one sets up any sort of kanoodling with arbitrary line breaks, one has a poem.  But this is not much different than thinking any bit of rhyming iambic tetrameter garbaghe is poetry just because it looks like a "poem."

To try to be clear, I'm not using the accepted definition of "peripheral" as something irrelevant, or off to the side. We all, who can see, have physical peripheral vision.  Simply put, if you spot someone out of the corner of one's eye who is taking aim at you, peripheral vision suggests you duck.  It's pretty relevant, say, to survival.

Poetically (and metaphorically) many writers and poets work at the edges of their "peripheral" vision, which does not always require an overt form for conveyance, though "form" is not a deterrent.  

I was just thinking here about William Blake:  Formalist to the core, there is still no way to "get" what he's talking about without diving into the periphery.  

Similarly, and perhaps more clearly, one can't read Poe's "Raven" and think it is about a visit from a bird. Peripherally, one can't help but get caught up in the incantatory music at the very least, and this "movement" may BE the power of the poem.  It's certainly the only thing that makes it memorable, and that's fine.

ON DINOSAURISM:  I'm one of the dinosaurs on this site also.  Through circumstance and vagaries of life, my own poetic journey and/or outlook was shaped by some pretty "peripheral" poets and poetry, along with the academic stuff through an ABD.  It's not just what I read.  I knew and was taught by people like Imamu Amiri Baraka (Then known as LeRoi Jones, now Amiri Baraka, the Poet Laureate of New Jersey), Philip Whalen, Gary Snyder, Alan Ginsberg, Peter Orlofsky, Gregory Corso, Lawrence Ferlinghetti,* Diane diPrima, Judith Molina, Julian Beck and many other, still after 50 years, basically "outsider" or peripheral poets. This was happenstance.  Many of my mentors (except Baraka, my teacher at Rutgers) passed through Boulder Colorado and The Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics, and I lived in Boulder at the time.

*Ferlinghetti was the major exception.  His book, “A Coney Island of The Mind” sold over a million copies, unthinkable for a poet!  By contrast, Ginsberg’s “Howl,” and Corso’s “Gasoline,” were initially published as chapbooks and had (generously estimating) original sales of 500 - 1,000, but remained in limited edition print for many years.

As obscure as these poets will be to most folk, many were associated with Black Mountain College, many strongly influenced poet/teacher/literary theorist Charles Olson. So, while these mentors were definitely outside of the academic mainstream, they still represented a consolidated school of thought on the nature of “poetics,” despite highly divergent individual styles.  The folks represent, though hardly in full, the poets who immediately preceded my generation.  (Most were in their late fifties and sixties when I was a 26 year old “kid.”)  

So, each person brings the sum of whom they are to the poetic table, through, in PiP, the poetry or discussion forums.  And there are, God knows, going to be differences of opinion.  I simply suggest that “What is Poetry” cannot be established by fiat or nailed to a table, though lots and lots of people try.  I had an “alternative” education from working poets.  I got influenced.  So it goes.

To quote Henry Miller:  “Form” is the jackass that continually pops up in literary quarterlies.”  I think he wrote that in 1947, and things haven’t changed much.

Turtle: returning to your post, for one, I’m delighted to see a  conscientious thread on the nature of poetry in ANY PiP forum.

I came up with a nice line for “dinosaurs” the other day.  “We have minds like steel traps, they’re just rusty and missing a few teeth.

Gumming away,  Jimbeaux

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (02-20-2009 07:29 PM).]

turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


13 posted 02-21-2009 04:35 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Jim you're clearly a bright fellow and are lucky to have had the background in poetry that you do.

i Turtle! Form is still very fine. At the same time, I'll contend that free verse can be highly structured, making it hardly "free" at all."

Jim, if you can't define it you can't hang your hat on it. If you remove the description of your hat from it,
how are those looking for that hat going to find it? I have nothing against free verse, as a matter of fact
I'm trying to find my voice in it right now.

All good poets have a need to express themselves. Clearly so do you. Lets look at your argument.

I've been thinking lately about the nuances of direct vision and peripheral vision as they relate to poetry. "Direct Vision," in this train of thought, relates to certain forms, the ballad in particular, an attempt to tell a straightforward story on the poet's part, and an expectation on the reader's part to be able to readily understand both the poet's tale and the poem's intentions.

Here you describe structured forms  as "direct vision"

"Peripheral vision," again metaphorically, opens up the possibility of recognizing, uh, metaphor, for one. The writer/reader not only sees what is in front on them, but also gets a sense or what might actually be going on, a "freedom" in both the writing and reading process

Here you describe the ability to recognise metaphor as "peripheral vision"

Is this a valid argument?

