traditional vs free form
dd
Of course it doesn't render anything you have to say invalid. I believe
that the job (duty?) of a writer/poet is to say it in a new and different
way, a way that is relevant to our times and circumstances. I don't think
that, outside of academia, one will find many people who read, or if they
did read, would understand poetry written in traditional forms. In fact
even though I have some university level English classes under my belt and
consider myself fairly well educated in English literature, still am
woefully undereducated when it comes to traditional poetic forms. (Witness
my lack of knowledge regarding a villanelle.)
You say that you would prefer to write in traditional forms; I say that if
you did write in traditional forms you would have less readers than you have
today for your poetry written in free form - and isn't the goal to have
people read what you have written?
On the other hand I have been exploring the internet lately for new, so
called, avante garde, cutting edge poetry and find that a good deal of it
reads like a laundry list. It gives me the same impression I get when I
look at some forms of modern painting where I think the artist is chuckling
up his sleeve at the huge hoax he has pulled on a gullible public. I don't
know where you live but if you are Canadian you might remember a few years
ago the National Art Gallery in Ottawa put out something like 1.7 million
dollars for a 20 foot by 40 foot painting of three stripes in the primary
colours. Don't tell me that painter wasn't laughing all the way to the
bank! It seems to me that many modern poets are doing the same thing.
(Without the huge pay-cheques though.) One poem in particular which was
read by the author, (who, by the way is a professor of English at a well
known university,) was simply a list of words and had no meaning whatsoever
that I could discern. Maybe I am just thick but to me the words didn't even
sound good together, in fact, if anything they struck a jarring note to my
ear. Perhaps that was the purpose but if so to what end?
Well, now I'm going into a rant so I'm going to end this one and get back
to my writing where I belong...
dd
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
> I believe
>that the job (duty?) of a writer/poet is to say it in a new and different
>way, a way that is relevant to our times and circumstances.
There's not a lot to argue with here.
>I don't think
>that, outside of academia, one will find many people who read, or if they
>did read, would understand poetry written in traditional forms.
This is one of those *seems to me* statements, isn't it?
I don't think your statement is remotely true, but then, it's so
muddily worded that it would be nearly impossible to either prove or
disprove it with any certainty anyway. Don't you agree? Where is the
dividing line between inside and outside of *academia*? How many
people would I have to produce who were definitely outside of academia
who both read and understood formal poetry before I would have
successfully disproved your thesis? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?
> In fact
>even though I have some university level English classes under my belt and
>consider myself fairly well educated in English literature, still am
>woefully undereducated when it comes to traditional poetic forms. (Witness
>my lack of knowledge regarding a villanelle.)
So, you have taken your own personal experience and projected it onto
the world at large.
> You say that you would prefer to write in traditional forms; I say that if
>you did write in traditional forms you would have less readers than you have
>today for your poetry written in free form
This is another one of those hypothetical statements that is
impossible to support. How many sonnets have I seen posted to
webforums that receive glowing comments from people who make it clear
from those comments that they have no clue that the poem is written in
form?
> and isn't the goal to have
>people read what you have written?
Not for everyone. Again, you assume too much.
> On the other hand I have been exploring the internet lately for new, so
>called, avante garde, cutting edge poetry and find that a good deal of it
>reads like a laundry list.
In my experience, any person who describes their work as *avant garde*
is usually rehashing something that happened 40 years ago, and is too
self-centered and lazy to realize it.
>It gives me the same impression I get when I
>look at some forms of modern painting where I think the artist is chuckling
>up his sleeve at the huge hoax he has pulled on a gullible public. I don't
>know where you live but if you are Canadian you might remember a few years
>ago the National Art Gallery in Ottawa put out something like 1.7 million
>dollars for a 20 foot by 40 foot painting of three stripes in the primary
>colours. Don't tell me that painter wasn't laughing all the way to the
>bank!
Here we go again.
>It seems to me that many modern poets are doing the same thing.
>(Without the huge pay-cheques though.)
Here's a helpful hint for you: Just because you are incapable of
comprehending a piece of art, it doesn't neccesarily follow that
the work is incomprehensible to everyone. It's kind of like saying
that because you've taken a few college English courses, and you don't
know what a villanelle is, that the overwhelming majority of *people*
(*academics* excluded) don't have a clue about vilanelles either.
> One poem in particular which was
>read by the author, (who, by the way is a professor of English at a well
>known university,) was simply a list of words and had no meaning whatsoever
>that I could discern.
Note my helpful hint above.
> Maybe I am just thick but to me the words didn't even
>sound good together, in fact, if anything they struck a jarring note to my
>ear. Perhaps that was the purpose but if so to what end?
> Well, now I'm going into a rant so I'm going to end this one and get back
>to my writing where I belong...
> dd
>
Try learning to read before you try to write.
I didn't mean that to sound as snotty as it probably sounds.
gg
"Sorry, but this poem means absolutely nothing to me."
Robert Barcus, referring to "Poem in October"
Mike Billard
term "free form." There is no such thing as "free form" poetry. All poetry
has form. Which is not to say that all poetry is *in* a particular verse
form. I should also make clear that setting up two extremes and passing them
off as exclusive alternatives (it must be either traditional or "free form")
is pretty much a false argument. There is a world of poetry that falls in
between these two extremes. Is rhymed metrical verse in stanzas of no fixed
length considered traditional form? What about blank verse (unrhymed iambic
pentameter)? What about an unrhymed poem written in syllabics? Where do you
draw the thick black line that separates the traditional poems from the
"free form" poems? Okay, enough of that. Let's look at your comments below.
dd <raskal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PHtm7.142297$7h.26...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> Michael C,
>
> Of course it doesn't render anything you have to say invalid. I believe
> that the job (duty?) of a writer/poet is to say it in a new and different
> way, a way that is relevant to our times and circumstances.
Sure. But since the rest of your piece is against tradtional verse forms,
how do you deal with the poet who thinks that a certain verse form *does*
help him say what he wants to say in a way that is relevant to our times and
circumstances?
> I don't think
> that, outside of academia, one will find many people who read, or if they
> did read, would understand poetry written in traditional forms.
I think this is absolute bullshit. Take a look at the poems selected by
everyday, non-academic types for Robert Pinsky's "Favorite Poem" project.
Lots (and I mean thousands) of auto mechanics and bus drivers and moms and
pops and so forth chose poems in traditional forms as their favorite poems.
