Beck
 E-mail this user
 Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | I think anyone who is a member of a group called "The Queens English Society" is always going to hold the opinion stated in that article. I think it's nonsense... The kind of people that frown upon the way that poetry has progressed are the same that ridicule modern works of art for their lack of what might be considered a traditional technique or skill. Art belongs to the people unfortunately the snobs always have and always will attempt to cage it for fear that it will become diluted. As an art form poetry is defined by the people that are inspired by it not by the man with the rule book. |
|
|
champagne
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | True enough Beck. I don't think we need be militant about it. If the QES won't expand the definition of poetry in their view then I say, "Good on 'em, eh?"
Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? A poem is a poem as long as it is called a poem by its creator. A label imposed by a bunch of stodgy professors in some kind of elite scholars' group is still a label and not a definition. |
|
|
ThePenguin
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | But it's the snobs who pay for the art, not the "people"! :-) |
|
|
Beck
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | This is why I still find poetry so intriguing... it's the last art form that isn't a big money spinner. Besides a purchaser of a work of art attributes it with a specific value but that value only relates to the person who paid for it... the real value of the art is and always will be decided by the people. |
|
|
ThePenguin
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | Sorry, Beck, strongly disagree. It's the individual, not the "people" who decides whether art (any kind) has a meaning to him/her or not. Masses can't decide what's art and what isn't. And value has nothing to do with price.
As for QES and poetry - like any writing, poetry is a DISCIPLINE (actually, all art is about discipline), and there has to be some measure or other that determines whether "the word-thing" is poetry or not, not just someone deciding to call an arrangement of words on paper a poem. QES stating it as a "measure" - cadence, beat or rhythm - is probably one thing that most poets will agree distinguishes a poem from other "word-things". |
|
|
Yedwelsh
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | I have to agree with Penquin. for me a poem is something that moves me to think, or even better, rethink something familiar. If you can move a large group of individuals with a poem, then you have either written a piece of crap, or created something that will be remembered and shared among friends for years. This is i think a fine line which is why finding the right words is so important.
"word-things" are nice to work on as well, but like an orgasm, it's difficult enough to give them away sometimes, much less make any money off'em.
And if suddenly should spring out of the woodwork a herd of tea-drinking social club members pointing at your work, shouting "it's not a poem!" and "down with word-things!" then you're probably doing something corectly. |
|
|
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
18/04/2008 | Art is not discipline. Art is expression. To successfully convey an emotion, concept or life experience through a creative medium. Not all poets, for that matter all writers, are not artist. Though, I do agree that its the individual and not the masses that propel a piece in to the ranks of artistry. Its when someone gets it, whatever they may get from a certain piece, is when it becomes art. Price or value have nothing to do with it. Its about being a thinking, feeling human being |
|
|
Beck
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
19/04/2008 | Penguin that is an interesting way of misinterpreting my words. The value of art is not decided by how much someone is willing to pay for it as the monetary figure paid for a work of art is nearly always representative of the amount of money that one person has to spend on it. My point was that the wealthy can't decide what is art purely because they can afford to pay astronomical prices for it. Which is what you seemed to be suggesting with your comment about the snobs being the ones that buy the art. |
|
|
Beck
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
19/04/2008 | The people are merely a collective of individuals so I'm not sure where you're gong with that either... my point again was that in attempting to snub the artistic work of a poet because he/she doesn't conform to a set of rules decided by an elitist group of snobs all we serve to do is to halt the progression of poetry which will essentially always be decided by the people that write and enjoy it. |
|
|
ThePenguin
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
19/04/2008 | Beck, two things: First, the comment was intended as humour (note the :-)) Secondly, those snobs are people too.
On a more serious level, the only people who could afford to let an artist to his/her thing - those who either commission the work or buy it from a gallery/street wall - are people with money to spare. If it wasn't for them, the only art would be those god-awful paint on velvet things that people seem to buy by the truck load.
Do you honestly think that art, including poetry, would survive if it were not for the elitists, who are the ones who decide what pieces are worth noting? (I don't mean the birthday card kind of poetry - that would survive because people can afford it at a couple of dollars a time.) Or would art become something that only the rich can afford to do, since they could afford to get it printed and distributed?
In terms of recognising a real poem (or work of art), there's a lot of poems and art that I loathe, but can still agree makes a worthwhile contribution to Art. (I wouldn't buy it, but that doesn't stop the recognition of its artistic value).
What is there in a piece that tells me it Art, and not a piece of gabage masquerading as Art? Is that set by "an elitist set of snobs"?
|
|
|
Beck
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
19/04/2008 | Yeah I disagree, and yes it can survive without the elitists and always has, the origins of art exist outside of the restraints that our history and society place on them. I don't think this is an argument either of us will win people have been arguing this point for thousands of years.
I think I've spoken to you once before on this forum and I'm pretty sure I remember completely disagreeing with you then as well. Perhaps we should collaborate on something. |
|
|
ThePenguin
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
20/04/2008 | :-) Disagreement is part of the fun of being a writer on a writing site! And it would be interesting to see a collaboration between us.
But on what kind of structure? You (based on your uploads) do mostly poetry; me (knowing myself), I'm more at home in factual stuff (not that poetry can't be factual). |
|
|
psgri2003
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
21/04/2008 | i actually like the fact that these people exist. i always find that part of the problem is that people who look at formalised structure, which derived as much from fashions contemporary to the authors who pioneered them, fail to see that they were a transitional form, as are all forms. modern poetry reflects fashion as much as traditional poetry.
for example, iambic pentameter, associated with sonnets and heroic verse, mastery of which is often held up as being a demonstration of a writer's skill is merely a formalisation of the stress patterns in the speech of a native english speaker. a lot of the rules were to give the writers, who had an audience composed of royals and other court officials, a guideline so that they could observe proper etiquette.
things move on. if they wish poetry to become a fossilised genre that sinks under its own hidebound weight they are welcome to their poetry.
i can't believe that andrew motion, surely one of the worst poets writing in the english language (who cares about his laureate status) was used as an example of anything. if all modern poetry was like motion's it would deserve to be gathered up and scattered on the fields like manure.
why not something beautiful like pablo neruda? something earth shattering like plath or eliot? no, they pick the most banal example possible.
all forms are tools.
i follow the creed of william burroughs: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law -- hassan i sabbah
these people exist so you know what to avoid.
Post edited on: 21/04/2008 09:39:01 PM |
|
|
ThePenguin
Online
E-mail this user
Add to Readers
21/04/2008 | "all forms are tools" - Now, THAT is profound!
Funny thing about this "debate" on what is or is not a poem - Maybe we should resurrect Alexander Pope's Dunciad and update it! |
|
|
| 1 |