I think not. Structured verse is a form and the use of metaphor is a method. These are not two things
having atributes that are both similar and juxtaposed to one another.

]i]Part of what this leads to is referential imagery, or left half of the brain thinking/writing/reading. When done well, it's not terribly important where the reader goes with the imagery, as long as it moves the reader to go someplace, moves them, as it were. This is achievable, in part, because of the emotive/structural context in which seemingly structure less, or "free" verse is composed.[/i]

I happen to be left handed and use the right half of my brain. I agree that a storyline moves the reader's
thoughts in the direction the writer wants to take them. But, here again you compare structure to method.
Whether the form is structured or free has nothing to do with what storyline or metaphor the writer chooses to use.

Similarly, and perhaps more clearly, one can't read Poe's "Raven" and think it is about a visit from a bird. Peripherally, one can't help but get caught up in the incantatory music at the very least, and this "movement" may BE the power of the poem. It's certainly the only thing that makes it memorable, and that's fine.

Here you state an opinion and make no argument at all.

ON DINOSAURISM: I'm one of the dinosaurs on this site also. Through circumstance and vagaries of life, my own poetic journey and/or outlook was shaped by some pretty "peripheral" poets and poetry, along with the academic stuff through an ABD. It's not just what I read. I knew and was taught by people like Imamu Amiri Baraka (Then known as LeRoi Jones, now Amiri Baraka, the Poet Laureate of New Jersey), Philip Whalen, Gary Snyder, Alan Ginsberg, Peter Orlofsky, Gregory Corso, Lawrence Ferlinghetti,* Diane diPrima, Judith Molina, Julian Beck and many other, still after 50 years, basically "outsider" or peripheral poets. This was happenstance. Many of my mentors (except Baraka, my teacher at Rutgers) passed through Boulder Colorado and The Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics, and I lived in Boulder at the time.

Much of what I'm reading here is confusing. Perhaps some of that is my fault,

BUT! You wrote it.....lol

Please organize your thoughts more clearly and site precedence, with links, to support it instead of your credentials. Then come back and present this in an argument that is
clear so that I might understand.  

turtles


[This message has been edited by Ron (02-21-2009 07:32 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


14 posted 02-22-2009 04:02 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Turtle,

          What is formal verse?

     If you check out the Torah, you'll find much of these books to be written in verse.  It is not the accentual syllabic verse you use.  It is antiphonal in part.  There are many essays and books that talk about the formal aspects of biblical verse.  Simply because this verse is not accentual syllabic doesn't mean it is not formal.

     You might check out chinese verse.  Chinese verse is also formal, highly so, and cannot be duplicated in English translation.  Does this mean that your accentual-syllabic verse is fluff in comparison?  I would suggest to you that there are chinese scholars who might think so, and with justification.  While there are Japanese scholars who are justifiably proud of their verse tradition, it is fairly free and simple in comparison, at least insofar as my reasonably naive understanding of both have lead me to believe.

     Classical Greeks from the Greek anthology for the most part would certainly have found accentual syllabic verse a blunt instrument, like using a roast beef to repair an antique pocket watch.  Their mastery of metrics would certainly have born them out.  Those english-speaking writers who've attempted to use those meters with any degree of sophistication have been all too aware of how profound their failure was, and what amazing things those Greek masters could accomplish.

     Even those English writers who've modeled themselves on the Greek and Roman masters, Pope and Dryden for example, took pains to maintain their modesty.  They had at least some understanding of how much they didn't understand.  Johnson, Landor, Gray and the neoclassicists may have tried to write their pindaric odes; they were only too aware they missed the most basic of the real formal elements involved.  In fact the works they wrote were frequently fine works — Jonson, in particular had a good feel for the ode — that were wonderful poetry.  They were simply different.

     Accentual syllabic verse is probably not much older than Chaucer.  It certainly didn't dominate the poetry of the language until the sixteenth century or so.  To suggest that you try to master formal verse is perhaps a mistake, considering the fact that there are so many classic formal verses that fight with each other for recognition not only in our own literature but in world literature.

     As for rhyme, I've always enjoyed it, but it's not the be all and end all of verse.  Many "formalists" will disagree.  Milton could and did use it well, but wasn't convinced it was necessary.  Most other poets until recently did well without it.  Frankly, it works better in rhyme rich languages.  Few people use it well in English today, and very few ever have.  The structure of the language forces odd locutions and banal matches that take away from the richness of the verse for the most part.  Internal half-rhyme works better in English, and the rhymes don't force
meaning in stilted and awkward ways.