I suspect for them to have chosen those poems they had to have read and
understood those poems at some time or another. What I want to know is what
makes a poem in a traditional form any more difficult to understand than a
poem written in "free verse." Is Dylan Thomas's "Do Not Go Gentle Into That
Goodnight" really impossible to decipher by the non-academic everyman? I
seriously doubt it.
> In fact
> even though I have some university level English classes under my belt and
> consider myself fairly well educated in English literature, still am
> woefully undereducated when it comes to traditional poetic forms. (Witness
> my lack of knowledge regarding a villanelle.)
Being undereducated in the technical details of a specific form is a far cry
from not being able to read and understand poems in traditional forms. One
needn't know the name of the meter it's written in or how many feet are in
each line for a limerick to be effective and for one to enjoy and understand
it.
> You say that you would prefer to write in traditional forms; I say that
if
> you did write in traditional forms you would have less readers than you
have
> today for your poetry written in free form -
I seriously doubt this. First, I'm amazed at the number of people who try to
gage poetic success by market share. Yeah, sure, Jewel is the greatest poet
of the last 500 years because her book sold more copies (and therefore must
have been read by more people) than any other poetry book. I realize I'm a
purist, but I'd like to think that when a poet gets serious about the poem
he is writing he will focus on doing what is best for the poem, and not
worry a lick about whether he is hurting the marketability of his work. If a
poem demands-- is just crying out for--the sonnet form, then the poet should
have enough respect for his art to allow his poem to be a sonnet.
> and isn't the goal to have
> people read what you have written?
The goal is to create art. The audience either will or won't come to it.
Every poet writes with the hypothetical "reader" in mind, but I certainly
hope he doesn't write with a specific audience in mind: "My God! If I say
that, I might lose the Catholic readers in my audience! But, if I say it
this way, the environmentalists will get pissed!" Leave that sort of attempt
for maximum appeal to the politicians. A poet should be true to one thing
only--the poem.
[snipped because I had a snip that was about to expire and needed to be
used]
Martijn Benders
Mike Billard wrote:
> First, before I address your points below, let's dispense with the silly
> term "free form." There is no such thing as "free form" poetry. All poetry
> has form.
The name's 'free form', Billard. Not 'no form'. It simply means a poem
doesn't use one of the standardised official forms, that's all.
Martijn
--
http://www.cacaofabriek.com
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.benders/sea/zeekannibaal.htm
Aidan Tynan
I don't
>know where you live but if you are Canadian you might remember a few years
>ago the National Art Gallery in Ottawa put out something like 1.7 million
>dollars for a 20 foot by 40 foot painting of three stripes in the primary
>colours. Don't tell me that painter wasn't laughing all the way to the
>bank!
You mean Voice of Fire by Barnet Newman, right? First: how can you reconcile
your claim of being well educated with your lack of knowledge regarding
abstract expressionism and modern art in general? Second: if the gallery had
paid five dollars for the painting, would the work improve, somehow? Third:
can you tell me where and how the artist failed with his painting, in your
opinion?
-Aidan
anon...@bogus_address.com
On 2001-09-08 raskal...@hotmail.com said:
>...It gives me the same impression I get when I
>look at some forms of modern painting where I think the artist is
>chuckling up his sleeve at the huge hoax he has pulled on a
>gullible public. I don't know where you live but if you are
>Canadian you might remember a few years ago the National Art
>Gallery in Ottawa put out something like 1.7 million dollars for a
>20 foot by 40 foot painting of three stripes in the primary colours.
>Don't tell me that painter wasn't laughing all the way to the bank!
AVANT-GARDE
They are ultramodern painters.
They work in Duco* on reinforced hairnets.
They spill the paint classically out of cans, but use no brushes.
Wearing leather shorts, they plant their rumps honestly in the
color and spin in the pigment until the results seem to
justify their autographs.
Nothing can go wrong with this process, since all these works
are frankly called improvisations.
One critic who viewed their finished labors said:
"The sensitive hands that wrought these masterpieces can
be discerned in every touch of these whirling syndromes
of emotion."
- Alexander King
(Copyright 1959 by Alexander King)
[from 'May This House Be Safe From Tigers,'
originally published by Simon and Schuster]
* 'Duco' was a DuPont trademark for a new (at the time)
type of paint with an acrylic resin base.
dd
something that a house painter could have done.
dd
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:sRAm7.8239$s5.8...@news.indigo.ie...
dd
rest of your letter you are just one of those same gullible assholes that
have been duped by this shit that is called art and sold to idiots like you
who have more money than either taste or brains.
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3b9a72fb...@news.supernews.com...
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>Yeah well you do sound a little snotty actually but then judging from the
>rest of your letter you are just one of those same gullible assholes that
>have been duped by this shit that is called art and sold to idiots like you
>who have more money than either taste or brains.
I guess your attempt to engage in logical discourse always reaches
this point when it is pointed out to you that you are incapable of
engaging in logical discourse.
gg
"While I am impressed with my own work, I have never exposed it
to the light of day, let alone critical review."
Darin' Def
dd
"free form" and I used the same term so he would know what I was talking
about. I never said that one should write with a specific audience in mind
but that I, at least write to be read by someone other than myself. Judging
from the vitriolic response I got from a simple reply to anothers question
on this newsgroup I can't help but get the impression that you're all a
bunch of wannabes that having nothing better to do than sit at your
computers biting everyone else in the back. I've seen more class at a cat
fight. I'm going back to writing and leaving you jerks to snipe at each
other. dd
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9ne1df$79k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
dd
dd
experience and projected it onto the world" it sort of gets my back up. I
mean, who's experience should I base my view of the world on? Yours? A
bunch of pseudo intellectuals on some small time newsgroup that have nothing
better to do than write tripe and post it for other like minded airheads to
pull apart like the small minded Philistines that they are? I have yet to
finish reading anything I have seen on this group as it is all completely
unreadable. I doubt if the lot of you could come up with a three digit IQ
between you. Bye for now sweetie,dd
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3b9bf7bd...@news.supernews.com...
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>It's just that when I get idiotic comments like I have "taken my own
>experience and projected it onto the world" it sort of gets my back up. I
>mean, who's experience should I base my view of the world on? Yours? A
>bunch of pseudo intellectuals on some small time newsgroup that have nothing
>better to do than write tripe and post it for other like minded airheads to
>pull apart like the small minded Philistines that they are? I have yet to
>finish reading anything I have seen on this group as it is all completely
>unreadable. I doubt if the lot of you could come up with a three digit IQ
>between you. Bye for now sweetie,dd
Yes, of course.
Everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.
That must be a very servicable viewpoint.
gg
"It's funny how jealous people will go out of their way to knock
someone else down. I've read your stuff and it stinks to be quite
honest. I have sold more poems than you have ever written....."
Candice Lee
peter richards
though naturally hard to pin down, is at least to create a work of art, can
you then be a little more specific about how the picture/artist fails in
this? You've dropped a little hint in saying that the work of applying the
paint to the canvas could have been carried out by practically anyone who
works in the same medium. This would make 'hard to do' a criterion for
successful art. Any more?
Peter
dd <raskal...@hotmail.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:WFCm7.143232$7h.26...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Mike Billard
> First of all, I was replying to Michael C who was the one who used the
term
> "free form" and I used the same term so he would know what I was talking
> about. I never said that one should write with a specific audience in mind
> but that I, at least write to be read by someone other than myself.
Judging
> from the vitriolic response I got from a simple reply to anothers question
> on this newsgroup I can't help but get the impression that you're all a
> bunch of wannabes that having nothing better to do than sit at your
> computers biting everyone else in the back. I've seen more class at a cat
> fight. I'm going back to writing and leaving you jerks to snipe at each
> other. dd
I find it very interesting how quickly you resorted to name calling and
insults the instant someone challenged your flimsy theories with a cogent
argument. I guess this is what you do when you can't respond intelligently.
Chuck Lysaght
know the difference between valid comments, and personal attacks.
Gary, you are an asshole.
"I'm not Gary Gamble." "I don't even have a computer."
Gary Gamble when someone called his home and took issue with his
snotty remarks.
gga...@excite.com (gga...@excite.com) wrote in message news:<3b9bf7bd...@news.supernews.com>...
Aidan Tynan
dd wrote in message ...
>It's just that when I get idiotic comments like I have "taken my own
>experience and projected it onto the world" it sort of gets my back up. I
>mean, who's experience should I base my view of the world on?
An educated person's. If you decide to form opinions on artworks without
understanding anything about them you make yourself look incredibly stupid.
It's perfectly okay, even advisable, to form opinions contradictory to the
status-quo as long as those opinions extend from a thorough knowledge of
what you're criticising.
-Aidan
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>
>"I'm not Gary Gamble." "I don't even have a computer."
>
>Gary Gamble when someone called his home and took issue with his
>snotty remarks.
No matter how many times you copy and paste this, it will never be
true.
Remember how many times kenny called me an idiot?
I'm still not an idiot.
gg
I am not an animal
I am not an elephant
LBJ did not molest his pigs
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2001-09-09 aty...@eircom.net said:
Then again, it depends upon how we define "educated" and
"knowledge." Does having a sheepskin from some recognized
institution make one educated and/or knowledgeable? Maybe.
But it's certainly no guarantee.
The bureaucratized educational and "art" establishments are
fundamentally in the business of maintaining, and passing on,
the status quo. Which is fine if one craves the mainstream
acceptance that often comes with conformity to prevailing
thought.
But it could also be argued that one's own personal experience
is the ultimate "education."
Some have concluded through personal experience that the
status quo promulgated by the entrenched bureaucracies is
questionable, at best; and at worst, total B.S. ...especially
in matters of aesthetics.
Even within those bureaucratized venues, you'll occasionally
find divergent views. Is Grandma Moses' "art" a brilliant
example of American primitive, or is it utter crap? Opinions
vary among the so-called "knowledgeable."
Having "...a thorough knowledge of what you're criticising..."
is a good concept. And if we place any value on intellectual
honesty and ethical ingenuousness, we must also be willing to
accept =personal experience= as a factor in the equation of
"knowledge."
dd
This educated person would be you I suppose? If you read my original
post I never claimed to be well educated as regards the visual arts. I said
that I have a fairly good education in English literature. I was merely
expressing my personal opinion of certain works of so-called art. The last
I heard it was still permissible to hold an opinion. I am willing to be
swayed if you can show me how three stripes on a canvas constitute art but I
get the impression that being educated in your sense of the word means to
toe the party line and call something art because you were told it was art
in "Art History 311" or you read it in a book somewhere. I , personally,
don't think it is art and I get the feeling that the person who produces
these kinds of works are laughing at people like you who mindlessly agree
that he has produced a great piece of art. Admittedly I have very little
knowledge of abstract expressionism but some day when I have an extra five
minutes I'll sit down and learn all there is to know about it.
In any case, my intention wasn't to get into an argument about art but
to make an analogy to some poetry that I have come across lately that reads
like a grocery list. I'm not referring to anyone on this ng but to poetry
that I have read elsewhere. I'll go back and see if I can find one of these
poems and I'll relay it to you and see if you can explain to me how this is
poetry. In my opinion anyone can open a dictionary at random and copy the
words he finds onto paper but that doesn't make it poetry.
dd
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:ghNm7.8355$s5.8...@news.indigo.ie...
dd
after that a work of art?dd
"peter richards" <pric...@chello.no> wrote in message
news:DMFm7.4185$5R2.7...@news01.chello.no...
dd
My "flimsy theories" as you call them were not theories but just
personal opinion. I don't claim to be an expert in either painting or
poetry. I just get the impression that once a person gets a "name" in
either of those worlds they can produce all kinds of crud and have it called
art by the gullible camp followers. I simply prefer to make up my own mind
rather than have an art critic or a professor tell me what is and what isn't
art. If that opinion differs from yours then so be it, that's what makes
this life interesting. How dull it would be if we all thought alike.news:9nfq0i$bo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Aidan Tynan
>
>Then again, it depends upon how we define "educated" and
>"knowledge." Does having a sheepskin from some recognized
>institution make one educated and/or knowledgeable?
Obviously not.
Maybe.
>But it's certainly no guarantee.
>
>The bureaucratized educational and "art" establishments are
>fundamentally in the business of maintaining, and passing on,
>the status quo. Which is fine if one craves the mainstream
>acceptance that often comes with conformity to prevailing
>thought.
>
>But it could also be argued that one's own personal experience
>is the ultimate "education."
>
>Some have concluded through personal experience that the
>status quo promulgated by the entrenched bureaucracies is
>questionable, at best; and at worst, total B.S. ...especially
>in matters of aesthetics.
I don't know what you mean by personal experience here.
>
>Even within those bureaucratized venues, you'll occasionally
>find divergent views. Is Grandma Moses' "art" a brilliant
>example of American primitive, or is it utter crap? Opinions
>vary among the so-called "knowledgeable."
>
>Having "...a thorough knowledge of what you're criticising..."
>is a good concept. And if we place any value on intellectual
>honesty and ethical ingenuousness, we must also be willing to
>accept =personal experience= as a factor in the equation of
>"knowledge."
-Aidan
sophie
>So, if tomorrow I decide to label myself an artist is anything I produce
>after that a work of art?dd
no.
labelling is not the same as _being_.
(you could label yourself a murderer tomorrow, but the labelling of
itself wouldn't make you one.)
artists have to believe in what they are doing - not necessarily in the
result, but in the intention and the process. unless you believed in the
intention and the process, you wouldn't be an artist. and unless you had
talent and skill, you still wouldn't produce art. or at least not good
art.
**
sophie
sophie
>Mike,
> My "flimsy theories" as you call them were not theories but just
>personal opinion. I don't claim to be an expert in either painting or
>poetry.
and I don't claim to be an expert in plastering. this is why I'm not
offering my opinion on it to the man currently sorting out my house for
me. he'd laugh at me.
and I don't tell the mechanic why he's fixing the car all wrong.
I don't tell the dentist how to do my teeth.
why do you think not knowing very much about art or poetry qualifies you
to pontificate on them?
I'm interested.
really.
**
sophie
Aidan Tynan
>post I never claimed to be well educated as regards the visual arts.
So, in other words, you wouldn't know a good painting if you saw one.
I said
>that I have a fairly good education in English literature. I was merely
>expressing my personal opinion of certain works of so-called art.
The last
>I heard it was still permissible to hold an opinion. I am willing to be
>swayed if you can show me how three stripes on a canvas constitute art but
I
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
>get the impression that being educated in your sense of the word means to
>toe the party line and call something art because you were told it was art
>in "Art History 311" or you read it in a book somewhere. I ,
No, that's exactly my idea of *not* being educated. Bear in mind that you're
'toeing the party line' more than anyone when you claim an abstract painting
such as Voice of Fire is merely 'so-called art'. It takes an education to do
something other than follow populist opinions. It takes an education to
realise that just because you don't understand something doesn't make it
rubbish.
personally,
>don't think it is art and I get the feeling that the person who produces
>these kinds of works are laughing at people like you who mindlessly agree
>that he has produced a great piece of art.
You accuse people of mindless agreement when you yourself admit to not
knowing much about art. It seems to me that you're just going along with the
out-moded ideas about art that most people have, and you simply can't be
bothered to look beyond them.
Admittedly I have very little
>knowledge of abstract expressionism but some day when I have an extra five
>minutes I'll sit down and learn all there is to know about it.
> In any case, my intention wasn't to get into an argument about art but
>to make an analogy to some poetry that I have come across lately that reads
>like a grocery list. I'm not referring to anyone on this ng but to poetry
>that I have read elsewhere. I'll go back and see if I can find one of
these
>poems and I'll relay it to you and see if you can explain to me how this is
>poetry. In my opinion anyone can open a dictionary at random and copy the
>words he finds onto paper but that doesn't make it poetry.
> dd
>
-Aidan
Mike Billard
> Mike,
> My "flimsy theories" as you call them were not theories but just
> personal opinion.
A personal opinion firmly rooted in utter ignorance, to be sure. Believe it
or not, an opinion that can be easily proven wrong isn't worth a thing.
> I don't claim to be an expert in either painting or
> poetry.
Then what weight should your opinion be given? Much of what you said, as I
pointed out, isn't close to true. You can't simply say "But that's *my*
opinion, so it's valid!" Well, actually, as you prove here, you *can* say
that, but for what purpose? Plenty of folks can opine that the sun revolves
around the earth (see another thread on this ng), but does that make it
true? Nope. And neither does your uninformed opinion make true the silly
things you said regarding traditional forms in poetry and the reading
public.
> I just get the impression that once a person gets a "name" in
> either of those worlds they can produce all kinds of crud and have it
called
> art by the gullible camp followers.
Irrelevant, really. I snipped that nonsense from your original post and
concentrated on your comments specifically regarding the reading and writing
of poetry, both in free verse and in traditional verse forms. Why don't you
comment on my specific points to your original post, without the name
calling and insults if you're capable.
> I simply prefer to make up my own mind
> rather than have an art critic or a professor tell me what is and what
isn't
> art.
Too bad you don't consider doing research an important part of making up
your mind.
> If that opinion differs from yours then so be it, that's what makes
> this life interesting.
Not if the opinion is based in complete ignorance. I don't find the opinion
that blacks are biologically inferior to whites particularly interesting,
and knowing there are people in the world who are of that opinion doesn't
make my life any more interesting, either. I don't find the opinion that the
earth is the center of the universe particularly interesting, and knowing
there are people in the world who are of that opinion doesn't make my life
any more interesting, either. Now, if you were to actually learn something
about the art of poetry and you were willing to engage in an active
discussion on what you've learned (instead of your current "post
opinion/call people names/defend opinion by saying it's an opinion" tactic),
*that* would be interesting. Right now, you're not contributing a whole lot
to making life interesting.
> How dull it would be if we all thought alike.
How surprising it would be if one of us other than me showed up to this
thread prepared to discuss the topic at hand. I'd love to exchange ideas
with someone with an informed opinion, someone who has actually put some
time into reading poetry and thinking about poetry and maybe even writing
poetry. But, unfortunately, you aren't that person. Feel free to come back
when you are.
Michael C
Thank you for a well done and thought provoking response.
Food for thought and I a starving man.
mdc
"dd" <raskal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PHtm7.142297$7h.26...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Michael C,
Of course it doesn't render anything you have to say invalid. I believe
that the job (duty?) of a writer/poet is to say it in a new and different
way, a way that is relevant to our times and circumstances. I don't think
that, outside of academia, one will find many people who read, or if they
did read, would understand poetry written in traditional forms. In fact
even though I have some university level English classes under my belt and
consider myself fairly well educated in English literature, still am
woefully undereducated when it comes to traditional poetic forms. (Witness
my lack of knowledge regarding a villanelle.)
You say that you would prefer to write in traditional forms; I say that if
you did write in traditional forms you would have less readers than you have
today for your poetry written in free form - and isn't the goal to have
people read what you have written?
On the other hand I have been exploring the internet lately for new, so
called, avante garde, cutting edge poetry and find that a good deal of it
reads like a laundry list. It gives me the same impression I get when I
look at some forms of modern painting where I think the artist is chuckling
up his sleeve at the huge hoax he has pulled on a gullible public. I don't
know where you live but if you are Canadian you might remember a few years
ago the National Art Gallery in Ottawa put out something like 1.7 million
dollars for a 20 foot by 40 foot painting of three stripes in the primary
colours. Don't tell me that painter wasn't laughing all the way to the
bank! It seems to me that many modern poets are doing the same thing.
(Without the huge pay-cheques though.) One poem in particular which was
read by the author, (who, by the way is a professor of English at a well
known university,) was simply a list of words and had no meaning whatsoever
that I could discern. Maybe I am just thick but to me the words didn't even
dd
art. Anyway, it's not something I really want to argue about. My original
post was regarding some poetry that I came across on a particular website
that to me read like a laundry list. Since my last post I went back to that
website to show you an example of this poetry but it is now under
construction so the particular poem is no longer accessible. The thing I
find humourous in all this is the vitriol and personal attacks I received
from the members of this ng for having an opinion that differs from theirs.
Funnier still is that some of you are defending a poem that you have never
even read. One person, I don't think it was you but I can't be bothered to
go back and find the name, even suggested that I should learn how to read
before I try to write. This person has no idea what the poem was that I was
referring to, no idea who I am or what or how I write, (Or read for that
matter.) yet he still feels compelled to defend it by casting aspersions on
my abilities as a writer. There seemed to me to be something wrong with
that picture so I went back through some of the older posts in this group
and find that what I thought was going to be a forum for writers to exchange
and discuss ideas is in actuality a hen party of old biddies who bicker back
and forth at each other. I get the feeling that it is the norm for some
people in this group to mistake personal attack for constructive criticism.
From previous posts I can see that unless one thinks like you, (and a few
others who I am not going to name, mostly because I don't remember their
names...) and probably unless one walks talks and dresses like you, that
they are going to be singled out for ridicule for expressing those
non-conformist thoughts. Well, I am not now, nor ever have been a
conformist and that includes conforming to non-conformity. I am old enough
and "educated" enough to think for myself and it has been my experience that
people who think for themselves are going to form opinions that are not
popular to all people. However I think I have accidentally fallen into a
nest of conforming non-conformist vipers who have nothing better to do with
their time than spread their venom by relentless back biting. I apologize
to, (I believe it was Mike Billiard) for starting to get caught up in it and
responding to an attack by going on the defensive and attacking back. It's
just that I was taken by surprise by the suddenness of the assault on me as
a person and the aspersions regarding my intelligence for voicing an opinion
that is outside the party line of this particular newsgroup. It has been my
experience that this (attacking the person rather than the argument) is the
route taken by dogmatic individuals who can't think for themselves. Again,
I'm sorry for getting carried away and starting to lower myself to that
level. It is obvious to me that if I want to have an intelligent discussion
rather than have the "dogma du jour" served up on a steaming platter of
vitriol I will have to find another place to get it.
dd
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:bvSm7.8419$s5.8...@news.indigo.ie...
George Tolis
news:tpnokha...@corp.supernews.com...
> The bureaucratized educational and "art" establishments are
> fundamentally in the business of maintaining, and passing on,
> the status quo. Which is fine if one craves the mainstream
> acceptance that often comes with conformity to prevailing
> thought.
I'll have to disagree on this, although I'm not going to bicker on
definitions of what constitutes the academic and Art institutions you're
referring to. Generally speaking (and yes 'generally', I know) you'll
probably find most small presses/publishing houses do better business
with academic institutions. They're churning for a niche market and
although inconsistent in quality, the analytical opportunity is there.
The larger publishing houses are (more likely to be) hitting the general
public with mainstream work.
This is a matter of common sense, really - you can't 'study' tripe, but
the intellectual stuff has a smaller sales bracket. I'm talking
contemporary, by the way. If you're talking about a canon, then I
reckon you're talking about a vastly mutated concept from what the word
used to refer to. It's been challenged by a localised series of reading
lists/syllabuses (syllabi?) relevant to specific fields of literature.
Yes, some of it is mainstream, but it's been breaking down for 40 years
and is certainly not about 'status quo' any more.
As for art establishments, such as galleries, etc. yes. I think you're
right, as they're generally run in constant fear of running out of money
and shutting down (at least the places I've been involved with).
GT
dd
about poetry to express my opinion on it. Are we going to start exchanging
credentials now? Judging from the tripe I've read on this ng I am as well
qualified to "pontificate" on it as anyone else here. The thing that gets
me is how quickly some people are to jump all over a person with personal
attacks when they know absolutely nothing about that person. I don't know
anything about you, therefore I wouldn't dream of commenting on your
intelligence or lack thereof. It seems not everyone on this ng has such
qualms. Two people in particular, Aidan the "artist" and Mike Bollocks, are
especially fast on the draw with the personal aspersions. I started off to
respond in kind but caught myself and have decided to not get caught up in
the cat fighting that goes on in this ng. I have better things to do...it's
called a life...some of you people ought to try it sometime, dd
"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ykkYQXADP$m7E...@blueyonder.co.uk...
House of Chards
dd wrote:
> Aidan the "artist" and Mike Bollocks, are
> especially fast on the draw with the personal aspersions. I started off to
> respond in kind but caught myself and have decided to not get caught up in
> the cat fighting that goes on in this ng. I have better things to do...it's
> called a life...some of you people ought to try it sometime, dd
Admirable, deciding to refrain from all that personal aspersing.
Would've been all the more admirable, had you succeeded. ;-)
-Lorinda
Mike Billard
> I don't recall using the word "rubbish" I did say that I don't think it is
> art. Anyway, it's not something I really want to argue about. My
original
> post was regarding some poetry that I came across on a particular website
> that to me read like a laundry list.
Your post was about far more than the little bit you're willing to admit
here. You made some sweeping generalizations about two classifications of
poetry. Here, let me refresh your intentionally short memory:
" I don't think that, outside of academia, one will find many people who
read, or if they
did read, would understand poetry written in traditional forms"
"I say that if you did write in traditional forms you would have less
readers than you have
today for your poetry written in free form"
"On the other hand I have been exploring the internet lately for new, so
called, avante garde, cutting edge poetry and find that a good deal of it
reads like a laundry list. "
Now, on that last little quote we find you referring to *one* website, which
is conveniently no longer available, to support your statement. I'm curious
how you can equate "some poetry" at one website to "a good deal of . . .
new, so called avante garde, cutting edge [poetry]."
> Since my last post I went back to that
> website to show you an example of this poetry but it is now under
> construction so the particular poem is no longer accessible.
Holy cow! Now we're down to just *one* poem as proof that a good deal of
new, so called avante garde, cutting edge poetry reads like a laundry list.
Do tell, what percentage, exactly, does a "good deal" represent? Better yet,
what percentage of any of the three categories named above (new, avante
garde, cutting edge) do you suppose one poem is? If you truly found a "good
deal" of laundry list poetry, it shouldn't be any problem at all to provide
references to at least two or three other examples. Actually, considering
the number of poems being written these days, two or three *thousand*
examples should be easy to come up with, seeing how you read a "good deal"
of the poetry out there.
> The thing I
> find humourous in all this is the vitriol and personal attacks I received
> from the members of this ng for having an opinion that differs from
theirs.
Having read the initial responses to your original post and your inline
responses to those, I find it rather amusing that you would accuse others of
vitriol and personal attacks. Your opinions were quickly and easily
challenged. You responded with name calling (I'm a jerk and a wannabe) and
insults. Maybe, like so much else, you're ignorant of the definitions of
"vitriol" and "personal attacks."
> Funnier still is that some of you are defending a poem that you have never
> even read.
I was defending the broad category (millions of poems and growing every day)
you labeled "traditional forms." I was also defending the other broad
category (millions of poems and growing every day) you labeled "free form."
I was even defending the subset of the latter you labeled "a good deal."
(just how much of millions is a good deal, anyway?) Had I known you were
referring to one measly poem at a suddenly inaccessible website, I would
have ignored your asinine comments.
> One person, I don't think it was you but I can't be bothered to
> go back and find the name, even suggested that I should learn how to read
> before I try to write. This person has no idea what the poem was that I
was
> referring to,
Maybe because you referred to oh so much more than one poem.
> no idea who I am or what or how I write, (Or read for that
> matter.) yet he still feels compelled to defend it by casting aspersions
on
> my abilities as a writer.
Actually, as a reader. And if you're truly trying to generalize all of
poetry from this one poem, those aspersions are fully justified.
> There seemed to me to be something wrong with
> that picture so I went back through some of the older posts in this group
> and find that what I thought was going to be a forum for writers to
exchange
> and discuss ideas is in actuality a hen party of old biddies who bicker
back
> and forth at each other.
My word! And this so shortly after you were whining about vitriol and
personal attacks!
> I get the feeling that it is the norm for some
> people in this group to mistake personal attack for constructive
criticism.
Thus far it has been the norm for you.
> From previous posts I can see that unless one thinks like you, (and a few
> others who I am not going to name, mostly because I don't remember their
> names...) and probably unless one walks talks and dresses like you, that
> they are going to be singled out for ridicule for expressing those
> non-conformist thoughts.
This is as reductionist an "opinion" as your previous ones on "traditional
forms" and "free form" were. Here is a hint: The only opinions most of us
don't like around here are uninformed ones. If you knew what you were
talking about and didn't agree with me, I'd have no problem with it. What I
have a problem with is that you don't know, and by your own admission don't
care to know, what you're talking about.
> Well, I am not now, nor ever have been a
> conformist and that includes conforming to non-conformity.
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." --Rush
You have chosen the easiest of all conformist paths--that of blind
ignorance. You don't know; you don't care to know; and you oppose anyone who
does know but who disagrees with you. My twelve year old son acts like that
sometimes, but he's growing out of it.
> I am old enough
> and "educated" enough to think for myself and it has been my experience
that
> people who think for themselves are going to form opinions that are not
> popular to all people.
Do "educated" people form opinions without accumulating even a modicum of
information? Do "educated" people refuse to change or alter their opinions
when faced with information that runs counter to their opinions? It's a sad
day when "thinking for myself" means shutting oneself off from all available
information and simply making stuff up out of whole cloth.
> However I think I have accidentally fallen into a
> nest of conforming non-conformist vipers who have nothing better to do
with
> their time than spread their venom by relentless back biting.
Actually, you've fallen into a newsgroup where a fair number of people have
enough knowledge of the history and landscape of poetry to recognize your
opinions for the ignorant ramblings they are.
> I apologize
> to, (I believe it was Mike Billiard) for starting to get caught up in it
and
> responding to an attack by going on the defensive and attacking back.
You can keep your apology (and the second "i" in my last name, thank you
very much) because it is misplaced. The strong language I used in my
response to you was calling one of your opinions "absolute bullshit." Strong
words, sure. But vitriol? No. A personal attack? Not even close. You on the
other hand responded by calling me a "back biter" a "jerk" and a "wannabe."
> It's
> just that I was taken by surprise by the suddenness of the assault on me
as
> a person
Absolute bullshit! (oops! there it is again!) Quit being such a drama queen.
Assault, indeed!
> and the aspersions regarding my intelligence for voicing an opinion
> that is outside the party line of this particular newsgroup.
It was less outside the party line than it was outside even the most common
and easy to obtain knowledge about the subject. The fact you haven't the
slightest idea what you're talking about is painfully obvious. The fact
you're too lazy to do the work necessary to formulate an informed opinion is
just sad.
> It has been my
> experience that this (attacking the person rather than the argument) is
the
> route taken by dogmatic individuals who can't think for themselves.
Agreed. That is why I spoke specifically to several of the points you made,
providing some detailed information for you to consider when reformulating
your opinion. It is also why you responded not with counter arguments to my
points, but with name calling and insults. I'm glad you at least recognize
and understand your problem. Now you need to work on fixing it.
> Again,
> I'm sorry for getting carried away and starting to lower myself to that
> level.
I suspect you started there in the first place and were simply looking for
any reason to launch into your extended ad hominem.
> It is obvious to me that if I want to have an intelligent discussion
> rather than have the "dogma du jour" served up on a steaming platter of
> vitriol I will have to find another place to get it.
I've given you plenty from which we could have an intelligent discussion.
Let's discuss your ideas regarding the reading and understanding of
traditional forms and my reference to the number of non-academics who have
chosen poems in traditional forms as their favorite poems. There is
obviously much there to discuss. Where would you like to begin?
dd
someone to feel superior to? Is your ego so fragile that you only feel good
when you can spout off in your condescending tone? You really need to get a
life. You twist everything I say into what you want to hear so you can
justify your smugness to yourself. I will say this as clearly as possible
so you can't twist it out of shape . (I hope but judging by everything else
you've written I'm sure you'll find a way.) I was going to post one
particular poem that I had in mind, the reason I went looking for that ONE
POEM was because I just happened to remember the website where I had
originally read it. I HAVE read many such poems recently but they were such
crap that I don't remember the sites where I read them...Once I throw
garbage out I don't follow it to the dump and memorise where they bury it.
If you wish to go to this website and read some of this trash I am referring
to you can go there when they finish their construction I'm sure they will
have more of the same gobbledegook that I read there. The website is
www.westcoastline.com it is a mag published out of Simon Fraser University
and they specialise in publishing grocery lists. Check it out, you'll
probably find it profound. Send them one of your posts...they'll likely
publish it. Or give you a job as editor maybe. In the meantime when I run
across some more of this tripe I'll be sure to write down the URL so I can
send it along to you.news:9nh7hs$qeg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mike Billard
> You are unbelievable.
Thank you. You're not the first to notice.
> Do you sit behind your computer all day hunting for
> someone to feel superior to?
With people like you around it certainly doesn't take all day.
> Is your ego so fragile that you only feel good
> when you can spout off in your condescending tone?
Remember, you were the first to call names and to hurl insults at me.
And in response to a fairly concise, to the point rebuttal to a number
of points you made regarding poetry. Points that you refuse now to
even acknowledge you made, instead trying desperately to focus on one
simple, irrelevant reference to which I never even commented. If we're
analyzing the fragility of each other's ego based on their responses,
I'd have to say your "dodge the issue and revise history" approach
reveals a "handle with care" ego.
> You really need to get a
> life.
You're right! Whose life do you recommend? I kinda like Johnny Depp,
especially when he was dating the Winona Ryder. Do you think I can get
his life?
> You twist everything I say into what you want to hear so you can
> justify your smugness to yourself.
I twist everything you say. You pretend not to have said what you say.
You say tomato. I say tomato. (well, that doesn't work nearly as well
in print, does it?)
> I will say this as clearly as possible
> so you can't twist it out of shape.
If what you're about to say is as unsupportable as everything else
you've said, I won't have to twist it out of shape. I'll simply prove
it false, like I've done with nearly everything else you've said thus
far (including your whiny accusations that you were assaulted and
personally attacked, etc.)
> (I hope but judging by everything else
> you've written I'm sure you'll find a way.) I was going to post one
> particular poem that I had in mind,
Does this poem prove:
a) that most people, save for those in "academia," neither read nor
understand traditional forms?
b) that one immediately narrows his potential audience by choosing to
write in traditional forms and not in "free form?"
c) that a *good deal* of poetry in "free form" is identical to this
one poem?
If not, then quit fixating on that one poem and actually respond (with
something more substantial than "jerk" and "wannabe") to my questions
regarding the sweeping generalizations you made in your first post.
> the reason I went looking for that ONE
> POEM was because I just happened to remember the website where I had
> originally read it. I HAVE read many such poems recently but they were such
> crap that I don't remember the sites where I read them...
You don't remember even one title? One author's name? Or one line from
one of the poems? Or even the name of one of the online journals in
which any of these other poems appeared? You don't have to provide a
complete url, just a few clues I can plug into a search engine. You
read enough poetry to determine that a "good deal" of it reads like a
laundry list, and all you can remember is the url to *one* website?
> Once I throw
> garbage out I don't follow it to the dump and memorise where they bury it.
Too bad this analogy doesn't fit. If you went in search of something
and that search led you to the dump, actually many, many dumps, where
you had to dig among the trash to find a few examples of what you were
searching for, I would expect that you could at least tell us the
names of some of the dumps you went to, or the roads some of them were
on, or at least describe with some detail a few of the things you
found there.
> If you wish to go to this website and read some of this trash I am referring
> to you can go there when they finish their construction I'm sure they will
> have more of the same gobbledegook that I read there. The website is
> www.westcoastline.com it is a mag published out of Simon Fraser University
> and they specialise in publishing grocery lists. Check it out, you'll
> probably find it profound.
I may not find it profound, but there is a good chance I'll have a
better understanding than you of what the poem is attempting to
achieve.
> Send them one of your posts...they'll likely
> publish it. Or give you a job as editor maybe. In the meantime when I run
> across some more of this tripe I'll be sure to write down the URL so I can
> send it along to you.
> dd
Why not spend that precious time responding to the points I raised in
my initial response to your first post? Or will you just continue to
ignore all the other things you said and pretend that the world turns
on this one poem you can't even show me? Come on! Let's talk about
your notion that only academics can read and understand poems written
in traditional forms! What are you afraid of?
Martijn Benders
Mike Billard wrote:
> You're right! Whose life do you recommend? I kinda like Johnny Depp,
> especially when he was dating the Winona Ryder. Do you think I can get
> his life?
Do you have a Muse, Billard?
The choices you make here are sort of typical, know what I mean?
Your secret wishes aren't that hard to carry out, but you need to:
1) Write different and better kinds of poetry
2) Change your birthdate
Winona Ryder is a Scorpio, and that's completely incompatible with your
Capricorn nature. She likes mysterious men that seem a bit dangerous,
not someone who likes to boast about the amount of airmiles he saved in
the supermarket. That's just how it is. In retrospect I have to confess
that it is rather difficult to tune you into the Ryder current. Don't
you have any other wishes you'd like to see come true?
Martijn
--
http://www.cacaofabriek.com
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.benders/sea/zeekannibaal.htm
Chuck Lysaght
along with anyone. Gary Gamble, ggam777, is an asshole. He is rude to
everyone. You're not the first person that has been treated unfairly
in this newsgroup, and I'm sure you'll not be the last.
"dd" <raskal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5gTm7.148111$7h.27...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com>...
peter richards
dd <raskal...@hotmail.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:KLRm7.148032$7h.27...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> So, if tomorrow I decide to label myself an artist is anything I produce
> after that a work of art?dd
Answering a question with another question is a bit of a giveaway.
p
JAS Carter
<raskal...@hotmail.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>You are unbelievable. Do you sit behind your computer all day hunting for
>someone to feel superior to?
I doubt it takes him all day.
Julie Carter
--
Good link: http://www.aldaily.com/
dd
|
| dd <raskal...@hotmail.com> skrev i
| meldingsnyheter:KLRm7.148032$7h.27...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
| > So, if tomorrow I decide to label myself an artist is anything I produce
| > after that a work of art?dd
|
| Answering a question with another question is a bit of a giveaway.
A giveaway to what? It's called a rhetorical question but if that's too
hard for you to grasp I'll be more explicit. Who decides and under what
criteria that a person is an artist? Several years ago a guy was going to
squash a rat with a cement block onto a cavas. This on the front steps of
the Vancouver Art Gallery. (Some animal rights types came and rescued poor
"Sniffy" before he could do it) The point being...is this art? Is he an
artist?
All I am saying is that I believe these are subjective matters if you
want to call that art then more power to you. For myself I don't call it
art, I call it a cheap publicity stunt but we are each entitled to our
views. Somewhere along this thread Sophie said to me that she
doesn't tell the guy putting plaster on her house how to do his job or her
mechanic how to repair her car, well a poem (or a painting) is not a house
or a car. A tradesman has papers from a training institute and an
apprenticeship to show he has learned his trade. There are very strict
criteria to judge whether he has done his job or not.. The same can not be
said for art in any of it's forms; it's a far more subjective thing.
I was a little flippant with Aidan the other day by saying that I would
sit down the next time I had 5 minutes and learn all there is to know about
abstact expressionism, I realise that people devote their lives to it,
painting, sculpting, collecting...whatever. The thing is, for me, there are
far too many things in this world that truly interest me to have the desire
to waste any of my precious time learning about something that I don't like.
I'm really sorry now that I used that painting as an analogy, it was really
just a quick comparison to some forms of poetry I have been reading lately.
Which, although I said that I am not an expert on poetry either, I believe I
do have the right to "pontificate" on. I have been published enough times
and won enough contests to know that at least a few people other than myself
agree that I am worthy of the title "poet" Now, you may not agree with that
assesment and that's fine. I won't try to force feed you something that you
don't consider to be worth your time. I mean, what constitutes an expert?
An MFA? A chapbook with your name on it? I believe that poetry is
instinctual, you have it or you don't and all the knowledge of forms,
styles, etc., while it might make you knowledgable about poetry, doesn't
make you a poet.
I get a laugh out of people like this Mike Bilbo that feel compelled to
defend anything that some critic somewhere has entitiled"Art" I mean, he
hasn't even read the poems I had in mind and he immediately jumps on his
high horse and starts defending them. You'd think I threatened his
artitistic ideals or something. In my opinion people like that are sheep
willing to be led around by some self proclaimed "expert" on what is or
isn't art. I prefer to make my own decisions and if those differ from yours
is that so scary to you?
Anyway, I think I've wasted about enough of my time on this subject.
It's obvious that we will never agree on it, nor will either of us be likely
to change the others views any time soon. I have some writing to do and I
am all ready behind schedule due to these amusing side trips into this ng.
Unfortunately it has only reinforced my view that most people in this world
are willing to be led around by the nose and told what they should think.
dd
Rik Roots
> information? Do "educated" people refuse to change or alter their opinions
> when faced with information that runs counter to their opinions?
Working for her majesty's civil service is a daily education.
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare...
gnarl
"dd" <raskal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rr5n7.149650$7h.28...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>I have been published enough times
> and won enough contests to know that at least a few people other than
myself
> agree that I am worthy of the title "poet"
It would be gratifying if you would at least post a sample of your
"readable" poetry, if not publication credits.
Posting ones poems is considered a really neat idea on AAPC.
g.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.277 / Virus Database: 146 - Release Date: 9/5/01
Mike Billard
If poetry is, as you say, strictly instinctual, then why have all the great
poets throughout history spent so much time studying the works of those who
came before them? Don't worry, since you've refused to answer any of my
previous questions, I don't hold out much hope that you'll answer this one.
> I get a laugh out of people like this Mike Bilbo that feel compelled
to
> defend anything that some critic somewhere has entitiled"Art"
You see, one of the problems with revisionist history is it's a tough sell
when the events you're attempting to revise are barely forty-eight hours
old. Several times now you have attempted to attribute to me things I never
said, while at the same time refusing at all cost to respond to the things I
actually have said. I can only surmise that you haven't the ability to rebut
my arguments against your original inane comments. So be it. You were bested
rather quickly, and instead of admitting it, you chose to launch into a
spate of name calling and insults.
> I mean, he
> hasn't even read the poems I had in mind and he immediately jumps on his
> high horse and starts defending them.
This is, as so much of what you have said is, a blatant lie. I snipped from
your original post your comments regarding the laundry list poems you went
out and found. I snipped your comments regarding the piece of art bought by
some museum. I never once spoke to either of those comments. I did, however,
speak at length to several other points you raised. Simple question: why do
you refuse so steadfastly to respond to the comments I did make?
> You'd think I threatened his
> artitistic ideals or something.
No, simply ignored my response to your original points and started whining.
That's pretty much all you did. Oh yeah, and lying. Since you can't conjure
up out of your imagination a convincing argument against anything I've said,
you've been spending your time making up stuff that I never said.
> In my opinion people like that are sheep
> willing to be led around by some self proclaimed "expert" on what is or
> isn't art.
There is a flaw in your logic. Either I go along with your admittedly
ignorant opninions regarding art (which would actually be rather sheep like)
or I'm being led around by some other person, who is a self proclaimed
expert. Even if these were my only two options, which would be better, to be
led around by some self proclaimed expert (who you've yet to name, btw) or
to be led around by a self proclaimed ignoramus? If I'm going to blindly
trust somebody's words, you can bet it's not going to be the words of a
person who has admitted he is completely ignorant on the subject to which he
speaks. Of course, there is the third, and ridiculously obvious option. I've
educated myself as best I can in the art of poetry, and I have made my
judgments based on what I've learned. But that's not even relevant because I
never spoke to what I think is and isn' art. I simply questioned your
opinions on certain forms of poetry and how people read and understand those
forms. I'm still waiting for you to address even *one* of the things I
actually said to you.
> I prefer to make my own decisions and if those differ from yours
> is that so scary to you?
I'm interested in exploring how you made those decisions. What information,
what evidence, did you use in determining, for instance, that only people
within academia read and are capable of understanding traditional forms?
Even if our opinions differ, there is plenty to be gained from talking about
how we each came to our divergent views, that is provided we each drew our
conclusions from a careful study of the art. I know I did, and I'd like to
find out that you did, too. Too bad you're not in a position to expound or
clarify or support your opinions.