Poetry Discussion Thread

[uni57]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Dave, my good man, you wouldn't be suggesting that the "masses", as you put it, are uneducated, would you?

Not so much uneducated as plain-old stupid -- and not in the practice of thinking. And it's getting worse every generation. I blame... what else?... nutrition (and environmental toxins and thimerosal-containing vaccines). Don't get me started! (you know what happens!) Children of Fruit Loop-eating parents whose parents also ate junk food are not made of good stock. They are not achieving their full genetic potential. And they are not stimulated to put their limited mental capacity to use. They just watch sitcoms on TV. It's a downward spiral of society. Sometimes I think it's not that bad. But then I go to the mall.

Of course, thank God, there are many, many wonderful exceptions. It's not happening across the board. Just take a look at all of the amazing people here on this forum.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I disagree. I think poetry, along with all the other fine arts, are just another method of expression, and communication. Some artists say that their inspiration is sudden, and comparable to a sudden outpouring of emotion, but I think that outpouring is to other people. Understanding music isn't just listening to the pretty sounds (though it can be enjoyed that way)...it's empathizing with the writer, and feeling what he/she was feeling during the writing, or felt due to the inspiration. Listen to Mars, the Bringer of War by Holst, and you'll understand what I mean. That piece is powerful.

I think the same thing can be applied to poetry. Whether you personally can relate to what an author is describing is irrelevant...but if you can understand what the author is trying to convey, then the poem has been successful.

I think you missed my main point; what *you* find "powerful", uplifting, inspiring, you name it, I or someone else may not. It's as simple as that. If *you* derive pleasure from something, but i don't, doesn't necessarily make something a success or a failure. The highest grossing films, or best selling music have plenty of critics as well. But what you said right here: "I think the same thing can be applied to poetry. Whether you personally can relate to what an author is describing is irrelevant...but if you can understand what the author is trying to convey, then the poem has been successful" is pretty much the *same* thing I stated. You can be entertained by art without relating to it.

[uni57]

I think Alex means that poetry should embody clear communication. You should be able to understand what the poet is trying to convey. Even if you don't relate to it, you should be able to understand it.

I don't know what to think. I know that the same work can mean different things to me at different stages of my life. And mean different things to other people. Poetry or literature or lyrics are not universal. Because of the ideas, they can't be -- try as you might to clearly communicate them.

That being said... can a young person, through reading a poem, gain some understanding of what it's like to grow old, looking back on decade after decade of life, knowing that the end is near? Having regrets and unfulfilled dreams? Growing feeble? Being alone because their spouse and many of their friends have died?

I think the answer is "yes", which is my quandry. Is there an idea too foreign that it can't be clearly communicated? Certainly old age is a foreign concept to a person only a handful of years old. They can't easily visualize or feel that immense span of time.

Can we separate out understanding from epiphany? From impact? From really relating?

We can relate to a work about love lost because we've experienced it. But what about the things we haven't experienced? Surely poetry can communicate new ideas to us. Maybe the young person doesn't care and can't really relate to the poem about the old person. But surely, if the poem communicates clearly, they can understand it. And as they get older, they can also relate to it. Late in life, they can revel in it, because the poem speaks from their own heart what they are feeling.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by uni57

I think Alex means that poetry should embody clear communication. You should be able to understand what the poet is trying to convey. Even if you don't relate to it, you should be able to understand it.

I don't know what to think. I know that the same work can mean different things to me at different stages of my life. And mean different things to other people. Poetry or literature or lyrics are not universal. Because of the ideas, they can't be -- try as you might to clearly communicate them.

That being said... can a young person, through reading a poem, gain some understanding of what it's like to grow old, looking back on decade after decade of life, knowing that the end is near? Having regrets and unfulfilled dreams? Growing feeble? Being alone because their spouse and many of their friends have died?

I think the answer is "yes", which is my quandry. Is there an idea too foreign that it can't be clearly communicated? Certainly old age is a foreign concept to a person only a handful of years old. They can't easily visualize or feel that immense span of time.

Can we separate out understanding from epiphany? From impact? From really relating?

We can relate to a work about love lost because we've experienced it. But what about the things we haven't experienced? Surely poetry can communicate new ideas to us. Maybe the young person doesn't care and can't really relate to the poem about the old person. But surely, if the poem communicates clearly, they can understand it. And as they get older, they can also relate to it. Late in life, they can revel in it, because the poem speaks from their own heart what they are feeling.

Poetry is artistic expression. Whether you *understand* it or not is also not the point. Bob Dylan, for example, never wrote a single word for *you* or *me* and he didn't CARE if you or I or anyone else "understood" what he wrote. He wrote from his heart (in most cases) and wrote primalrily for himself. In other words he didn't care a wit if anyone liked or *understood* his stuff, which many do and many do not. If you are a true artist, you create for yourself first; if others dig it, then great! Beethoven never thought..Hmm, I wonder if everybody will understand my works. He simply wrote what HE wanted to write, not worrying if he'd be understood or not.

[uni57]

Sounds rather arrogant. Poetry/lyrics/art-in-general is a form of communication. Those who fail to communicate will suffer financially and thus end their career. You can do it for yourself, but if that doesn't happen to please others, you are out of a job.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by uni57

I think Alex means that poetry should embody clear communication. You should be able to understand what the poet is trying to convey. Even if you don't relate to it, you should be able to understand it.

blahde blahdee blah

We can relate to a work about love lost because we've experienced it. But what about the things we haven't experienced? Surely poetry can communicate new ideas to us. Maybe the young person doesn't care and can't really relate to the poem about the old person. But surely, if the poem communicates clearly, they can understand it. And as they get older, they can also relate to it. Late in life, they can revel in it, because the poem speaks from their own heart what they are feeling.

Well said, Dave. This was the point I was trying to make, Terry. You say Bob Dylan wrote for himself? If he wrote purely for the joy of doing it, then why'd he produce his music (I almost put CDs...heehee). The arts are an alternate form of communication, and if your art can't express the reason you did it, it's not "successful". Music and pictures can still be pretty, and poems can be good grammatically, but if they don't convey the emotion, then they aren't successful. Whether you like them or not is another story. There are plenty of songs that I like, and I have absolutely no idea what they're about.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by uni57

Sounds rather arrogant. Poetry/lyrics/art-in-general is a form of communication. Those who fail to communicate will suffer financially and thus end their career. You can do it for yourself, but if that doesn't happen to please others, you are out of a job.

Excuse me but how in the heck are you going to "please" everybody, which is what you imply? Dylan's lryics, along with most great poets (again subjective) are interpreted in countless DIFFERENT ways by people. I think a work of art has been succeessful if it makes you think, and inspires you and moves you in some way. It would *not* fullfill ANY purpose at all if it didn't make you *think*. Great are is also in the eye of the beholder...remember that one? To one person a scupture may be the greatest of all works of art; to another, just a piece of garbage. Who's right? Depends on who you ask.

PS: How many great, popular, best selling rock, pop, whatever music hits, have lryics (or at least a good portion) you CANNOT understand because the singer is screaming, or the music is drowning them out, or the pronunciation isn't the greatest? Did that make the song less of a hit? Heck no! Tons of my favorite songs have words that are hard to understand, but I still love the song! Do these artists "suffer financially" *because* their words can't be fully understood, at least by most? No way.

[forrestunifreak]

Aww, I thought this was the pottery thread.

[BluntRM]

Uh, my head is like a shark's fin

Man-made terror
Hungry jaws of death
Y'all don't cross my depths
I'll pause your breaths
I cause you to sink down forty thousand leagues
Bleeding to death with no arms in short sleeves
My world's deep blue
Killers gotta eat too
Looking for human flesh to rip my teeth through
Other fish in the sea but barracudas ain't equal
To a half human predator created by a needle
Jet black eyes baby they stare while you sleep
When your Titanic sink I'm the one you gon' meet
Hearing terrified screams they surround my team
All you see is trails of blood
Even God won't intervene
Nightmares of darkness
My appetite is heartless
Even if we related, you eliminated regardless
In the deep blue, underwater wars
Half man, half shark
My jaws don't pause

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by MuniAddict

I think a work of art has been succeessful if it makes you think, and inspires you and moves you in some way. It would *not* fullfill ANY purpose at all if it didn't make you *think*.

If the purpose is to inspire, than it would have fulfilled its purpose. Remember, I'm not equating "successful" with "good". Here, I'll use a hunting example. Let's say you live back in the days where you hunted for meat (or now, if your family's like that). You're a teenage boy, and your mom tells you to go out and get a deer. You come home with rabbits. Is this a "bad" thing? No, you still have food. But was the trip, with its goal of "catch a deer" successful? No.

[uni57]

MuniAddict --

I didn't say -- or imply -- that it had to please everybody. Did you read my earlier posts? Art is not universal. I said that explicitly. I'm instead questioning whether art (poetry/lyrics/etc.) can be universally understood. You don't have to appreciate it or like it or connect with it, but can you understand it? Get some value from it? I'm not sure you can treat "understanding" in a vacuum. This is what I'm exploring. To truly understand something is to relate to it. It will have impact and depth. If you "understood" the poem about the old man but are not moved by it, did you truly understand it? I'm not sure. How can you truly understand what the old man is going through without being moved by it?

Getting back to your previous post --

If you write purely for yourself, you had better please somebody besides yourself. Otherwise you will not be successful. And you will have to stop doing it. To fail to recognize that it's communication is at the height of arrogance.

I agree there are many ways to enjoy music -- you don't have to understand the lyrics. They can scream the lyrics and make a ton of money. But not so with poetry and other forms of communication.

Poetry is communication. If you fail to communicate, you fail. Write gibberish (for yourself) and see if people like it. Some pompous ass will undoubtedly claim he does like it (especially if the author is famous). But most won't.

I was at a Tangerine Dream concert -- I love that group -- but they ignored the audience completely. One song segued into the next -- the music was non-stop. They didn't even look at the audience. They were playing for themselves, obviously. Arrogance. Artsy arrogance. Some people even admire it. It would have been great if the audience didn't respond. No clapping. We are just there for ourselves.

I do understand what you are saying about writing for yourself. When I'm funny, I'm doing it to amuse myself. I wouldn't know how to do it any other way. It's nice that some people also appreciate the humor. But I do understand it's communication. I understand what I'm saying implicitly, but I had better make the effort to communicate clearly and effectively -- otherwise nobody else will get it. That's not selling out. That's communicating. Taking something that's "all me" and making it as effective as it can be.

[uni57]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

You're a teenage boy, and your mom tells you to go out and get a deer. You come home with rabbits. Is this a "bad" thing? No, you still have food. But was the trip, with its goal of "catch a deer" successful? No.

You need fat to live. Native Americans, when the hunting was bad, would be forced to live on rabbits. Rabbit meat is incredibly lean. With a lack of dietary fat, people would actually suffer from a form of malnutrition called rabbit starvation. (but here I go again...)

So I would agree that the hunting was not successful, especially if the boy could have caught a deer but chose rabbit instead ("but mom, I was hunting for myself -- I like rabbit meat!")

[monkeyman]

I eat a bucket of lard for breakfast every morning. I must be pretty friggin' healthy.

[uni57]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I eat a bucket of lard for breakfast every morning. I must be pretty friggin' healthy.

LOL, you know what's in my refrigerator? A bucket of lard.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

If the purpose is to inspire, than it would have fulfilled its purpose. Remember, I'm not equating "successful" with "good". Here, I'll use a hunting example. Let's say you live back in the days where you hunted for meat (or now, if your family's like that). You're a teenage boy, and your mom tells you to go out and get a deer. You come home with rabbits. Is this a "bad" thing? No, you still have food. But was the trip, with its goal of "catch a deer" successful? No.

The mere fact that we're having this discussion *proves* that "art in in the eye of the beholder". You may see it one way, and I see it another. There's a song by the Moody Blues with the lryics: Red is gray and yellow white, but *WE* decide which is right...and which is an illusion"