     I would suggest to you that any poetry is "Formal" because it isn't prose.  An Ode by Jonson isn't an unpoem because it doesn't follow the same conventions as an Ode by Pindar.  Free verse is still poetry even though it isn't accentual syllabic verse.  It's the poetry that makes a poem work, not the verse.

     They used to teach verse-writing in school.  Everyone wrote verse.  Everybody could rhyme, sometimes by the yard.  It was nothing special then, it's nothing special now beyond a rote skill open to mastery should you wish to master it.  Poetry is the art, and few people attain that.

     To say that there is Formal verse and Free verse is, to my mind, a 19th century quarrel.

     I compare these distinctions to some of the discussions about martial arts.  There are people who divide martial arts into hard and soft arts, into internal and external arts, into exhibition and fighting arts.  These divisions are foolish.  The question is, Does your act serve as the proper way for you?

     In poetry, it doesn't matter if you are a feminist poet, a traditional poet, a free verse poet, a gay poet, a Newyorkian poet or whatever.  The question is, Have you a poetry that serves your way in life?

     You are probably not aware of it, but what Jim has done is to offer you a look at his set of master's credentials.  In the martial arts, this is a formal document.  It starts out saying who the original master of the style was, and then it goes down from generation to generation, sometimes for several hundred years, specifying exactly who each master was, and exactly whom that master passed his skills to within that single tradition.  Go-ju ryu, for example.  Or Tai-chi-chuan, where some of these documents are worked around to give ancestors for almost a thousand years.

     Jim is more modest.  He goes back to to forties, though he could have gone back further had he wanted to, and included Allen Ginsburg's dad, who was also a fine poet, and gone perhaps back to Blake.  It is a fine tradition and Jim is a very very good writer who's worked long and hard at what he does.  He didn't mention his publications list to you, though he might have, because he works at being a regular guy — which he is.

Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Ron (02-22-2009 07:13 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


15 posted 02-22-2009 07:33 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I compare these distinctions to some of the discussions about martial arts.  There are people who divide martial arts into hard and soft arts, into internal and external arts, into exhibition and fighting arts.  These divisions are foolish.  The question is, Does your act serve as the proper way for you?

Finally, Bob, I think you're getting the idea.

Now, let's try inserting some of these labels into your paragraph: liberal, conservative, left, right, Democrat, Republican . . .


turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


16 posted 02-22-2009 01:24 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

Bob, I think you misunderstand. I'm not trying to short Jim on the value of his credentials. I'm simply suggesting that they serve ME no purpose. They're his credentials.

As far as this argument over what is verse, what is free, what is popular, and to what argument you subscribe.

This subject has been going around these poetry blogs for at least ten years that I'm aware of and there are nearly as many opinions as poets. Strike that! There ARE as many opinions as there are poets.

You said one thing that I agree with and it is what shoots your argument in the foot.

First and foremost it is ART!

turtles

turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


17 posted 02-22-2009 03:01 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle



If we want to get down to the bones of this argument, it is the art.

Art is a matter of perception and perspective.

Art is intended to touch the heart and stir the soul.

What am I here for? The art!

If you want to impress me, if you want to sway me.....

Put it in a poem and post it in CA.

Show me want you mean..

Art says more to me than diatribe ever will.


turtles
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 02-22-2009 03:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I do not wish to impress you.  I do not wish to sway you.  I do not wish to compete with you.  You have what I have to offer you at this point.  I'm sorry that it hasn't been useful.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


19 posted 02-22-2009 04:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If you want to impress me, if you want to sway me.....

Put it in a poem and post it in CA.

Which raises the obvious response, turtle: Why are you reading, let along posting, in the Alley?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


20 posted 02-22-2009 04:34 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I keep meaning to come back to this, but something always seems to get in the way.

A couple of points then:

1. There are no dinosaurs.

--Formalism is alive and well. To take three names off my shelf: Timothy Steele, A.E. Stallings, and David Baker.


2. I think the only real point of contention is this:

quote:
But for the common man, structured verse, when done well,
is more memorable, inspirational, and what they expect to read when they
read poetry.


--I don't know who this common man is any more than I know who Eliot's educated reader is.

--Personally, I think readers' tastes change over time but that just may be me (because my tastes change over time).

--Ever read "American Psycho"? Look at Bateman's* views on Genesis and Huey Lewis. Do you agree with him?

  
Originally had the character's name as Bates. I hope it is an understandable confusion.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


21 posted 02-23-2009 03:20 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi Brad,  

After great consternation and considerable consideration I have deemed this
subject irrelevant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
1. There are no dinosaurs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ha!ha!h!ha!
I wasn't referring to the tangible. I meant that some poetic vehicles are considered extinct,
or have been thought to be, over the last 100 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
--Formalism is alive and well. To take three names off my shelf: Timothy Steele, A.E. Stallings, and David Baker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've read Steele and Stallings, not Baker. They both caution that formal
verse has fallen out of popularity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
--I don't know who this common man is any more than I know who Eliot's educated reader is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The common man has a day job. Poetry scares him to death because he can't
understand it and he rarely reads anything other than the signature at the
bottom of his paycheck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me repeat this:

Art is a matter of perception and perspective.

Art is intended to touch the heart and stir the soul.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a whole, today's poet has taken this art form and turned it into a soapbox that he uses to
scream his ideas, opinions, and emotions "AT" the reader. Is that art?

Gentlemen,. The vehicle chosen is irrelevant.

turtle  


[This message has been edited by turtle (02-23-2009 04:01 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


22 posted 02-23-2009 04:53 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Gentlemen,. The vehicle chosen is irrelevant.


--So you've changed your mind?

quote:
As a whole, today's poet has taken this art form and turned it into a soapbox that he uses to
scream his ideas, opinions, and emotions "AT" the reader. Is that art?


Who is doing this?  I read Louise Gluck's "Averno" about a year ago. It didn't really work for me (though it does have its moments). Is that what you're talking about?

quote:
I've read Steele and Stallings, not Baker.


Great! Do you like them?  I do.


quote:
Art is a matter of perception and perspective.


Do you ever wonder why we all continue to privilege the visual (Jim did it too.) in what most people concede is an aural art form? I say most because many now argue that it is also visual.

But what about the object itself? Doesn't the art itself have a place as well?

quote:
Art is intended to touch the heart and stir the soul.


Both very dangerous things if you think about it.

turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


23 posted 02-25-2009 03:28 AM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi Brad,

"As a whole, today's poet has taken this art form  and turned it into a soapbox that they use to
scream there ideas, opinions, and emotions "AT" the reader. Is that art?

Hmmmm...Yes you're right that is an erroneous statement'

Sorry Brad, What I meant was:

"Many of today's poets have taken this art form (poetry) and turned it into a soapbox that they use to
scream there ideas, opinions, and emotions "AT" the reader. Is that art?

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great! Do you like them?  I do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

lol... No, not really They make too many assumtions and I was sometimes left going "Okay....How did we get here?"

I used to love a debate. When I was in college (many years ago) I spotted a course in "Aristotelian logic"  and I took it......


They lied. The title of the text was "Mathmatical Logic". This book took every form of argument ever concieved and broke
them down into mathmatical fomulas. In ink that dried the page, it then went on through line, after line, after line of
mathmatical equations.....

I've no desire to use these equations,  I'm assuredly rusty......and bored, but I think I can get from the premise:
"Art should move the heart and soul" to "A poem's form is irrelevant to art." in about eight equations....lol

Let's see:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Art should move the heart and soul"

If art has many forms and a poem is one of them
Then a poem is art.

If art moves the heart and soul and not all poems move the heart and soul
Then not all poems are art.

If not all poems are art and a sonnet is a form of poem
Then not all sonnets are art.

If not all poems are art and free verse is a form of poem
Then not all Free verse is art.

If not all sonnets are art and not all free verse is art
Then some are art and some are not.

If some are art and some are not.
Then a poem's form has no bearing on art.

If a poem's form has no bearing on art and anything that has no bearing is irrelevent
Then a poem's form is irrelevant to art.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm.....I may have missed an equation or two, but you should see what I'm saying.


This argument that free verse is a better poetry form or that structured verse is a better poetry form is not
an argument at all, but an opinion. It was perpetrated by Whittman, many years ago and has been
perpetuated in poetry circles ever since.

This opinion is an erroneous opinion; It was based on Whiittman's belief that it was the
best form for him.  And, that he deemed it to be the American  poetry form
. .....According to Aristotle this opinion is in error.

I say we dig up Whittman and we dig up Aristotle and we let them fight it out....lol

turtle            

[This message has been edited by turtle (02-25-2009 04:01 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 02-26-2009 12:36 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Turtle,

           Your chain of logic has an excluded middle in the midst of one of the syllogisms.

If not all sonnets are art and not all free verse is art
Then some are art and some are not.

If some are art and some are not.
Then a poem's form has no bearing on art.
     In fact both free verse and formal verse are verse that has form.  The form in free verse simply has to justify itself word by word as it goes along and, for that reason. it is almost impossible to construct a detailed and systematic metrical commentary that will be generalizable across the board.  It nevertheless has the majority of my affections.  Breathing and breath-centered attempts to talk about free verse metrics seem useful.  The notion of thinking that free verse is formless verse does not seem useful, at least to me.

     Thoughts?

Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> For Brad   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors