OT - Anti-intellectualism
Rose Blush
in a miserable clerical job. After work I would ride the subway for an
hour, then sit through three-hour lecture and discussion classes
during which students picked and pecked at stories by the usual stuffy
old English farts. One night I was so exhausted and over-caffeinated I
just couldn't take it anymore, and in the middle of some ridiculous
discussion about Joseph Conrad's syntax, I exploded: "This is ALL just
a bunch of meaningless bullshit!"
In hindsight I think that's when I first became an anti-intellectual.
Now as to why an anti-intellectual would try to write poetry, it's
analogous to taking up ballroom dancing: it's one of those things that
looks like fun at first, until you try it and realize how much work it
is. Suddenly it's no longer a fun little hobby, but a serious drain on
your time; especially if, in the process, you discover you don't have
any particular aptitude for it. The smart thing to do, then, is to
follow Dale's quite sensible advice and move on to something more
rewarding, like cooking lessons. A good cheese soufflé - now that's a
satisfying accomplishment.
What's strange is that I would even briefly consider taking up poetry
as a hobby, when I've never really understood the value of poetry to
begin with. I'm not saying that it has no value, but that most of the
time I'm unable to see its value. If I'm totally honest, I have to
admit I've never really gotten past that moment in English Lit class.
And I'm not just talking about poetry - I mean all art. It's a
love-hate thing for me. I actually have occasional moments when I
think we should just do away with all public funding for the arts.
Smash the statues! Feed the hungry!
Maybe I'm a bolshevist at heart - down with the aristocracy, and all
that. Or maybe it's an American thing: we tend to abhor the whole
notion of anyone's being "born with it", whatever "it" is: noble
bloodlines...artistic talent. We tend to think anything that can't be
achieved by a reasonably intelligent person through his own initiative
and hard work must be frivolous, hoity-toity nonsense. And then
there's the Christian guilt argument: there are hungry children in the
world, so how can you waste time [insert gerund here]? That last one
seems the hardest to answer (unless you become a really rich and
famous poet who uses his power to help the poor).
So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
intellectuals?
Dale Houstman
"Rose Blush" <hiddenro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a95c6a81.02052...@posting.google.com...
>
> What's strange is that I would even briefly consider taking up poetry
> as a hobby
Your use of the word "hobby" in connection with poetry says as much as is
needed to comprehend your lack of ability in that area.
>when I've never really understood the value of poetry to
> begin with. I'm not saying that it has no value, but that most of the
> time I'm unable to see its value. If I'm totally honest, I have to
> admit I've never really gotten past that moment in English Lit class.
Well - some people never do get over their education.
>
> And I'm not just talking about poetry - I mean all art. It's a
> love-hate thing for me. I actually have occasional moments when I
> think we should just do away with all public funding for the arts.
> Smash the statues! Feed the hungry!
Oh yes! It's the miniscule art budget of the US that is taking money from
the mouths of the poor! Bright thought that!
>
> Maybe I'm a bolshevist at heart - down with the aristocracy, and all
> that. Or maybe it's an American thing: we tend to abhor the whole
> notion of anyone's being "born with it", whatever "it" is: noble
> bloodlines...artistic talent. We tend to think anything that can't be
> achieved by a reasonably intelligent person through his own initiative
> and hard work must be frivolous, hoity-toity nonsense. And then
> there's the Christian guilt argument: there are hungry children in the
> world, so how can you waste time [insert gerund here]? That last one
> seems the hardest to answer (unless you become a really rich and
> famous poet who uses his power to help the poor).
There's a South American activist folk song called "Bread And Roses" that
answers this quite well: the masses cannot live a full existence merely from
sustenance. Beauty is its own reward and is - in a world of overwhelming
ugliness and utilitarianism (your philosophy it seems) - it is downright
revolutionary to "waste" one's life pursuing it.
>
> So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
> if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
> poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
> intellectuals?
Artists make art for the sake of creating a beautiful order, of fulfilling
mankind's basic pattern-making mind in forms that might - but might not -
live forever. Every child knows the thrill of pattern-making, and it is no
wonder you seem to have lost it, and replaced it with the vagaries of the
"efficient" and the "useful." That is - of course - the philsophy of the
salesman.
Bolshevik indeed: you're Willy Loman.
dmh
Michael Cook
last posted it.
I think that there is only one motive for art of any sort the knowledge
(indeed the inescapable awareness) of ones own separateness; the utter
futility of communicating the depth of personal understanding. Art
distills a crystalline moment of one person's comprehension of a moment in
time an entire sensual awareness of his experience. All art aspires to
transcend our aloneness no matter what form the art might take; it is always
(I believe) an inward search for a way to reach out to others.
Since religion remains a closed preserve for most intellectuals (anti or
otherwise), the spirit of intellectualism is moved chiefly by beauty.
Beauty in art, music and nature, indeed it is the chief spiritual food of
our 'type'; beauty is, the stopgap, which keeps us spiritually alive. At
least until Pakistan launches.
mdc
"Rose Blush" <hiddenro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a95c6a81.02052...@posting.google.com...
Art McNutt
hiddenro...@yahoo.com wrote on 5/28/02 10:58 PM:
[snip].
>
> So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
> if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
> poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
> intellectuals?
Think of it this way; the night you exploded in Lit class, there /had/ to be
someone who came up to you afterward and said "yeah--me too." Maybe you
bonded then, or maybe it was the weird nerd in the fourth row who was
/always/ striking up unsupportable conversations with /any/ female in the
class. In which case you just mumbled something and hurried off to your car
praying he wouldn't follow you.
Most of us, intellectuals or not, find ourselves on street corners watching
the parade of us, and a lot of us watch the parade thinking--you know what?
The emperor really doesn't have any clothes on. And we say nothing, and it
bothers us, but we eat it; keep it inside 'cause we don't like waves--it
makes us seasick. And maybe we get undressed too, just to fit in and not
have those funny stares directed at us anymore. And suddenly a guy over on
the other side of the street runs out and shouts "The Emperor is NAKED you
frickin' morons!!!"
And you think--frickin' A. 'Bout time someone else noticed.
That man is an artist. Your reaction is the purpose of art. You were an
artist that night in English Lit Class. Kurtz, you were.
"Yeah, me too."
---
Art
Michael Cook
"Art McNutt" <amcn...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:B919CC13.2C33%amcn...@insightbb.com...
Art McNutt
coo...@ameritech.net wrote on 5/29/02 12:10 PM:
> I like your answer better then mine.
Oh, I thought you were writing an epigram for me:
"Art distills a crystalline moment of one person's comprehension of a moment
in time an entire sensual awareness of his experience."
But then, I knew you couldn't be talking about that clumsy shit I sometimes
call my poetry.
Darn.
Actually, Michael, You and I said the same thing. Exactly.
---
Art
Rose Blush
> answers this quite well: the masses cannot live a full existence merely from
> sustenance. Beauty is its own reward and is - in a world of overwhelming
> ugliness and utilitarianism (your philosophy it seems) - it is downright
> revolutionary to "waste" one's life pursuing it.
So you think the masses can appreciate art? Surprising, I would have
thought...well, nevermind. :)
As a member of the masses, I must say it's not easy. I know I used to
appreciate beauty when I was young, but I kept quiet about it because
I didn't want to get my ass kicked. Then I went to work and over the
years it was slowly but steadily ground out of me.
That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry? Rich people
and intellectuals. Not ordinary people who work in banks or factories
or whatever (i.e. most people). I'm sure there are lots of exceptions,
but pick an office, any office anywhere, find a cubicle, and ask the
guy inside if he reads poetry. Ask any cop, or waitress, accountant or
computer programmer.
> Artists make art for the sake of creating a beautiful order, of fulfilling
> mankind's basic pattern-making mind in forms that might - but might not -
> live forever. Every child knows the thrill of pattern-making, and it is no
> wonder you seem to have lost it,
I have lost it, and thinking about it makes me sad, so why think about
it?
and replaced it with the vagaries of the
> "efficient" and the "useful." That is - of course - the philsophy of the
> salesman.
> Bolshevik indeed: you're Willy Loman.
LOL...what else would I be? What else SHOULD I be? A sad Willy Loman
with yearnings and pretensions, or a happy Willy Loman who's good at
what he does?
Tired...must go...thanks for your response,
Rose
Tom Bishop
Quote from Gabriel1 from '98 in this NG:
Shakespeare wrote not to a general audience, but to anyone who was a good
listener. This is basically the same audience as 'good readers,' although
many of the Bard's multitudes were illiterate.
MikeB was in this thread, but fell on the other side of this it seemed.
From what I have heard, and I'm NOT well read.. The most famous
and respected poets had a broad appeal. From highly intellectual
sorts to the much less gifted.
Why? ..how?
..I know, read.
--
Tom Bishop
"Rose Blush" <hiddenro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a95c6a81.02052...@posting.google.com...
Tom Bishop
You seem to be basically saying that art is a communication,
although you flower it up a bit more than seems warranted.
It is not always "crystalline".. nor a "moment" IMO.
Your assertions of "spirituality" are better left out of it, IMO.
About seeing spirits, and hearing voices ..
I will reference: Julian Jaynes (a woman am told)
__The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind__
http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b36-rpt.html#jaynes
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bicameral&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=7dgkd7%24u4%40nntpa.cb.lucent.com&rnum=2
Curious if people are familiar.. I am only passably so,
but it looked interesting.
--
Tom Bishop
"Michael Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:o7ZI8.5077$t%5.18...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Tom Bishop
> > answers this quite well: the masses cannot live a full existence merely from
> > sustenance. Beauty is its own reward and is - in a world of overwhelming
> > ugliness and utilitarianism (your philosophy it seems) - it is downright
> > revolutionary to "waste" one's life pursuing it.
>
> So you think the masses can appreciate art? Surprising, I would have
> thought...well, nevermind. :)
>
> As a member of the masses, I must say it's not easy. I know I used to
> appreciate beauty when I was young, but I kept quiet about it because
> I didn't want to get my ass kicked. Then I went to work and over the
> years it was slowly but steadily ground out of me.
>
> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry?
You listen to it in popular music all the time.
> Rich people
> and intellectuals. Not ordinary people who work in banks or factories
> or whatever (i.e. most people). I'm sure there are lots of exceptions,
> but pick an office, any office anywhere, find a cubicle, and ask the
> guy inside if he reads poetry. Ask any cop, or waitress, accountant or
> computer programmer.
>
> > Artists make art for the sake of creating a beautiful order, of fulfilling
> > mankind's basic pattern-making mind in forms that might - but might not -
> > live forever. Every child knows the thrill of pattern-making, and it is no
> > wonder you seem to have lost it,
I knew Marcus Uzilevsky somewhat personally, and he made art
(which was on the Cosby set for example) to make money, as do
many artists/authors.. Dickens for example worked to his audience
in serials, got feedback, and modified the story line to suite.
Perhaps they aren't artists?
Michael Cook
"Tom Bishop" wrote in message SEE:
Tom Bishop
--
Tom Bishop
"Michael Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:SH_I8.5081$t%5.18...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
<DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK>
>
> Shakespeare, Frost.
These are just 'celebrities': everyone knows them, and very few are able
to say
why exactly they deserve to be celebrities. Rembrandt isn't necessarily
a better painter than many of his contemporaries few ever heard of. His
works function as tourist relics: they are things you must have seen
when you've visited Holland. Much like that 'perestrojka' book Gorbatjov
wrote which every halfpenny 'intellectual' had to have on his coffee
table. People hardly question authority since questioning authority is
usually punishable behavoiur in our types of societies. Hence the upset
quacking of the 'canonists' if one dares to put questionmarks to the
accomplishments of a known celebrity poet.
M.H.Benders
rupert
None. I agree with you entirely- The simpler, more basic and
unpretentious you make something, the more likely it is to appeal to
someone directly, without the artists/ auther's brain getting in the
way.
Dale Houstman
"<DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK>" <in...@cacaofabriek.com> wrote in message
news:3CF4B1EC...@cacaofabriek.com...
Although I agree with the general thrust of your post, I must say that
Rembrandt and Shakespeare are NOT just "celebrities" and that the features
in their work that make them at least memorable are discernible. Shakespeare
was even reviled for a time due to his qualities of obsessive (and - as it
turns out - dense and interlaced) pun-making. It is this feautre, and the
overwhelming humanist nature of his work (as opposed to moralistic or only
religious) that make his plays remain in that "sticking place." Maybe no one
can precisely say why he "deserves" his celebrity, but the preponderance of
his phrases that have entered common usage is a testament of sorts to
something beyond mere modern celebrity. As for Rembrandt, I've seen quite a
number of painters of his period and place, and his "smoky" ambience and
darkness (also reviled at the time) is close to unique. It still remains a
personal matter of course: one should not be required to love either of them
or any other canon inhabitant. But to claim that we cannot identify WHY they
are "celebrities" is perhaps hyperbolic. The "why" perhaps the easiest thing
to discern in any celebrity, no matter how minor and passing: they offer
amusement, or relief from one's own inanity, or seem different, or talk
funny, etc. Celebrity though is a particularly degradable product, and if it
lasts for over 400 years I think something else is going on, albeit a mere
academic fixation. But Shakespeare was the one of only two books in the
homes of the relatively uneducated for centuries, and entertained and
perplexed many quite outside the academic environment. And intellectuals is
a class like any other, there are good and bad examples of the type. And
some (ala Gingrich) really are that "pseudo" that is used so often as a
putdown by those who really just don't like people who think too much, or
express themselves a little too eloquently, or at an unseemly length. It is
true that one may ignore quite freely these artists and their work, and look
elsewhere for a source (even within yourself), but this attitude - while
perfectly acceptable - doesn't really affect the work that already exists.
dmh
<DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK>
>
> Although I agree with the general thrust of your post, I must say that
> Rembrandt and Shakespeare are NOT just "celebrities" and that the features
> in their work that make them at least memorable are discernible.
No doubt. But they're just examples, and they *are* celebrities, no
matter what.
I do not really question the value of Shakespeare's sonnets, as their
quality is quite evident. However, I do question the rather huge
emphasisis the guy receives in 'English literature' - and not only
there: God knows how many movies I've seen where 'hamlet' or 'romeo and
julia' is translated into modern images with shooting gangmembers and
whatnot. And I must say that these movies to me were always quite
painful to watch. There's the eery feeling that the director wanted to
prove himself by 'proving' that Shakespeare is still 'actual' by
translating all the imagery into so-called contemporary imagery, and
sorry, but to me it's simply irritating to see a few gang members talk
Shakespearean poetry. There's too much of this sort of kitsch created
under the auspicion of the canonists which more than often is simply an
excuse to 'play it safe': shoot shakespeare, everyone does it, no one
will question your integrity.
Celebrity though is a particularly degradable product, and if it
> lasts for over 400 years I think something else is going on, albeit a mere
> academic fixation.
I don't think most of the 'classic dutch poets' one is taught to worship
in highschool here are very good. The most interesting dutch poet was
doubtlessly Achterberg and he's famous enough but not very
'didacticable' since his work is too comple for simple literature
lessons. I don't see much qualification in being famous for over 400
years - once you pass beyond a certain point you will always be famous,
no matter what happens.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
"rupert" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab9bf388.02052...@posting.google.com...
Bullshit. The most enduring art tends to be that which resists easy
solutions, which longest retains its "mysteries" by appealing to audiences
that might not even have been imagined at the time of composition. Here's a
simple and basic statement: "Please pick up some hot dogs while you're at
the grocery store." Simple, basic, and totally unpretentious in intent and
form. Poetry? No. Art? No. Ringing down through the centuries and apt to
resist easy comprehension, so that its "magic" remains not only intact but
growing through centuries of interpretation and wonderment. Hardly. Much art
is difficult and open to different understandings. Ambiguity and interlacing
and a certain degree of puzzlement and pure strangeness is what makes art
lasting. And the notion that an artist's brain might get in the way rather
than be the source of all that beauty is beyond ridiculous. Art comes from
intelligence and imagination, from acute observation turned to compacted
language. This takes a full involvement of the writer's brain, and there is
no reason at all the composer should not expect (or at the least hope) that
his work will find readers who are willing to meet the work on the level he
assumed he was creating it on. If it doesn't it doesn't. But just to "dumb
down" a piece in hopes of reaching a BIG CROWD is simple and basic
pandering. At any rate, the reason Rose Blush denigrates these difficulties
is NOT because she finds them unworthy, but simply and basically because she
is probably incapable of creating them, and so she diminishes them in the
vain hope they will disappear so that her simpler formulations might rise in
proportion. It won't happen: time is unkind to flimsy structures and thin
soup. She admits poetry is merely a hobby for her (and barely that to judge
from her "comme ci comme ca-la de da" tone), and so she is - at best - a
dabbler. Dabblers are fine for writing that occasional epigram in the family
scrapbook, but to take their "advice" as deeply meaningful and - in any
way - applicable to the wider aspects of art is - frankly - dullard's work.
dmh
George Tolis
<blather-snip>
> So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
> if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
> poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
> intellectuals?
"Fuck off you fucking troll," is one answer to this question. I
suppose you're expecting something a little more intelligent though...
Hmm...
It's all about being cool. You find something you like and then you
try to be good at it, so you can talk with other people who all enjoy
it, but don't know as much about it as you do, so you look cooler than
they do. Then they all sulk because they're shit, rant on about what a
waste of time it all is, or try to degrade the thing out of spite,
then run off to pick up a new hobby, where they find they again can't
do as well as other people and they give up until they find some
utopia where they can be happy. Normally death.
Alternatively, you can drop the whole competitive capitalist mentality
you're bringing into this debate and just do it because you enjoy it
without having to try and rate yourself against perceived
(real/invented) hierarchies and structures imposed by the bourgeois
system of oppression in which you spent your formative years.
Hopefully, that response will satisfy your desire to degrade poetry
through anti-intellectualism, you fucking troll.
Regards
GT
Animeg3282
>So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
>if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
>poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
>intellectuals?
>
Now I am curious. Do lovers of poetry have to be intellectuals? Do you have to
be in an ivory tower to enjoy words? Maybe it's just an illusion spun by people
who teach poetry badly?
Hana no Kaitou
http://peachcoloredsky.keenspace.com <--- Now updating again!
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala
"You write the life that's vividest'- Jarman
Animeg3282
But what is the proportion of dabblers to real poets and how could you tell?
Julie
consider myself an intellectual by any stretch. I'm a college dropout, a wage
slave who has creative artsy craftsy tendencies. My coworkers think I'm a
little eccentric. So there you have it. I must be the exception to the rule
listed below.
-- Julie
In article <a95c6a81.02052...@posting.google.com>,
hiddenro...@yahoo.com says...
Rose Blush
> individual's overbearing and somewhat flagellatory standards.
No, no, no. You totally misunderstand me. My poetry is not GOOD - an
obvious fact which I have acknowledged time and again. And I am fairly
certain that it will never BE good, unless I devote years of study and
hard work to improving it, and even then it's iffy. All I'm doing is
weighing the pros and cons of the situation and choosing the more
sensible path (for me).
If I thought it were good, or anywhere near it, the LAST thing I would
do is allow anyone to bully me into abandoning it. I'm a realist, not
a coward.
> Last time I checked, the position of Absolute Aesthetic Arbiter
> was not filled by anyone from this newsgroup.
Of course not. But just because someone sets himself up as the
Absolute Aesthetic Arbiter doesn't mean he can't sometimes - or very
often - be right. Ignoring the truth just because it comes from
someone we don't like is never a good idea.
> Sometimes, the self-appointed guardians of poetic 'righteousness'
> need to be told to bugger off.
Yes. And sometimes they're right.
> It just seems a shame to let faceless fuddy-duddies in a silly,
> no-account Usenet newsgroup ruin your enjoyment of poetry writing.
Of course I would never do that. If I get the urge to write some
poetry for my own enjoyment, I will certainly do so. I just think
there are more productive ways I can spend my time.
This is not the same as saying anyone ELSE should abandon poetry
writing. There are lots of people who get more out of it than I do.
Everybody else should do whatever they want to do. Contrary to what
Dale suggests (he loves making up things for me to be thinking - part
of his creative nature I suppose) I am not giving anyone advice. I
wanted to expose my "anti-art" state of mind to the group and invite
others to blast away at it. And they did so most enlighteningly and
entertainingly. Being reminded of the obvious (although it's so easy
to lose sight of) fact that there's more to life than toil and
drudgery was refreshing and therapeutic.
I don't know where y'all work, but where I work it's all techie, all
the time; nobody reads fiction, much less poetry, nobody ever talks
about art, plus my friends aren't into it, so you have no idea how
invigorating it is to come here and see people talking about beauty
and pattern-making and the human mind and bread and roses - even if
some of it is lost on me.
> You're free to do whatever you wish, of course. Me, I'd
> encourage you to stick around, write some poetry, and have fun
> doing it. And to hell with the nay-sayers.
I know you mean well, so thanks for that, but this is my choice. Me
happy, not sad. :)
Rose Blush
Wow! I thought it was clear that I WANTED to hear people talk about
why art is a good thing - not for everybody to agree with my original
statement. My bad - guess I shouldn't expect everyone to give me the
benefit of the doubt when they don't know me.
Tom Bishop
"<DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK>" <in...@cacaofabriek.com> wrote in message news:3CF4B1EC...@cacaofabriek.com...
> >
> > Shakespeare, Frost.
>
> These are just 'celebrities': everyone knows them, and very few are able
> to say
> why exactly they deserve to be celebrities.
Don't the original creators of cliche deserve some noteriety?
> Rembrandt isn't necessarily
> a better painter than many of his contemporaries few ever heard of. His
> works function as tourist relics: they are things you must have seen
> when you've visited Holland.
Actually did see "Night Watch".. prefered the Van Gogh Museum
after some "Sensimilla Super Skunk" at a nearby coffee shop.
> Much like that 'perestrojka' book Gorbatjov
> wrote which every halfpenny 'intellectual' had to have on his coffee
> table. People hardly question authority since questioning authority is
> usually punishable behavoiur in our types of societies. Hence the upset
> quacking of the 'canonists' if one dares to put questionmarks to the
> accomplishments of a known celebrity poet.
My problem with the "read boy read" advice is that I can't stand
most of what I wind up reading.
>
> M.H.Benders
--
Tom Bishop
Dale Houstman
"Animeg3282" <anime...@aol.compelsia> wrote in message
news:20020529093633...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Rose Blush said:
>
> >So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
> >if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
> >poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
> >intellectuals?
> >
>
> Now I am curious. Do lovers of poetry have to be intellectuals? Do you
have to
> be in an ivory tower to enjoy words? Maybe it's just an illusion spun by
people
> who teach poetry badly?
>
I've taken quite a few classes and such an attitude is not taught. After
all, it is not difficult to feel that you are isolated in an ivory tower
when society as a whole seems to want to place you in the shithouse. All
sorts of people enjoy and have enjoyed poetry. But there seems to be a
confusion here between intelligence and intellectualism. It does help to be
intelligent - in the reading of poetry as in any other endeavor. If poets
don't appear to write for the "common masses" it may be that the common
masses are too busy watching the stock tickers, and being appalled by the
world. If any partiocular poet apears to be writing for intellectuals it is
probably because he is an intellectual. Why shouldn't intellectuals have
their poets also? There is plenty of other poetic-like substance out there
for others to enjoy: intellectuals hardly rule the book lists. A cursory
examination of a bookstore's poetry section will reveal book after book of
sentimental favorites and doggerel and Hallmarkish books of "deep thoughts."
Why complain at all? There's plenty to go around.
dmh
Tom Bishop
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> hiddenro...@yahoo.com (Rose Blush) wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > ...One night I was so exhausted and over-caffeinated I just couldn't
> > take it anymore, and in the middle of some ridiculous discussion about
> > Joseph Conrad's syntax, I exploded: "This is ALL just a bunch of
> > meaningless bullshit!"
> >
> > In hindsight I think that's when I first became an anti-intellectual.
> >
> > Now as to why an anti-intellectual would try to write poetry, it's
> > analogous to taking up ballroom dancing: it's one of those things
> > that looks like fun at first, until you try it and realize how much
> > work it is. Suddenly it's no longer a fun little hobby, but a
> > serious drain on your time; especially if, in the process, you
> > discover you don't have any particular aptitude for it. The smart
> > thing to do, then, is to follow Dale's quite sensible advice and
> > move on to something more rewarding, like cooking lessons. A good
> > cheese soufflé - now that's a satisfying accomplishment.
> >
>
> Ah! But there's much -poetry- in a well-crafted souffle. ;)
>
> So -- maybe your written poetry doesn't conform to one
> individual's overbearing and somewhat flagellatory standards.
>
>
> Last time I checked, the position of Absolute Aesthetic Arbiter
> was not filled by anyone from this newsgroup.
But there are certainly self-appointed pretenders,
and who cares as long as they aren't childish and rude,
and if they are, killfilling them allows one to read mostly
their more reasonable comments.
> Sometimes, the self-appointed guardians of poetic 'righteousness'
> need to be told to bugger off.
Tough love, applied to the intellectual babies.
> This might be a propitious time to metaphorically repeat your
> previous 'anti-intellectual' explosion (not that there are
> actually any intellectuals here).
>
> It just seems a shame to let faceless fuddy-duddies in a silly,
> no-account Usenet newsgroup ruin your enjoyment of poetry writing.
>
> You're free to do whatever you wish, of course. Me, I'd
> encourage you to stick around, write some poetry, and have fun
> doing it. And to hell with the nay-sayers.
Killfiles (are becoming) my friend, and can change the flavor
of this place dramatically.
> ---
> "I do my thing, and you do your thing.
> I am not in this world to live up to your expectations
> And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
> You are you and I am I
> And if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
> If not, it can't be helped."
> - Dr. Frederick Solomon 'Fritz' Perls
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
>
Tom Bishop
> DMH said:
>
<dullard snip>
> >
>
> But what is the proportion of dabblers to real poets and how could you tell?
If not for dabblers, there would be very few to even /try/ to take
the time to unravel the /deep mysteries/ of fine art.. Leaving just a few
mental masturbaters in a circle jerk.
Just my 182 IQ take on it.
--
Tom Bishop
Dale Houstman
that
> > answers this quite well: the masses cannot live a full existence merely
from
> > sustenance. Beauty is its own reward and is - in a world of overwhelming
> > ugliness and utilitarianism (your philosophy it seems) - it is downright
> > revolutionary to "waste" one's life pursuing it.
>
> So you think the masses can appreciate art? Surprising, I would have
> thought...well, nevermind. :)
Goiod thing you didn't finish that lame thought, isn't it? Strangely enough,
not as many people think your off-handed delusions are as attractive as you
seem to find them.
>
> As a member of the masses, I must say it's not easy. I know I used to
> appreciate beauty when I was young, but I kept quiet about it because
> I didn't want to get my ass kicked. Then I went to work and over the
> years it was slowly but steadily ground out of me.
I've worked most of my life also, but don't find that this rather banal fact
of life has much to do with an appreciation of beauty. But if you are
serious abvout this, you surely are in the wrong field: poetry is certainly
not for you.
>
> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry? Rich people
> and intellectuals. Not ordinary people who work in banks or factories
> or whatever (i.e. most people). I'm sure there are lots of exceptions,
> but pick an office, any office anywhere, find a cubicle, and ask the
> guy inside if he reads poetry. Ask any cop, or waitress, accountant or
> computer programmer.
If this is true, my response has to be: So? What is it about quantities that
so delights utilitarians? It makes no difference (or should make no
difference) to a writer whether or not his personal proclivities are about
to explode big at Barnes and Nobles. If that connection is made (in or after
the writer's lifetime) it's all to the good, but it isn't by any means
necessary to the writer's interest in creation.
>
> > Artists make art for the sake of creating a beautiful order, of
fulfilling
> > mankind's basic pattern-making mind in forms that might - but might
not -
> > live forever. Every child knows the thrill of pattern-making, and it is
no
> > wonder you seem to have lost it,
>
> I have lost it, and thinking about it makes me sad, so why think about
> it?
I am certainly not attempting to make you think about anything, but you did
ask the questions after all? If you don't want to think about the answers,
you might have saved us all a lot of trouble. But if you have lost this
basic drive of pattern-making then poetry and any art is a closed door to
you. There are plenty of other doors in the hotel, so feel free to wander
the hallways testing the doorknobs.
>
> and replaced it with the vagaries of the
> > "efficient" and the "useful." That is - of course - the philsophy of the
> > salesman.
>
> > Bolshevik indeed: you're Willy Loman.
>
> LOL...what else would I be? What else SHOULD I be? A sad Willy Loman
> with yearnings and pretensions, or a happy Willy Loman who's good at
> what he does?
>
I simply don't care what persona you choose to put on. You can dress up like
Mickey Mouse for all I could care. This is a poetry group (supposedly: let's
go along with that delusion for the sake of argument), and if you are
admitting that you not only have lost the drive to create patterns, and
furthermore, that you can only find comfort in avoiding that pursuit all
together, it is best that you give up the pretension now.
It is amusing though that you speak so disparingly of intellectuals, when
you seem to be rather stodgy yourself: for instance, you "considered" that
you "might" take up poetry as a "hobby." Most people just get hobbies, they
grow naturally out of a person's desires. You have to think about it! Who's
the intellectual, the one disconnected from their emotions? I rather think
it's you. But I also think - after all this - that it doesn't matter to you
what anyone says, and - like so many othetr postmoderns - you simply think
life has nothing in it but what can be "used."
That is sad.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Animeg3282" <anime...@aol.compelsia> wrote in message
news:20020529095052...@mb-fo.aol.com...
I'm not a bean-counter, but Theodore Strugeon had a rule that 97% of
everything was crap. Or some such number. One reads a lot of poetry in one's
time after all, and makes a guesstimate from that: most of what is being
passed off as poetry isn't much of anything. This ng is a good example.
Almost everything here is awful or about to be worse because too many allow
too many others to dole out Crisco as ambrosia. One expects most to write
badly and to continue to do so: this is fine. Who needs the competition?!
But in a poetry discussion group it is the quality of the criticism that
really matters, and in this regard, the group is an almost complete and
utter disaster.
dmh
M.H.Benders
Tom Bishop wrote:
>
> > These are just 'celebrities': everyone knows them, and very few are able
> > to say
> > why exactly they deserve to be celebrities.
>
> Don't the original creators of cliche deserve some noteriety?
I'm not really one of the true believers of the 'no cliché' faction. Avoiding cliché's might be a good idea for beginners
but I think the value of avoiding cliché's becomes less and less important when you learn what poetry really is. And it's
clear enough that writing poetry on itself is rather a cliché.
> > quacking of the 'canonists' if one dares to put questionmarks to the
> > accomplishments of a known celebrity poet.
>
> My problem with the "read boy read" advice is that I can't stand
> most of what I wind up reading.
I think that's good. It's not always easy to judge work which naturally doesn't attract you, but it's ofcourse also true
that 98 % of everything published is completely mediocre. This doesn't change the fact that reading poetry can be very
important for people who are learning to develop a voice. First one needs to understand what good poetry is, after you
need to learn *why* this poetry is really good, and then you need to create conditions which allow previous proces to be
recreated within you. Not an easy thing. And reading crap can be fun too.
M.H.Benders
j r sherman
says...
>
>None. I agree with you entirely- The simpler, more basic and
>unpretentious you make something, the more likely it is to appeal to
>someone directly, without the artists/ auther's brain getting in the
>way.
what complete and utter bullshit! where the fuck do you morons come from (Idaho,
Florida, Utah?)? would you PLEASE go back to watching NASCAR, Jerry Springer and
being canon fodder for smarter people and not interrupt discussions that are way
over your head? thank you.
fucking christ, does everything have to be Hee-Hawed for you idiots? are you
upset because William Faulkner or Akira Kurosawa is not presented with bright
Barney characters to assist you? god help you if you actually have to MAKE AN
EFFORT to enjoy something. if Jay Gatsby doesn't resemble Steven Segal, you
people whine like crackers at a party when there's no more wine left in the
fucking "box".
christ, you HAVE to be American. only an American would make a statement this
stupid. "without the artists/ auther's brain getting in the way" i quote you
exactly.
so please, return to your reruns of Friends, tank-top t-shirts, short pants and
mullet head hair cuts, and wait until we need to throw you at the front lines in
a war, and thereby hopefully improving the general gene pool at the same time.
"anti-intellectualism". simian-like laziness by any other name.
j r sherman
Tom Bishop
Writing crap can be fun too, and even hearing compliments
on the the crap that I wrote is fun, but it was (a little) more fun before
I found out it was crap.
But knowing the whole truth is better.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
j r sherman
>I don't know where y'all work, but where I work it's all techie, all
>the time; nobody reads fiction, much less poetry, nobody ever talks
>about art, plus my friends aren't into it, so you have no idea how
>invigorating it is to come here and see people talking about beauty
>and pattern-making and the human mind and bread and roses - even if
>some of it is lost on me.
then don't let it be lost on you. it's as clear as that. if you don't understand
something, what the fuck is wrong with LEARNING? what an idea! learning, that
lost art among far too many Americans.
cause ya know what, learning is really fun. it really is.
you imply that we need to embrace stupidity because a) you had a boring teacher
once, and b) it takes too much work?
ya know, Rose, it almost seems like you have a couple of brain cells. you don't
seem as moronic as the idiot who suggested that creative endeavors require
Hee-Haw-like simplicity. so, if something is over your head, why not try
learning about it instead of bitching about it?
there's an idea.
>
>> You're free to do whatever you wish, of course. Me, I'd
>> encourage you to stick around, write some poetry, and have fun
>> doing it. And to hell with the nay-sayers.
>
>I know you mean well, so thanks for that, but this is my choice. Me
>happy, not sad. :)
hey, i'm sure the cow is just happy as hell before they blow it's brains out,
don't you think?
j r sherman
Michael Cook
Never use the word "seem" in prose, state opinion as fact. If you want to be
a bear be a grizzly. These are a few from Michael Cook's collection of
Usenet homilies. :)
Its to bad you are leaving.
mdc
"Rose Blush" wrote in message
Tom Bishop
> > individual's overbearing and somewhat flagellatory standards.
>
> No, no, no. You totally misunderstand me. My poetry is not GOOD - an
> obvious fact which I have acknowledged time and again. And I am fairly
> certain that it will never BE good, unless I devote years of study and
> hard work to improving it, and even then it's iffy. All I'm doing is
> weighing the pros and cons of the situation and choosing the more
> sensible path (for me).
>
> If I thought it were good, or anywhere near it, the LAST thing I would
> do is allow anyone to bully me into abandoning it. I'm a realist, not
> a coward.
>
> > Last time I checked, the position of Absolute Aesthetic Arbiter
> > was not filled by anyone from this newsgroup.
>
> Of course not. But just because someone sets himself up as the
> Absolute Aesthetic Arbiter doesn't mean he can't sometimes - or very
> often - be right. Ignoring the truth just because it comes from
> someone we don't like is never a good idea.
Except when they whine like a two-year-old, and have little
but insults for anyone but other whiners.
Maslow indicated that self-actualization yeilded an egalitarian
attitude which embraces humanity inspite of the /bell shaped curve/.
Nature, animals, plants do not have our intelligence, but
what does kicking the /stupid dog/ do?
> > Sometimes, the self-appointed guardians of poetic 'righteousness'
> > need to be told to bugger off.
>
> Yes. And sometimes they're right.
>
> > It just seems a shame to let faceless fuddy-duddies in a silly,
> > no-account Usenet newsgroup ruin your enjoyment of poetry writing.
>
> Of course I would never do that. If I get the urge to write some
> poetry for my own enjoyment, I will certainly do so. I just think
> there are more productive ways I can spend my time.
There are some moderated forums that are less crude,
yet you will get honest feedback, and won't have to fear loss of blood.
> This is not the same as saying anyone ELSE should abandon poetry
> writing. There are lots of people who get more out of it than I do.
> Everybody else should do whatever they want to do. Contrary to what
> Dale suggests (he loves making up things for me to be thinking - part
> of his creative nature I suppose) I am not giving anyone advice. I
> wanted to expose my "anti-art" state of mind to the group and invite
> others to blast away at it. And they did so most enlighteningly and
> entertainingly. Being reminded of the obvious (although it's so easy
> to lose sight of) fact that there's more to life than toil and
> drudgery was refreshing and therapeutic.
>
> I don't know where y'all work, but where I work it's all techie, all
> the time; nobody reads fiction, much less poetry, nobody ever talks
> about art, plus my friends aren't into it, so you have no idea how
> invigorating it is to come here and see people talking about beauty
> and pattern-making and the human mind and bread and roses - even if
> some of it is lost on me.
>
>
> > You're free to do whatever you wish, of course. Me, I'd
> > encourage you to stick around, write some poetry, and have fun
> > doing it. And to hell with the nay-sayers.
>
> I know you mean well, so thanks for that, but this is my choice. Me
> happy, not sad. :)
Send me your sonnets please, you promised!
--
Tom Bishop
sophie
<snip>
>> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry?
>
>You listen to it in popular music all the time.
ok, I ask this in all sincerity; are you suggesting that popular music
is poetry?
>I knew Marcus Uzilevsky somewhat personally, and he made art
>(which was on the Cosby set for example) to make money, as do
>many artists/authors.. Dickens for example worked to his audience
>in serials, got feedback, and modified the story line to suite.
>
>Perhaps they aren't artists?
I can't stand Dickens.
I've spent a fair amount of time in the past arguing that he wrote
Victorian soaps, although I'm too tired to argue the toss now (UK soaps
are very different from what I've seen of American soaps, btw, being
full of pain, ugly people, the working classes, and ludicrously,
ludicrously gritty plotlines). So no, Dickens wasn't an artist as I'd
define artist. He was definitely a novelist; but so is Jackie Collins,
to go to extremes.
--
sophie
Rose Blush
> avoid self-deprecation when describing your ability or work.
Why should I? A thing is either true or it's not.
> If you want to be a bear be a grizzly.
If that means stubbornly clinging to your original position even when
you know it's flawed, and not listening to what other people have to
say, then that's stupid. Sorry, but I'd rather learn something new
than indulge your dominatrix fantasies.
Dale Houstman
"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cVSL5dO2...@blueyonder.co.uk...
"David Copperfield" is probably my favorite novel, and I've read it (to
myself and others) several times now. Of course, my admiration and enjoyment
of it (and his other novels) doesn't make him an artist. But he surely is
one in my book at any rate. You're correct in identifying his popular
success as being as concern perhaps, and there can be no doubt some or many
of his characters are merely types rather than more complete personages, but
this doesn't stop him from being an artist either, as types were the bedrock
of literature for a long while before he came along, in allegories and
fables and epic poems. In fact, I am sure people misidentify Dickens as a
sort of realist all the time (one of my professor did) but he really isn't:
he's a gothic romantic in many ways, and he is one of the few Victorians who
can make buildings into characters, and characters of a particularly gothic
type. I read "Vanity Fair" (by one of his friends, Thackery) the same year I
re-read David Copperfiled, and while Thackery is more proficient in drawing
people, he is inferior I think, if only on the basis of pure enjoyment. In
that regard, "Pickwick Papers" is one of the very few joyful classics, as
primitive as it seems, even relative to dickens' own work. Being and
influence doesn't make a writer an artist either, but Kafka and Doestoevsky
are admittedly very beholding to him, although they are both (reasonably so)
more modern than he. He's sentimental and moralistic (although he takes aims
at both types here and there), but he is very effective and not unobservant
in his way. But - what the hell - there's plenty more to like.
dmh
L.Davies
> So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
> if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
> poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
> intellectuals?
paintings, sunrises, poetry, stories. just a balance against the bad and
ugly. never mind why, who could live in a world without?
Les
--------
*good thing I read thru before posting- I'd missed the ? key = 'who could
live in a world without Les'
I don't even want to think about the answers I'd get to that one
:-)
Michael Cook
What?
you have misread me
"Rose Blush" <hiddenro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a95c6a81.02052...@posting.google.com...
Tom Bishop
>
> <snip>
>
> >> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry?
> >
> >You listen to it in popular music all the time.
>
> ok, I ask this in all sincerity; are you suggesting that popular music
> is poetry?
Seems that a lot of it, music removed,
would stand up far better than much of the stuff
posted here.. but that's my 'pinion.
> >I knew Marcus Uzilevsky somewhat personally, and he made art
> >(which was on the Cosby set for example) to make money, as do
> >many artists/authors.. Dickens for example worked to his audience
> >in serials, got feedback, and modified the story line to suite.
> >
> >Perhaps they aren't artists?
>
> I can't stand Dickens.
> I've spent a fair amount of time in the past arguing that he wrote
> Victorian soaps, although I'm too tired to argue the toss now (UK soaps
> are very different from what I've seen of American soaps, btw, being
> full of pain, ugly people, the working classes, and ludicrously,
> ludicrously gritty plotlines). So no, Dickens wasn't an artist as I'd
> define artist. He was definitely a novelist; but so is Jackie Collins,
> to go to extremes.
"What is poetry", "what is art".. I am growing more inclusive
as time goes on.. I think that it can be artful to make money.
..it is just a word.
Everyone is free to draw lines where they want.
> --
>
> sophie
GeorgeTolis
No you spent your lifestory setting yourself up as anti-intellectual,
amongst other things and then asked:
"what is the point of poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and
making art for other
intellectuals?"
Which to me, grammatically, says that you can see no point in poetry,
art, or being an intellectual, etc. The associations are levelling
accusations as far as I can see. Yes, it may be polemic, there may be
some sincerity, but if you genuinely have to slap up your life on the
board like a chuckling lysaughter, or spray oxymoronic brainshite around
like some cross-posting cosmic Christ-troll then that's just one
response available to you. You make it sound like you've never worked
at a poem in your life and never saw the need, yet you insist on telling
a group of poet-enthusiasts about it as if it's their moral duty to
defend you.
I have no problem with you not liking poetry, after having dabbled, but
your question is as ridiculous as asking why someone prefers yellow to
blue, or football over basketball. Trace it back to the classroom, back
to the family, whatever.
But I was being ironic. And what about open-plan offices?
G.
P.S. can you please reference who says what in your chunk posts? It
makes reading a lot easier.
Amathyzt
>
> I'm not a bean-counter, but Theodore Strugeon had a rule that 97% of
> everything was crap. Or some such number. One reads a lot of poetry in
one's
> time after all, and makes a guesstimate from that: most of what is being
> passed off as poetry isn't much of anything. This ng is a good example.
> Almost everything here is awful or about to be worse because too many
allow
> too many others to dole out Crisco as ambrosia.
If you find my critiques unworthy of this forum, I could understand. I
offer very little and usually it is an author whom I think you would not
reply. Do I do you a disservice? If what is wrong with someone's work is so
blantent, that even my under-educated opinion may have a helpful remark, I
think instead it should be of little concern. It is I who must decide if I
wish to spend the type. If I read a piece I like, and simply leave that
comment the author can decide if my opinion matters. And if the remark
bothers you greatly, it is you who have decided to let it do so, and your
choice whether you wish to contribute more. I don't have the ability to
remove what even I find shit, and I probably wouldn't be here if someone
else could do the same. I wish I could delete myself quite a few times and
I am very new. The notable poets owe something to being forgiven thier
mistakes. If 1 of every 100 poems I wrote were shitless, I would feel an
acomplishment. But I am straying... To Crisco I have no expectation that my
words will inspire greatness. I am glad if I can be of some help. Working
hard at poetry is itself rewarding. Even if I haven't the slightest bit of
a perfect poem in my future, it would not be a waste. Through my efforts I
will open my mind, increase my vocabulary, and have better chance at
understanding some type of poetic truth. These are not my main motives but a
part of why I'm here. It is my place to question the motives or goals of
another poet and deem if they are worthwhile. I would hope anyone posting
knows it is at thier own risk. And whether a glutton for punishment or
persistant idiot its thier time they invest and only their judgement to say
it waste. I have no godly forsight to tell me if a writer will someday be
great, or even breed greatness. I pity the mother of a poet that was
birthed full grown. I believe we all were infants at some point. If you find
no satisfaction in lending your opinion, perhaps its your expectations need
your critique. Whose fault is the disappointment? Did your own motivations
become misplaced? Pardon me if this is out of line. But to me it seem that
if 97% of what you read (here) is crap. Wouldn't you stand a better chance
to finding 3% worth the time to glance if you by encouraging more crap to
float in the way. Maybe what you desire is more like censorship. Go form a
club by invatation only, it wouldn't be the first time that has been done.
It may help rid you of some stench.
M.H.Benders
sophie wrote:
>
> >Perhaps they aren't artists?
>
> I can't stand Dickens.
The well known dutch author?
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
>if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
>poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
>intellectuals?
I'm tempted to say that if you hadn't been ruined at school, you might
have had the good fortune to come to great art when you were ready, as
a matter of will -- and then you wouldn't be asking this question, any
more than you would be questioning daisies or walruses or the quarter
moon. And I genuinely hope that you will one day have that good
fortune, as I have. It's amazing how much better those formerly
weighty tomes become when you first read them for your own pleasure,
of your own accord,
But, since you haven't yet done so, let me reverse your question: what
is the point of making art for non-intellectuals, and how does it
differ from making art for intellectuals, except insofar as the latter
tend to be more highly educated? Frankly, I'm too smart to get much
out of "Friends" or the latest blister-packed ghetto fart from P. U.
Dumb Rapper. Even the best TV writer (and there are some fine ones)
can't churn out interesting material about the same six people week
after week, particularly when the ship has to be in danger in time for
the car commercial, the vulcan with the silicone breasts has to get as
many lines as the kindly android or she'll stop sleeping with the
executive producer, the writers have standing orders not to task 80%
of the public, and everybody from the washroom attendant to the boss's
dog-in-law has the authority to rewrite your script.
The unexpected pleasures of a Dylan or a Hitchcock aside, I find most
popular art about as engaging as staring at the waiting room wall
before root canal surgery. It no more interests me than the bedroom
chatter of the retarded. It bores me shitless. Then too, I find it
distinctly uninteresting. And when I put on the B Minor mass -- wow. A
mind as much better than mine as mine is better than that of a tree
sloth fed lead since birth! I glory in the complexity of it. I revel
in the beauty of it. Chills run up and down my spine and I start to
sob and I can't believe that anything could ever be that great.
Let's see you do that, P. U. Dumb Rapper.
Josh
M.H.Benders
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> The unexpected pleasures of a Dylan or a Hitchcock aside, I find most
> popular art about as engaging as staring at the waiting room wall
> before root canal surgery. It no more interests me than the bedroom
> chatter of the retarded. It bores me shitless. Then too, I find it
> distinctly uninteresting. And when I put on the B Minor mass -- wow.
Don't let this happen to your poetry!
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> The unexpected pleasures of a Dylan or a Hitchcock aside, I find most
> popular art about as engaging as staring at the waiting room wall
> before root canal surgery. It no more interests me than the bedroom
> chatter of the retarded. It bores me shitless. Then too, I find it
> distinctly uninteresting.
And now P.Hillbilly will explain why this painting:
http://markkostabi.com/paintings/womanatthewindow-01.jpg
is utterly uninteresting, while this one:
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0001.htm
deserves eternal praise and admiration!
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
"Amathyzt" <amat...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4O8J8.56469$Bo3.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > I'm not a bean-counter, but Theodore Strugeon had a rule that 97% of
> > everything was crap. Or some such number. One reads a lot of poetry in
> one's
> > time after all, and makes a guesstimate from that: most of what is being
> > passed off as poetry isn't much of anything. This ng is a good example.
> > Almost everything here is awful or about to be worse because too many
> allow
> > too many others to dole out Crisco as ambrosia.
>
> If you find my critiques unworthy of this forum, I could understand. I
> offer very little and usually it is an author whom I think you would not
> reply. Do I do you a disservice? If what is wrong with someone's work is
so
> blantent, that even my under-educated opinion may have a helpful remark
Not really true. If a fire in an office building can be seen from fifty
miles away, a comment like "nice flames" still won't help. The overtness of
a concern doesn't - in any way - guarantee that that concern might be fixed
by any random response.
.I
> think instead it should be of little concern. It is I who must decide if I
> wish to spend the type. If I read a piece I like, and simply leave that
> comment the author can decide if my opinion matters.
I'm not stopping you, merely making my ownm comments on commetns you are
defending: so where's the beef?
> And if the remark
> bothers you greatly, it is you who have decided to let it do so, and your
> choice whether you wish to contribute more.
I don't "decide" to let things bother me, they just do. And why reduce a
reasoned response to the level of a burp? It's a forum for poetry and
commetns isn't it? So - again - where's your beef? And - buddy - your idea
is not very helpful. It just so happens that the quality of a group's
critiques (and - thus - their value) is set not by a random set of "gees"
and "nopes" but by the participants being open about learning not only about
where to put the adjectives, but also about how to forge an analysis. You
act as if this is a liberal nursery school: "If Billy likes to pee in the
waste paper basket, he must be indulging in a deep-set and meaningful
response to a bad environment, or maybe he is merely testing the limits of
his surroundings and its flexibility." Ook...
>I don't have the ability to
> remove what even I find shit, and I probably wouldn't be here if someone
> else could do the same. I wish I could delete myself quite a few times
and
> I am very new. The notable poets owe something to being forgiven thier
> mistakes.
What?
> If 1 of every 100 poems I wrote were shitless, I would feel an
> acomplishment. But I am straying... To Crisco I have no expectation that
my
> words will inspire greatness. I am glad if I can be of some help. Working
> hard at poetry is itself rewarding. Even if I haven't the slightest bit
of
> a perfect poem in my future, it would not be a waste. Through my efforts I
> will open my mind, increase my vocabulary, and have better chance at
> understanding some type of poetic truth.
How could you have a chance to understand "some type of poetic truth" if -
as you said in the setup - you are assuming you haven't the slightest chance
of a perfect poem (whatever the hell "some type of poetic truth" and a
"perfect poem" might be in your addled and anemic dictionary of
concepts-that-maybe-mean-something-and-maybe-don't?).
>These are not my main motives but a
> part of why I'm here. It is my place to question the motives or goals of
> another poet and deem if they are worthwhile.
Oh, you have a place? Does it have track lighting? It is just as much "my
place" to question the motives or goals of another poet, and who do you
think you are holding that privelege solely to your soggy bosom?
>I would hope anyone posting
> knows it is at thier own risk. And whether a glutton for punishment or
> persistant idiot its thier time they invest and only their judgement to
say
> it waste.
Christ!
>I have no godly forsight to tell me if a writer will someday be
> great, or even breed greatness. I pity the mother of a poet that was
> birthed full grown.
What?
> I believe we all were infants at some point.
>A revelation that. May I write it in my journal of found truths?
>If you find no satisfaction in lending your opinion, perhaps its your
expectations need
> your critique.
I find immense satisifaction in "lending" my opinion. Why do you assume
otherwise, and when are you going to give them back?
>Whose fault is the disappointment? Did your own motivations
> become misplaced? Pardon me if this is out of line. But to me it seem
that
> if 97% of what you read (here) is crap. Wouldn't you stand a better
chance
> to finding 3% worth the time to glance if you by encouraging more crap to
> float in the way. Maybe what you desire is more like censorship. Go form
a
> club by invatation only, it wouldn't be the first time that has been done.
> It may help rid you of some stench.
But it won't help you. How do you know that I'm not the sort who likes to
sacrifice their own comfort for the aid of others? And why do you consider
your opinion so much more worthwhile of remaining here than mine? Because
you're a "good joe" with "a positive outlook" and "a quick and steady
handshake for every man you meet"? In critical terms that renders you almost
useless, if we must get down to that dreary level.
>
And I repeat:
Joshua P. Hill
I. And now Merkin Bloomers will explain why he finds Silica Slutbunny
so much more interesting than his wife.
II. Try turning the two paintings upside-down.
III. Either smoke less weed, or better.
IV. Van Gogh was smarter.
V. The first painting may not be very good, but it is neither
uninteresting, nor is it popular art.
VI. Gan Gogh cut his ear off.
VII. The cabbage has worms in it.
VIII. If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know.
-- Duke Ellington
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
The only fear I have for my poetry is that someone who thinks Blake
and Yeats are mediocre poets and that Shakespeare doesn't belong in
the canon will someday praise it.
Josh
Aidan Tynan
>>
>> And I'm not just talking about poetry - I mean all art. It's a
>> love-hate thing for me. I actually have occasional moments when I
>> think we should just do away with all public funding for the arts.
>> Smash the statues! Feed the hungry!
Yes, and how much do nations spend on the arts in comparison with, say, the
military?
>>
>> Maybe I'm a bolshevist at heart
Actually, you sound more like a bourgeois, certainly your aesthetics are
from a bourgeois tradition.
- down with the aristocracy, and all
>> that.
I find it baffling that you connect the aristocracy with art. Here's the
thing: most artists are poor.
Or maybe it's an American thing: we tend to abhor the whole
>> notion of anyone's being "born with it", whatever "it" is: noble
>> bloodlines...artistic talent. We tend to think anything that can't be
>> achieved by a reasonably intelligent person through his own initiative
How do you think art is achieved?
>> and hard work must be frivolous, hoity-toity nonsense. And then
>> there's the Christian guilt argument: there are hungry children in the
>> world, so how can you waste time [insert gerund here]?
Oh, don't worry, the Catholic church are busy taking care of all those
vulnerable children ...
That last one
>> seems the hardest to answer
Why? Most of the world's problems relate to the manipulation of cultural
signifying practices ('the culture industry'), so (unless you're a bourgeois
utilitarian as you seem to be) art must be a vital component in any
revolution which would transform mass perception and attitudes.
(unless you become a really rich and
>> famous poet who uses his power to help the poor).
>>
>> So after all that blather, my question (and it's a sincere one, even
>> if it's so basic that it sounds sarcastic) is: what is the point of
>> poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
>> intellectuals?
It's the type of question philistines ask when, clearly, there is much more
point to it than going to work every day.
-Aidan
M.H.Benders
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> >> The unexpected pleasures of a Dylan or a Hitchcock aside, I find most
> >> popular art about as engaging as staring at the waiting room wall
> >> before root canal surgery. It no more interests me than the bedroom
> >> chatter of the retarded. It bores me shitless. Then too, I find it
> >> distinctly uninteresting.
> >
> >And now P.Hillbilly will explain why this painting:
> >http://markkostabi.com/paintings/womanatthewindow-01.jpg
> >
> >is utterly uninteresting, while this one:
> >
> >http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0001.htm
> >
> >deserves eternal praise and admiration!
>
> I. And now Merkin Bloomers will explain why he finds Silica Slutbunny
> so much more interesting than his wife.
Resorting to psychotic pee-wee hermanesque 'humor' when you simply don't
have any arguments for your idiotic 'anti-modern' ravings which are only
based upon your own illiteracy and closed mindedness is a rather transparant
debating technique. Just answer the question, please. Kostabi is about as
popular as a painter can get nowadays. Your idiotic remark that he wouldn't
count as a 'popular artist' is completely out of touch with the facts. So
please do us a favor and try to _explain_ for a change why all these 'golden
oldies' are so much better than any contemporary artists from last century.
You can do that by simply exlaining why example 1 was a far more mediocre
painting than example 2. They're just painting I've quite randomly
picked.
I'm really curious.
M.H.Benders
Art McNutt
aty...@eircom.net wrote on 5/29/02 5:34 PM:
>
>
>>>
>>> And I'm not just talking about poetry - I mean all art. It's a
>>> love-hate thing for me. I actually have occasional moments when I
>>> think we should just do away with all public funding for the arts.
>>> Smash the statues! Feed the hungry!
>
> Yes, and how much do nations spend on the arts in comparison with, say, the
> military?
Wow. I didn't think sort of thing could catch me by surprise, but it did. By
nation, I suppose you mean Government.
The answer is too much for the former, always, even if it is a penny, and
not enough for the latter, always (at least as long there are still wars).
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm a bolshevist at heart
>
> Actually, you sound more like a bourgeois, certainly your aesthetics are
> from a bourgeois tradition.
>
> - down with the aristocracy, and all
>>> that.
>
> I find it baffling that you connect the aristocracy with art. Here's the
> thing: most artists are poor.
Correction, most /people/ are poor. Artists fall within the curve. The thing
with gold is--it's actually fairly plentiful, relatively speaking. Why is it
valuable? Because that ounce of gold came from a ton of earth--'cause, no
one knows exactly where they will find it. And of that ton of earth, there
were 10 more tons that men moved without ever finding any at all. In other
words, gold is valuable because of all the man hours wasted and spent in
finding it.
Most prospectors are poor too.
>
> Or maybe it's an American thing: we tend to abhor the whole
>>> notion of anyone's being "born with it", whatever "it" is: noble
>>> bloodlines...artistic talent. We tend to think anything that can't be
>>> achieved by a reasonably intelligent person through his own initiative
>
> How do you think art is achieved?
"There are some of us who donšt accept the dreams of dragons as their own,
no matter how grand those dragons might say they are. Yes, there are some
who will refuse to drop the candle even when pushed into a dark cave and
locked there behind a stone. Donšt forget the people like Duke Ellington,
who will not leave the field once it becomes obvious that the sound of a
cymbal swinging in celebration is more beautiful than the ringing of a cash
register. Remember that there are those who, like Duke Ellington, are
willing to face the majesty of their heritage and endure the slow, painful
development demanded of serious study There is, you must recall, a kind of
serious study that will give you the confidence to strike your match to the
mighty wick that will illuminate yet another portion of the darkness. Out
there somewhere are the kind of people who do not accept the premature
autopsy of a noble art form. These are the ones who follow in the footsteps
of the gifted and the disciplined who have been deeply hurt but not
discouraged, who have been frightened but have not forgotten how to be
brave, who revel in the company of their friends and sweethearts but are
willing to face the loneliness that is demanded of mastery."
---Stanley Crouch, 1989
But this is what it takes to achieve competence of the art /form/, whatever
that may be. Blush's original question may have been directed to the art
form, itself, rather than art, itself. The form of art is a stylization, an
agreed upon form, as in a sonnet, a fresco, a Dixieland rag, a novel, a
carved elk horn, Impressionism, a romantic symphony. Learning this form is
what is difficult. Learning this form is what caused Rose Blush to shout out
"What a bunch of Bullshit!" To her, she was looking at something as stylized
as Japanese Kabuki. And to foreign eyes, Kabuki is /too/ formalized to be
enjoyed. Something only other Kabuki dancers could enjoy.
Esoteric is the word.
She asked: Is art esoteric, only to be useful to the initiated?
For all the ponderous replies she's received, the answer truly is: yes and
no.
---
Art
Amathyzt
Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:ufacdon...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Amathyzt" <amat...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4O8J8.56469$Bo3.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > I'm not a bean-counter, but Theodore Strugeon had a rule that 97% of
> > > everything was crap. Or some such number. One reads a lot of poetry in
> > one's
> > > time after all, and makes a guesstimate from that: most of what is
being
> > > passed off as poetry isn't much of anything. This ng is a good
example.
> > > Almost everything here is awful or about to be worse because too many
> > allow
> > > too many others to dole out Crisco as ambrosia.
> >
> > If you find my critiques unworthy of this forum, I could understand. I
> > offer very little and usually it is an author whom I think you would not
> > reply. Do I do you a disservice? If what is wrong with someone's work
is
> so
> > blantent, that even my under-educated opinion may have a helpful remark
>
First off I would like to say, Dale I have no beef with you. I am simply
disagreeing with the above statement. I welcome any critique of my work
including yours if you offer. I truly have NOTHING against you. You've
misunderstood my tone and I do not doubt I could express it better. I am
not
defending anything, you haven't offended me or attacked me and I do not wish
to make you feel "attacked" either. I am merely offering the debate as to
why I believe
your above statement is off base. The term "I" is not to own anything, but
to
express my belief and I tried to list examples of how it can be applied
in contradiction to the statement you made above. "I" is much as you use
"One" above.
> Not really true. If a fire in an office building can be seen from fifty
> miles away, a comment like "nice flames" still won't help. The overtness
of
> a concern doesn't - in any way - guarantee that that concern might be
fixed
> by any random response.
>
Nothing guarantees that anything will be fixed!
What I said originally is that if I find a "helpful" remark I make it.
Though most of the
time I have noticed, it is to a poet which would only be thrashed by others,
or that is
making mistakes I have made before.
I ask you then, by helping this poet whom would probably be undesearving of
an expert's response...
truely do any disservice?
I would tend to think you shouldn't care about it.
> >I
> > think instead it should be of little concern. It is I who must decide if
I
> > wish to spend the type. If I read a piece I like, and simply leave that
> > comment the author can decide if my opinion matters.
>
> I'm not stopping you, merely making my ownm comments on commetns you are
> defending: so where's the beef?
>
Sometimes I find a poem, that I am not qualified to pick apart. I may
notice a word
or two that stick out or might be improved and I would say such in a
critique. I
may also tell the poet that I enjoyed the poem and what about it I liked.
Keeping in
mind this may be a poet that is no where near what you might term "not
crap". I ask you
now.. Because I like a poem and state so, am I doing you ( or the group ) a
disservice?
> > And if the remark
> > bothers you greatly, it is you who have decided to let it do so, and
your
> > choice whether you wish to contribute more.
>
> I don't "decide" to let things bother me, they just do.
They do because you choose to let it bother you. It is a choice, or lack of
one,
That you directly have control over. No one makes you bothered. At least
in
matters of typed out text on a usenet group.
>And why reduce a
> reasoned response to the level of a burp?
I don't know what you mean by this, perhaps you can define that for me.
> It's a forum for poetry and
> commetns isn't it?
I hope it is!
>So - again - where's your beef?
What ever happened to that cute old lady? : )
>And - buddy - your idea
> is not very helpful. It just so happens that the quality of a group's
> critiques (and - thus - their value) is set not by a random set of "gees"
> and "nopes" but by the participants being open about learning not only
about
> where to put the adjectives, but also about how to forge an analysis.
I never said gee's and nopes are good. But here you are clearly attacking.
Ouch.
Now, personally I am trying to learn how to forge an analysis. I cannot
completely
dissect any piece of poetry before me. I did not learn how in school. But
I
am able to spot some things that can be helped. I am reading lots of
basic materials on definitions for poetry, styles and such, I will apply
this to critiques
when I am albe. I never said that I could analyse well. Do I really
desearve to
remain silent? Should I offer no suggestions on poetry till I in some great
initiation
offer a passable work myself... that would take a while I'm sure!
>You
> act as if this is a liberal nursery school: "If Billy likes to pee in the
> waste paper basket, he must be indulging in a deep-set and meaningful
> response to a bad environment, or maybe he is merely testing the limits of
> his surroundings and its flexibility." Ook...
I am not a liberal. If Billy wants to pee in HIS wastebasket I don't care.
If Billy hands me a poem from said wastebasket, I choose not to read it.
But if Billy posts a poem here about pissing in his wastebasket, so be it.
I can't say what I would say about it, it doesn't exist. So.. okay.
>
> >I don't have the ability to
> > remove what even I find shit, and I probably wouldn't be here if someone
> > else could do the same. I wish I could delete myself quite a few times
> and
> > I am very new. The notable poets owe something to being forgiven thier
> > mistakes.
>
> What?
>
Meaning if a really shitty poem came about, I couldn't delete it from
usenet.
If anyone had that abiility in this forum, there is a good chance such a
high and mighty
authority could view my poetry so bad, I would be deleted.
And, many times like now, I wish I could delete what I've said to try to say
it again, better.
Notable (famous or good- I really do care to debate which truely better)
Notable poets which have survived beyond their time..... owe some of that
success to the fact
that thier Fans forgive them thier minor mistakes, or past bad works.
Meaning....
Everyone of us is imperfect. We can hope that time erases our infintile
steps but once we
all came from ignorance.
>
> > If 1 of every 100 poems I wrote were shitless, I would feel an
> > acomplishment. But I am straying... To Crisco I have no expectation that
> my
> > words will inspire greatness. I am glad if I can be of some help.
Working
> > hard at poetry is itself rewarding. Even if I haven't the slightest bit
> of
> > a perfect poem in my future, it would not be a waste. Through my efforts
I
> > will open my mind, increase my vocabulary, and have better chance at
> > understanding some type of poetic truth.
>
> How could you have a chance to understand "some type of poetic truth" if -
> as you said in the setup - you are assuming you haven't the slightest
chance
> of a perfect poem (whatever the hell "some type of poetic truth" and a
> "perfect poem" might be in your addled and anemic dictionary of
> concepts-that-maybe-mean-something-and-maybe-don't?).
>
Must I write a PERFECT poem to understand any POETRY or any of the
things that make poetry really good. Again no one is perfect, but tell me
your favorite poem. Is is something you admire? Do you think you have made
one as great? OR... If a poem existed that far surpassed your abitily, are
you
in turn incapable of understanding some of its truth.
And just incase you missed my point in that entire paragraph...
If in my life I wrote 1 truely wonderful peice of poetry. Something on the
level
that Yates could look at and say.. I like! I would feel proud. If it took
me 40yrs I
still think it would be an accomplishment. Currently I would take pride if
a poem I made passed this groups approval. I think this group has a lot of
good point and can help me along my way. I am a neophyte!
But also if I never make a poem that could even pass this group, my efforts
are not wasted.
>
> >These are not my main motives but a
> > part of why I'm here. It is my place to question the motives or goals of
> > another poet and deem if they are worthwhile.
>
>
> Oh, you have a place? Does it have track lighting? It is just as much "my
> place" to question the motives or goals of another poet, and who do you
> think you are holding that privelege solely to your soggy bosom?
>
I do hold my own beliefs. You can have yours to. I believe it is not my
place to
question another poets right to be here. Or thier goals, motives or
intentions for being
a part of this group. It does not matter if I think their presence is
worthwile, what matters
are their views about it.
It goes along with a similar belief I have. I cant say anyone else has the
same belief, only they could agree...
I believe that I cannot compare a personal pain of yours to mine. For if a
particular moment in you life
was your most trajic memory it is equal to my most trajic. Who cares if it
was your dog dying and I got
raped. That moment is a deep to you as my moment is to me. You could never
know that moment as that
one person does. They are different, and even if you had a dog that died,
does that make thier pain any less real.
>
> >I would hope anyone posting
> > knows it is at thier own risk. And whether a glutton for punishment or
> > persistant idiot its thier time they invest and only their judgement to
> >say
> > it waste.
>
> Christ!
>
> >I have no godly forsight to tell me if a writer will someday be
> > great, or even breed greatness. I pity the mother of a poet that was
> > birthed full grown.
>
> What?
>
By the first statement I am sorry. I was addressing my own thoughts!
I kept thinking of this group a "disaster" the critiques failing and the
poet not improving. And how that is a waste...
That even if I never created a poem that could be viewed as sound (fairly)
and I went on in life to have a granddaughter that I shared poetry, and what
I knew of it, and she was the very next Yates.
My time here would still not be wasted and just the same I cannot say
with any surity that any person here is a waste, yada yada yada...
I should not have went to that point at all, its not relevant !
BUT
I do pity the mother of a poet that was birthed full grown.
I pity the critic that cannot realize they too were lousy once and
no poet was born a poet. Its something they became.
> > I believe we all were infants at some point.
>
> A revelation that. May I write it in my journal of found truths?
>
Would it help you if you did?
>
> >If you find no satisfaction in lending your opinion, perhaps its your
> >expectations need
> > your critique.
>
> I find immense satisifaction in "lending" my opinion. Why do you assume
> otherwise, and when are you going to give them back?
>
That I do not deny. Of course you value your opinion and critiquing skills.
Its the rest of those "bad" critics are disappointing to you! Why bother if
the result as you believe that most will write badly and continue to write
badly
reguardless. You say in opening that "too many other allow too many
others to dole
out Crisco as ambrosia."
Too many Others let Others offer criticizm without any value? All these
others
around and you are not a part of either side?
So where are these damn critic police and why aren't you one of em.
Go tell those critics in every critique they post, ... Not to bother.
And in turn, would it not be the responsibility of a poet recieving and
underserve "thats nice" to determine such a weak response valuable
or not. If they eat it, its thier fault.
Should people not praise here? I will contend that praise does best
when the person saying I like that at least trys to say why or what
they like. I have done that knowing because I liked it, and found no fault
that someone more qualified would end up giving it a judgement.
Just take my word that I dont go around to a poem starting roses are red and
say
well done man, your awesome.
Bottom line I am asking in that question and the ones below.....
Why are you so disappointed? If your expatations for poetic improvements
were not met, you expected too much.
If your expectations of those "other" critics were not met,
you expected too much.
But does that reduce all that is here a "disaster" "worsening" and "awful".
In your opinion, it does.... In mine it does not.
Go to these OTHERS and critique their critique! or you really have no basis
to complain. Oh.. were you waiting of some other other to do something.
Cant wish it away you know.
> >Whose fault is the disappointment? Did your own motivations
> > become misplaced? Pardon me if this is out of line. But to me it seem
> that
> > if 97% of what you read (here) is crap. Wouldn't you stand a better
> chance
> > to finding 3% worth the time to glance if you by encouraging more crap
to
> > float in the way. Maybe what you desire is more like censorship. Go
form
> a
> > club by invatation only, it wouldn't be the first time that has been
done.
> > It may help rid you of some stench.
>
> But it won't help you. How do you know that I'm not the sort who likes to
> sacrifice their own comfort for the aid of others?
I can't know. I do feel I try to help others. I didn't say you didn't try
to help.
But that you obviously are having problems standing all this awful worsning
crisco
covered disaster. Of which 97% is crap.
> And why do you consider
> your opinion so much more worthwhile of remaining here than mine?
I don't. Why do you consider your opinioin so much more worthwhile. All
those
"others" aren't and your the one bitching. Fact is .. you have problems
with what
other people think of themselves. Perhaps they are deluded and concieted.
But you choose to let them upset you. This upsets you! Fix it. Forget it.
Dunno,
but they can think as they like and you truely can do nothing but deal or
don't.
>Because
> you're a "good joe" with "a positive outlook" and "a quick and steady
> handshake for every man you meet"?
I'm not a good joe, my outlook is to expect the worst and to strive for the
best. I don't expect
the best from others or to happen to me, I hope I always TRY for better,
otherwise I should have
quit this existence long ago. I'm not friendly to every man I meet, I
really dont like people.
I expect the worst from them, I do not try to depend upon them, and I take
the good things as a
bonus. People dont have to be anything in this world least of all human.
But I still believe humans
exist...
>In critical terms that renders you almost
> useless, if we must get down to that dreary level.
>
And that is where again this opinion differs. I am not a good critic, but I
am not useless.
Furthermore, you are no judge of my worth, failing to critic well or not.
Who are you to say I can not be of help?
I expect of myself that I will get better at interpreting poetry.
You cannot by being a plutonic critic expect to change an stubborn pigheaded
poet into an artist.
You can try.
Maybe all those "others" saying thats nice are really saying ...
I like it but I cannot help you. I see some value in this. They have
a right to say that don't they?
>
> And I repeat:
>
> One expects most to write badly and to continue to do so: this is fine.
Who
> needs the competition?!
> But in a poetry discussion group it is the quality of the criticism that
> really matters, and in this regard, the group is an almost complete and
> utter disaster.
>
And I say.. you expect most to write badly and ignore your critique.
You don't care.
But you do care that the GROUP offers no good critiques
Are you starting a weekly article on how to judge poetry?
Are you gonna give us all links to ways to get a clue?
And even if you did, do you really have the right to
expect a change?
I think if a person tries hard enough, some change can occur.
Should you try harder?
!! Only if you think it would help!!!!!
Only you know the names of the critics you have determined worth a shit.
Maybe you should just say that....
So that we poor slops throwing words around
Know who to ignore.
And those not mentioned will know they lack.
Then they can come to you so you can tell
them exactly what you think of them and their
critiques..
Be brave man.
Again... I probably pissed you off for life, I do put value in anything you
have to say about something I wrote.
I welcome all critiques.. else I wouldn't bother posting. I feel I have
much to learn. And in this thread of crisco,
I repectfully disagree and think disappointments belong only to you. And
what you do about it, is all you can control.
I consider this a philisophical debate, not an inquisition.
Amathyzt
> >
> > > dmh
>
>
>
Joshua P. Hill
No you aren't. If you had been genuinely curious, you wouldn't have
called me "P. Hillbilly," you would not have made sarcastic queries,
and you would not now be referring to a painter whose "Conveyor
crackers still unfresh/And stale conversation" SoHo art is currently
"in the permanent collections of the Museum of Modern Art, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Guggenheim Museum, the Brooklyn
Museum, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, The National Gallery of Modern
Art in Rome and the Groninger Museum in Holland" as a "popular
artist."
Too bad. It's an interesting question, and they're interesting
paintings, the Kostabi a somewhat too obvious but nonetheless
intriguing musing on modernism as it reflects (quite literally) the
dehumanization of the modern technological world:
I turn my eyes to the schools and universities of Europe
And there behold the Loom of Locke, whose Woof rages dire,
Wash'd by the Water-wheels of Newton: black the cloth
In heavy wreaths folds over every nation: cruel works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other, not as those in Eden, which,
Wheel within wheel, in freedom revolve in harmony and peace.
The infinite recession of the images seems to suggest that this
dichotomy is always with us, that while the details may change it's a
fundamental and unvarying part of being human.
The Van Gogh is a typically brilliant evocation of the makings of a
humble repast after work, in which the monochromaticity of the
painting speaks eloquently of the plain flavors of the cabbage and
potatoes, while the extraordinary beauty of the composition is a
dichotomous paean to the humble satisfactions of the consummately
ordinary. Which is why I told ya to turn the painting upside-down.
My take on them, anyway. And none of this has very much to do with why
one is better than the other.
Josh
Wes
(Rose Blush) electro-penned the question:
<get to the crux snip>
>what is the point of poetry, of art, of being an
> intellectual and making art for other
> intellectuals?
</snip>
Answers to that question may be as varied as the number of respondents,
and all, plus more, could be correct.
Do intellectuals/academics produce art for other
intellectuals/academics. Sure they do. Intentionally? I would
say sometimes, but rarely. Mostly they are merely working at their
attained level of expertise.
Can anyone learn to appreciate their work? Most certainly, unless it
remains hidden from view. The only requirement is to attain their
level of accomplishment.
This is most evident in the Literary Arts. One need only expand his/her
own vocabulary and become proficient in the use of all possible forms
and styles used in that medium, to gain understanding.
Is there elitist art?
Sure.
Many of the other Arts, Music and the Graphics, for instance, are less
restrictive, and able to be more easily enjoyed at the level of the one
appreciating the work. Even then, full appreciation only comes with
full understanding of the medium.
What is the point of poetry and art ... to me?, ... or to my grandson?,
.. to you?, ... or to society?, ... or to him/her?, ... to the
/intellectual/?, ... or to future generations?, ...to the deciding body
of the National Endowment for the Arts, ... or to the museum curator?
If we merely ask what is art? ... all of the same qualifiers apply, plus
more.
Is architecture art? Is design in all forms ... art?
Is photography art? ... this point is still debated (tho to me it is).
I can only answer the ... /to me/s? ... and /only for now/.
Tomorrow may be more inclusive, and my full answer /for/ today would
take days, if not weeks/months to relate (and I'd overlook 1/2 as many
as I listed that also belonged).
Pablo Picasso's work is art. I don't care for it as much as the work
of Edgar Degas. I find both recognizable as art tho. I find it hard
to include some things as art, which others might, and do. Possibly my
loss.
Art is where I find it. It can be mere form, color, words, tone, note,
verse, or line. Art can be almost anywhere. Nature displays art
constantly and is ever changing. Some art moves me more emotionally
than other art.
I recently read a poem posted to aapc, which brought tears to my eyes,
an emotional nerve struck. It was critiqued as /crap/. To me, it was
/art/. Did it use cliches? Yes, but in an order and combination
which evoked emotion. Some would say I'm less discerning to allow such
response to what they consider /crap/. So be it. (maybe this time,
.. /their/ loss)
I have a favorite novelist, his handling of dialogue is art, to me.
I have been stunned, to immobility, by the beauty and art in a lover's
naked form; a masterpiece revised with each slight movement in sleep
.. some of God's finest work.
.. and I have been similarly stunned by the art of Sergio Pininfarina,
and the ever changing line and form as I walked 'round a Ferrari
automobile.
.. and by the lilting Bossa Nova composition of Antonio Carlos Jobim's
"Agua de beber".
It goes on and on ... poetry, literature, painting, sculpture, music,
design, drama, cinematography, performance, dance, advertising
graphics, nature, fabrics, clothing ... and in each of these, all its
respective forms.
It is beauty yet more. It is creativity, appreciation of talent and
skill, of mastery of medium. It is history passed down, so that each
generation need not begin again, in each medium, from the same square.
It is accomplishment, recognition, contribution ... it is .. Oh, so many
things ... and here for us all, at whatever level ... we need only see,
desire, touch, hear, read, think, sense, feel, learn, allow .... ... ..
. . .
Wes
Mike Billard
> > There's a South American activist folk song called "Bread And Roses"
that
> > answers this quite well: the masses cannot live a full existence merely
from
> > sustenance. Beauty is its own reward and is - in a world of overwhelming
> > ugliness and utilitarianism (your philosophy it seems) - it is downright
> > revolutionary to "waste" one's life pursuing it.
>
> So you think the masses can appreciate art? Surprising, I would have
> thought...well, nevermind. :)
>
> As a member of the masses, I must say it's not easy.
Some art might not be easy, but art in general, or all art? I find the
impossible to believe. You can't appreciate Hopper's "Nighthawks," or
Monet's water lily paintings? Really? Hoe about a decent piano concerto? No
appreciation whatsoever?
> I know I used to
> appreciate beauty when I was young, but I kept quiet about it because
> I didn't want to get my ass kicked.
This seems a bit odd. How exactly would an appreciation of beauty lead to
getting your ass kicked?
> Then I went to work and over the
> years it was slowly but steadily ground out of me.
>
> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry?
Funny you should ask. There is a real answer . . .
> Rich people
> and intellectuals.
. . . but this sure as hell ain't it. This is one of the more pretentious
comments I've ever seen on this newsgroup. I understand the thinking (wrong
as it really is) that goes into the poetry/intellectual (elitist, snob,
ivory tower dweller--pick one) argument, but *rich* people? Are you kidding
me? Are you really that ignorant? Or are you putting us on?
> Not ordinary people who work in banks or factories
> or whatever (i.e. most people). I'm sure there are lots of exceptions,
Yeah, like millions.
> but pick an office, any office anywhere, find a cubicle, and ask the
> guy inside if he reads poetry.
I'm a guy in a cubicle and I read poetry. Actually, I'm a guy who crawls
through steam tunnels and plays in splice pits, and I even *write* poetry!
The guy down the hall from me reads it, too. And around the corner from the
two of us is a guy who reads it (steady yourself, this is going to hurt!) in
a few different languages! I went to an open mic poetry reading a while back
here in Waldorf, MD (not exactly your standard intellectual breeding ground,
what with all the tobacco farms, Amish people and bass boats) and one of the
poets was still wearing his blue service station shirt when he got up to
read. I asked him which university he was tenured at but he didn't
understand what I was talking about. He did offer me a free oil change.
> Ask any cop,
The poet Stephen Dobyns was a cop. He's an intellectual now and doesn't
remember anything of his previous life. I asked him about it one night while
we were enjoying snifters of brandy in the billiards room of the local yacht
club, but he just gave me one of those looks like "Are you going to eat that
caviar or not?"
> or waitress, accountant or
> computer programmer.
You know the guy I mentioned down the hall? DNS administrator. Is that close
enough to computer programmer? Oh, one more: My brother reads poetry and
he's a tattooed, Harley riding, garbage collector. And, to be perfectily
honest, because I hang in poetry circles I could list well over a hundred
people off the top of my head who lead perfectly normal, mundane, seemingly
unintellectual lives, but who read and, often, write poetry. Before you
continue to just make stuff up--which is what you've done here--do yourself
a favor and pick up Donald Hall's (yeah, I know, an intellectual) "Death to
the Death of Poetry" and read his essay on the real poetry reading trends in
America. You might also want to take a look at Robert Pinsky's "Favorite
Poem" project. Check out how many people responded to it and do a quick
random sampling of their demographics. You'll find far more regular folks
than you will rich intellectuals.
>
> > Artists make art for the sake of creating a beautiful order, of
fulfilling
> > mankind's basic pattern-making mind in forms that might - but might
not -
> > live forever. Every child knows the thrill of pattern-making, and it is
no
> > wonder you seem to have lost it,
>
> I have lost it, and thinking about it makes me sad, so why think about
> it?
Then don't think about it. But don't pretend the problem is with everyone
else when you admit it is with you. If you're rich enough to pay bus fare to
your local library, and if you're intellectual enough to parse simple,
straight-forward sentences, then you too can appreciate poetry. Any other
answer is a cop out.
Dale Houstman
>
>
> >
> First off I would like to say, Dale I have no beef with you.
I didn't say you did. I said that - since this is a forum for open
commentary - why are you complaining when people comment? It can only be
because you only accept as legitimate those responses that fit your notion
of acceptability.
>I am simply
> disagreeing with the above statement. I welcome any critique of my work
> including yours if you offer. I truly have NOTHING against you.
Again with the wretched personalism. I don't care what you "have against
me." You don't know me, and - frankly - you seem incapable of gleaning much
from intelligent discourse but a few rag ends of emotionalism.
>You've misunderstood my tone
I don't much care about your tone: it is the content of your posts I am
addressing.
>and I do not doubt I could express it better.
Funny - I do doubt it.
>I am not defending anything, you haven't offended me or attacked me and I
do not wish
> to make you feel "attacked" either. I am merely offering the debate as to
> why I believe
> your above statement is off base.
Certainly, and I responded to your comments, which were simply inadequate to
the debate.
>
> > Not really true. If a fire in an office building can be seen from fifty
> > miles away, a comment like "nice flames" still won't help. The overtness
> of
> > a concern doesn't - in any way - guarantee that that concern might be
> fixed
> > by any random response.
> >
> Nothing guarantees that anything will be fixed!
> What I said originally is that if I find a "helpful" remark I make it.
No what you precisely said is that - if a poem's faults were as blatant as I
say they were, then any response would be helpful. My analogy addressed this
flaw in your opinion.
> Though most of the
> time I have noticed, it is to a poet which would only be thrashed by
others,
> or that is
> making mistakes I have made before.
> I ask you then, by helping this poet whom would probably be undesearving
of
> an expert's response...
> truely do any disservice?
> I would tend to think you shouldn't care about it.
Your tendencies scarcely interest me. I am not - as I have plainly stated
several times now to a dearth of comprehnesion - greatly concerned with this
or that bad poem, but more concerned with the overall lack of quality in the
critiques, which is an essential problem.
>
>
> Sometimes I find a poem, that I am not qualified to pick apart. I may
> notice a word
> or two that stick out or might be improved and I would say such in a
> critique. I
> may also tell the poet that I enjoyed the poem and what about it I liked.
> Keeping in
> mind this may be a poet that is no where near what you might term "not
> crap". I ask you
> now.. Because I like a poem and state so, am I doing you ( or the group )
a
> disservice?
No, you are avoiding doing anyone a service at all. No matter what the
quality of the poem is "I like it" is totally worthless as a comment. To a
beginning poet it sidesteps any useful advice and may give them the idea
that they have "arrived." To a good poet, such empty flattery is - frankly -
embarrassing and as worthless.
>
> >
> > I don't "decide" to let things bother me, they just do.
>
> They do because you choose to let it bother you. It is a choice, or lack
of
> one,
> That you directly have control over. No one makes you bothered. At least
> in
> matters of typed out text on a usenet group.
Pure and utter bullshit. If one cares about language and poetry, one does
not "choose" to be bothered by bad examples or unearned praise. It is a
natural outgrowth of devotion.
>
>
> >And why reduce a
> > reasoned response to the level of a burp?
>
> I don't know what you mean by this, perhaps you can define that for me.
You reduced my lengthy commentaries to the level of a reflexive digestive
eruption.
>
> > It's a forum for poetry and
> > commetns isn't it?
>
> I hope it is!
Well - for the most part - it really isn't, so your hope is a forlorn one.
>
> >So - again - where's your beef?
>
> What ever happened to that cute old lady? : )
She's dead.
>
> >And - buddy - your idea
> > is not very helpful. It just so happens that the quality of a group's
> > critiques (and - thus - their value) is set not by a random set of
"gees"
> > and "nopes" but by the participants being open about learning not only
> about
> > where to put the adjectives, but also about how to forge an analysis.
>
> I never said gee's and nopes are good. But here you are clearly
attacking.
> Ouch.
> Now, personally I am trying to learn how to forge an analysis. I cannot
> completely
> dissect any piece of poetry before me. I did not learn how in school.
But
> I
> am able to spot some things that can be helped. I am reading lots of
> basic materials on definitions for poetry, styles and such, I will apply
> this to critiques
> when I am albe. I never said that I could analyse well. Do I really
> desearve to
> remain silent?
Actually it is you who are asking me to remain silent. Not that I care much,
but I thought you might like to hear it. I haven't asked you to shut up. But
I don't find it unwarranted to hope for better commentary, and a poetics
that recognizes that WWII happened, for instance.
> Should I offer no suggestions on poetry till I in some great
> initiation
> offer a passable work myself... that would take a while I'm sure!
I never said this. A delusion?
>
>
> >You
> > act as if this is a liberal nursery school: "If Billy likes to pee in
the
> > waste paper basket, he must be indulging in a deep-set and meaningful
> > response to a bad environment, or maybe he is merely testing the limits
of
> > his surroundings and its flexibility." Ook...
>
> I am not a liberal. If Billy wants to pee in HIS wastebasket I don't
care.
> If Billy hands me a poem from said wastebasket, I choose not to read it.
> But if Billy posts a poem here about pissing in his wastebasket, so be it.
> I can't say what I would say about it, it doesn't exist. So.. okay.
You missed the thrust of the (admittedly ridiculous) analogy.
>
>
>
>
> Meaning....
> Everyone of us is imperfect. We can hope that time erases our infintile
> steps but once we
> all came from ignorance.
That is liberal.
>
>
>
>
> Must I write a PERFECT poem to understand any POETRY or any of the
> things that make poetry really good. Again no one is perfect, but tell me
> your favorite poem. Is is something you admire? Do you think you have
made
> one as great? OR... If a poem existed that far surpassed your abitily, are
> you
> in turn incapable of understanding some of its truth.
Perfection is a sort of religious concept that is not applicable to any
debate outside the Vatican.
>
>
> If in my life I wrote 1 truely wonderful peice of poetry. Something on the
> level
> that Yates could look at and say.. I like! I would feel proud. If it took
> me 40yrs I
> still think it would be an accomplishment. Currently I would take pride
if
> a poem I made passed this groups approval. I think this group has a lot
of
> good point and can help me along my way. I am a neophyte!
> But also if I never make a poem that could even pass this group, my
efforts
> are not wasted.
That's cute. It's "Yeats."
>
>
> >
> > Oh, you have a place? Does it have track lighting? It is just as much
"my
> > place" to question the motives or goals of another poet, and who do you
> > think you are holding that privelege solely to your soggy bosom?
> >
>
> I do hold my own beliefs. You can have yours to. I believe it is not my
> place to
> question another poets right to be here. Or thier goals, motives or
> intentions for being
> a part of this group. It does not matter if I think their presence is
> worthwile, what matters
> are their views about it.
Again - that is liberal. But not very useful.
>
> It goes along with a similar belief I have. I cant say anyone else has
the
> same belief, only they could agree...
> I believe that I cannot compare a personal pain of yours to mine. For if
a
> particular moment in you life
> was your most trajic memory it is equal to my most trajic. Who cares if
it
> was your dog dying and I got
> raped. That moment is a deep to you as my moment is to me. You could
never
> know that moment as that
> one person does. They are different, and even if you had a dog that died,
> does that make thier pain any less real.
Does God own a pencil sharpener, and can we get along with Martians?
>
> >
>
>
> I do pity the mother of a poet that was birthed full grown.
> I pity the critic that cannot realize they too were lousy once and
> no poet was born a poet. Its something they became.
Who says otherwise?
>
> > > I believe we all were infants at some point.
> >
> > A revelation that. May I write it in my journal of found truths?
> >
>
> Would it help you if you did?
no, but it might remind me of the small illuminations that so many mistake
for the sun.
>
> >
> > >If you find no satisfaction in lending your opinion, perhaps its your
> > >expectations need
> > > your critique.
> >
> > I find immense satisifaction in "lending" my opinion. Why do you assume
> > otherwise, and when are you going to give them back?
> >
>
> That I do not deny. Of course you value your opinion and critiquing
skills.
No I don't "value" them, I find satisfaction in their functioning. It's a
little different.
>
> Its the rest of those "bad" critics are disappointing to you! Why bother
if
> the result as you believe that most will write badly and continue to write
> badly
> reguardless. You say in opening that "too many other allow too many
> others to dole
> out Crisco as ambrosia."
> Too many Others let Others offer criticizm without any value? All these
> others
> around and you are not a part of either side?
> So where are these damn critic police and why aren't you one of em.
A pointless question, don't you think?
> Go tell those critics in every critique they post, ... Not to bother.
I want them to bother, so much so that they value the quality of their
responses.
> And in turn, would it not be the responsibility of a poet recieving and
> underserve "thats nice" to determine such a weak response valuable
> or not. If they eat it, its thier fault.
All well and good, but many poets - starting out - cannot make such strong
stands, and succumb to empty flattery. Maybe you don't give a rip about
them? your choice.
> Should people not praise here? I will contend that praise does best
> when the person saying I like that at least trys to say why or what
> they like. I have done that knowing because I liked it, and found no
fault
> that someone more qualified would end up giving it a judgement.
> Just take my word that I dont go around to a poem starting roses are red
and
> say
> well done man, your awesome.
> Bottom line I am asking in that question and the ones below.....
> Why are you so disappointed? If your expatations for poetic improvements
> were not met, you expected too much.
I am NOT disappointed. I feel just fine.Why are you so undisappointed?
> If your expectations of those "other" critics were not met,
> you expected too much.
> But does that reduce all that is here a "disaster" "worsening" and
"awful".
> In your opinion, it does.... In mine it does not.
So?
> Go to these OTHERS and critique their critique! or you really have no
basis
> to complain. Oh.. were you waiting of some other other to do something.
> Cant wish it away you know.
I have done exactly this, and will do it some more.
>
> >
> > But it won't help you. How do you know that I'm not the sort who likes
to
> > sacrifice their own comfort for the aid of others?
>
> I can't know. I do feel I try to help others. I didn't say you didn't
try
> to help.
> But that you obviously are having problems standing all this awful
worsning
> crisco
> covered disaster. Of which 97% is crap.
Well - it's true. Not my fault.
>
> > And why do you consider
> > your opinion so much more worthwhile of remaining here than mine?
>
> I don't. Why do you consider your opinioin so much more worthwhile. All
> those
> "others" aren't and your the one bitching.
Again - quantity determines truth. A neat fallacy.
> Fact is .. you have problems
> with what
> other people think of themselves. Perhaps they are deluded and concieted.
> But you choose to let them upset you. This upsets you! Fix it. Forget
it.
And you choose to not let it upset you. So?
> But I still believe humans exist...
Another startling revelation.
>
> >In critical terms that renders you almost
> > useless, if we must get down to that dreary level.
> >
>
> And that is where again this opinion differs. I am not a good critic, but
I
> am not useless.
I didn't say you were useless, I said as a critic you were almost useless. A
different thing.
> Furthermore, you are no judge of my worth, failing to critic well or not.
> Who are you to say I can not be of help?
> I expect of myself that I will get better at interpreting poetry.
I am sure we are all waiting breathlessly. In the meantime how do you expect
to improve: by osmosis?
>
> Maybe all those "others" saying thats nice are really saying ...
> I like it but I cannot help you. I see some value in this. They have
> a right to say that don't they?
Who's talking about rights? Sure let them go on. And I'll go on making my
comments. I don't see your point.
>
> >
> > And I repeat:
> >
> > One expects most to write badly and to continue to do so: this is fine.
> Who
> > needs the competition?!
> > But in a poetry discussion group it is the quality of the criticism that
> > really matters, and in this regard, the group is an almost complete and
> > utter disaster.
> >
> And I say.. you expect most to write badly and ignore your critique.
> You don't care.
> But you do care that the GROUP offers no good critiques
> Are you starting a weekly article on how to judge poetry?
> Are you gonna give us all links to ways to get a clue?
> And even if you did, do you really have the right to
> expect a change?
What makes you think I am expecting anything, much less that? I don't expect
our government to stop exploiting poor economies for its own benefit, but I
still hold to myself the right to comment on it when it happens. If I had to
stop before I spoke to measure the future efficaciousness of each word, when
would I ever say anything?
> I think if a person tries hard enough, some change can occur.
do you really have the right to expect a change?
> Be brave man.
It is obvious that I HAVE been to judge from the words being tossed about.
>
> Again... I probably pissed you off for life, I do put value in anything
you
> have to say about something I wrote.
> I welcome all critiques.. else I wouldn't bother posting. I feel I have
> much to learn. And in this thread of crisco,
> I repectfully disagree and think disappointments belong only to you. And
> what you do about it, is all you can control.
> I consider this a philisophical debate, not an inquisition.
Very high-tone of you. Although totally confused and badly put.
dmh
Amathyzt
Have fun.
Amathyztnews:ufb8e53...@corp.supernews.com...
Animeg3282
>I've taken quite a few classes and such an attitude is not taught.
Maybe in your day(not sure what day that was) the attempts to teach poetry
weren't so pathetically weak?
>After
>all, it is not difficult to feel that you are isolated in an ivory tower
>when society as a whole seems to want to place you in the shithouse. All
>sorts of people enjoy and have enjoyed poetry. But there seems to be a
>onfusion here between intelligence and intellectualism.
>It does help to be
>intelligent - in the reading of poetry as in any other endeavor. If poets
>don't appear to write for the "common masses" it may be that the common
>masses are too busy watching the stock tickers, and being
>appalled by the
>world. If any partiocular poet apears to be writing for intellectuals it is
>probably because he is an intellectual. Why shouldn't intellectuals have
>their poets also? There is plenty of other poetic-like
>ubstance out there
>for others to enjoy: intellectuals hardly rule the book lists. A cursory
>examination of a bookstore's poetry section will reveal book after book of
>sentimental favorites and doggerel and Hallmarkish books of "deep thoughts."
>Why complain at all? There's plenty to go around
Because it's weird to say "I'm a poet" and to be expected to come up with love
rhymes. (which always confuses me. Why would I write love poetry? I don't have
a b.f) but on the other hand, it's also odd to say "I'm a poet" and be expected
to come up witha disertation on Yeats..
Hana no Kaitou
http://peachcoloredsky.keenspace.com <--- Now updating again!
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala
"You write the life that's vividest'- Jarman
M.H.Benders
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> >Resorting to psychotic pee-wee hermanesque 'humor' when you simply don't
> >have any arguments for your idiotic 'anti-modern' ravings which are only
> >based upon your own illiteracy and closed mindedness is a rather transparant
> >debating technique. Just answer the question, please. Kostabi is about as
> >popular as a painter can get nowadays. Your idiotic remark that he wouldn't
> >count as a 'popular artist' is completely out of touch with the facts. So
> >please do us a favor and try to _explain_ for a change why all these 'golden
> >oldies' are so much better than any contemporary artists from last century.
> >You can do that by simply exlaining why example 1 was a far more mediocre
> >painting than example 2. They're just painting I've quite randomly
> >picked.
> >
> >I'm really curious.
>
> No you aren't. If you had been genuinely curious, you wouldn't have
> called me "P. Hillbilly,"
Some well intended impressionism in a expressionist discussion.
>
> The Van Gogh is a typically brilliant evocation of the makings of a
> humble repast after work, in which the monochromaticity of the
> painting speaks eloquently of the plain flavors of the cabbage and
> potatoes, while the extraordinary beauty of the composition is a
> dichotomous paean to the humble satisfactions of the consummately
> ordinary.
So, to recapulate: the van gogh is 'brilliant', the kostabi merely 'interesting'.
Typical.
> My take on them, anyway. And none of this has very much to do with why
> one is better than the other.
You keep on bringing the message that anything younger than a century is
necessarily worse than anything that was part of the expensive harvard education
your pops paid for. It's rather daft to claim such has 'nothing to do with one
being better than the other' when someone asks for an explanation.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
"Animeg3282" <anime...@aol.compelsia> wrote in message
news:20020530020303...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> dmh said:
>
> >I've taken quite a few classes and such an attitude is not taught.
>
> Maybe in your day(not sure what day that was)
1789, at the home of Mr. Leitch. Oh, the hickory!
>the attempts to teach poetry weren't so pathetically weak?
Oh, I don't know. I wouldn't say that my experiences were grand, only that
the flaws didn't particularly include the one under discussion.
>
>
"Why complain at all? There's plenty to go around"
>
> Because it's weird to say "I'm a poet" and to be expected to come up with
love
> rhymes. (which always confuses me. Why would I write love poetry? I don't
have
> a b.f) but on the other hand, it's also odd to say "I'm a poet" and be
expected
> to come up witha disertation on Yeats..
>
You simply have to learn to disappoint expectations with verve and purpose.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Thanks for trying to hear what I was failing to say..
And thank you for failing to notice that I not only tried, but succeeded. It
is not that I don't "hear" you, it is that I don't accept what is being said
as being convincing.
dmh
Tom Bishop
> Thanks for trying to hear what I was failing to say..
> Have fun.
> Amathyzt
> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:ufb8e53...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Amathyzt" <amat...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:VgdJ8.66228$7S6.26...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > First off I would like to say, Dale I have no beef with you.
> >
> > I didn't say you did. I said that - since this is a forum for open
> > commentary - why are you complaining when people comment? It can only be
> > because you only accept as legitimate those responses that fit your notion
> > of acceptability.
I told him/her? that I couldn't figure out her explanations, flat out,
and she said Thanks. (perhaps because I didn't make her feel like
she was an insipid disease on poetry.)
> > >I am simply
> > > disagreeing with the above statement. I welcome any critique of my
> work
> > > including yours if you offer. I truly have NOTHING against you.
> >
> > Again with the wretched personalism. I don't care what you "have against
> > me." You don't know me, and - frankly - you seem incapable of gleaning
> much
> > from intelligent discourse but a few rag ends of emotionalism.
> >
> > >You've misunderstood my tone
> >
> > I don't much care about your tone: it is the content of your posts I am
> > addressing.
"I don't care" ..about anything but making it personal.
> >
> > >and I do not doubt I could express it better.
> >
> > Funny - I do doubt it.
There, didn't have to wait long.
"I don't care".. slight rephrasing.. here we are getting the repetative
aspects of poetry that Dale likes so much.
>> I am not - as I have plainly stated
> > several times now to a dearth of comprehnesion - greatly concerned with
> this
> > or that bad poem, but more concerned with the overall lack of quality in
> the
> > critiques, which is an essential problem.
Yours the most ineffectual, since they prevent the author from
thinking about poetry for a while, as they try to make sense
of your emotional tantrum.
..no time to even read the rest of this drivel.
<snip>
Tom Bishop
Dale Houstman
"Tom Bishop" <t...@truly.nu> wrote in message
news:40qJ8.10123$oc6.17...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "Amathyzt" <amat...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FRhJ8.58932$Bo3.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> > Thanks for trying to hear what I was failing to say..
> > Have fun.
> > Amathyzt
> > Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > news:ufb8e53...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Amathyzt" <amat...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:VgdJ8.66228$7S6.26...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > First off I would like to say, Dale I have no beef with you.
> > >
> > > I didn't say you did. I said that - since this is a forum for open
> > > commentary - why are you complaining when people comment? It can only
be
> > > because you only accept as legitimate those responses that fit your
notion
> > > of acceptability.
>
> I told him/her? that I couldn't figure out her explanations, flat out,
> and she said Thanks. (perhaps because I didn't make her feel like
> she was an insipid disease on poetry.)
The paraphrase-parrot seems to have gotten into the anti-freeze again.
>
> > > >I am simply
> > > > disagreeing with the above statement. I welcome any critique of my
> > work
> > > > including yours if you offer. I truly have NOTHING against you.
> > >
> > > Again with the wretched personalism. I don't care what you "have
against
> > > me." You don't know me, and - frankly - you seem incapable of gleaning
> > much
> > > from intelligent discourse but a few rag ends of emotionalism.
> > >
> > > >You've misunderstood my tone
> > >
> > > I don't much care about your tone: it is the content of your posts I
am
> > > addressing.
>
> "I don't care" ..about anything but making it personal.
Why can't Johnny read?
>
> > >
> > > >and I do not doubt I could express it better.
> > >
> > > Funny - I do doubt it.
>
> There, didn't have to wait long.
It's not an insult, it's an (unfortunately) accurate observation, Tom (who
isn't listening). The writer seems unable to formulate simple thoughts into
cogent sentences, and lacks any reasoining for most of their opinions. You
may not like it, and they may not like it, but it's true nonetheless, and
the sooner it is recognized and dealt with the better for everyone. Have you
given up thinking for Lent, and lost track of the time?
>
> > >
> > > Your tendencies scarcely interest me.
>
> "I don't care".. slight rephrasing.. here we are getting the repetative
> aspects of poetry that Dale likes so much.
The parrot has a bug up its ass.
>
> >> I am not - as I have plainly stated
> > > several times now to a dearth of comprehnesion - greatly concerned
with
> > this
> > > or that bad poem, but more concerned with the overall lack of quality
in
> > the
> > > critiques, which is an essential problem.
>
> Yours the most ineffectual, since they prevent the author from
> thinking about poetry for a while, as they try to make sense
> of your emotional tantrum.
>
> ..no time to even read the rest of this drivel.
You went pretty far as it was, and I am sure it couldn't be your poetry that
is taking up your valuable time, so why not spend a few more moments and try
to come up with something less childish and mimetic? Or are you mesmerized
by your beautiful cuttlebone? Someone put a blanket over the cage!
dmh
Amathyzt
So... I know you will read it
here and please respect my request that you not send me personal email. If
you have something to say
that cannot be read here, then keep it. I don't know why you chose to send
me the comments in email,
possibly so it was harder for me to ignore. Don't thrust your opinions at
me please. I keep an open mind
as best as I can!
Below is your response. Thanks
Amathyzt
I'm not going to argue my points. I made them, clarified them, only to
have them edited, twisted, and taken out of context. I'm not going
to burden you or the newsgroup further by responding to
an author that cannot see any validity in my points. You can remain
sure of your ground and thinking that I coundn't possibly have
any valid views. I do not wish to trouble myself yelling at a brick walls.
Neither do I want to discuss topics with people that cannot restrain
themselves from being rude and condecending. Lash all you like.
And before you argue that you would not possibly alter my message
in a way that would take it out of context.
Your RESPONSE to my message posted 5/29 at 10:30
was missing what I would consider valid points.
Whether you think them of any value or not,
why did you feel the need to remove it from
the message. (because it made it easier to
argue if all your opinions had no were valid and strong
and mine failed to make ANY point at all!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Houstman <dm...@mail.citilink.com>
To: Amathyzt <amat...@bellsouth.net>; Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Anti-intellectualism
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amathyzt" <amat...@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: OT - Anti-intellectualism
>
>
> > In article <ufc0rb7...@corp.supernews.com>, you say...
> > Ditto
>
> Certainly, but - unfortunately for your "side" - I have reasoned argument
> and an ability to express myself without cloudy generalities and
sentimental
> posturing working for me. It is all very fine to think you are on an equal
> footing vis a vis your "feelings" about things, but it is an entirely
> superior thing to be able to support your contentions. In your case, you
> have failed both to present a cogent argument and to find the wherewithal
to
> reason through its partuculars, so whether or not you "feel" you have have
> made a good show of debate, the fact remains that you haven't.
>
> dmh
>
>
Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:ufc0rb7...@corp.supernews.com...
Tom Bishop
> For some odd reason I cannot deliver a response to the email you sent me.
> So... I know you will read it
> here and please respect my request that you not send me personal email. If
> you have something to say
> that cannot be read here, then keep it. I don't know why you chose to send
> me the comments in email,
> possibly so it was harder for me to ignore. Don't thrust your opinions at
> me please. I keep an open mind
> as best as I can!
> Below is your response. Thanks
> Amathyzt
>
> I'm not going to argue my points. I made them, clarified them, only to
> have them edited, twisted, and taken out of context. I'm not going
> to burden you or the newsgroup further by responding to
> an author that cannot see any validity in my points. You can remain
> sure of your ground and thinking that I coundn't possibly have
> any valid views. I do not wish to trouble myself yelling at a brick walls.
> Neither do I want to discuss topics with people that cannot restrain
> themselves from being rude and condecending. Lash all you like.
What she said.. and add: Killfiles are your friend.
Dale Houstman
Well, let's add one more fact to the pile: "Amathyst" got a personal e-mail
response because she/he/it sent me a personal e-mail, purposefully or
accidentally. So it isn't really a mystery anymore is it?
dmh
Aidan Tynan
>
>You went pretty far as it was, and I am sure it couldn't be your poetry
that
>is taking up your valuable time, so why not spend a few more moments and
try
>to come up with something less childish and mimetic?
He's probably too busy shaving his bath tub and attending to his mensa
harem.
-Aidan
Sarandipidy
>admit I've never really gotten past that moment in English Lit class.
>
the thing is, "typical old english farts" were not "farts" or "old" in their
day. in fact, much of them were drugged out of their minds. it sounds like you
don't enjoy dwelling on the past.
>And I'm not just talking about poetry - I mean all art. It's a
>love-hate thing for me. I actually have occasional moments when I
>think we should just do away with all public funding for the arts.
>Smash the statues! Feed the hungry!
>
well that's silly. you are blaming art for world famine? don't you think that's
more about politics, sociology and economy?
art has been used for centuries as a means to speak for the hungry and
oppressed; not all art is meant to be beautiful or reflective of a mind. much
of it is used as a personal form of protest.
our country favors sports over art, as far as funding. very much so actually.
the arts encourage free thought, rebellion, individuality; organized sports
encourage competition/combat, conforming, being part of a team (hmm...kind of
like the military).
our kids need art, to learn creativity and self-expression. why would you be
anti-intellect? do you want your kid to grow up to be a drone, or do you want
him to grow and explore himself?
>We tend to think anything that can't be
>achieved by a reasonably intelligent person through his own initiative
>and hard work must be frivolous, hoity-toity nonsense.
nah.
>And then
>there's the Christian guilt argument: there are hungry children in the
>world, so how can you waste time [insert gerund here]?
why can't a person do both? in fact, with art, one can do it simultaneously.
why are you here typing this post? why aren't you somewhere in the third world
feeding people?
>what is the point of
>poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
>intellectuals?
expression. utilizing our free speech. exploration of the human mind. protest.
to capture a strong moment in life/to document. communication. stress relief.
appreciation of beauty. appreciation of ugly. just acknowledgement of
surroundings in general, abstract or realistic. new ideas.
one woman at a painting class of mine suffered the effects of a stroke; she
couldn't talk at all, and could only use her left arm. she was able to
communicate through her painting.
Sarandipidy
our universe/mind...everything...is just so incredibly complex.
sara
king kong, little elves
on the rooftops they dance
valentino-type tangoes
while the makeup mans hands
shut the eyes of the dead
not to embarass anyone
farewell angelina
the sky is embarrassed
and i must be gone
Amathyzt
be and if so it was a mistake.
I will not send you emails, even when I tried to send this one to you.. if
for some reason failed.
Sorry for the inconvieniece but I will be more careful.
And just for the record, its Amathyzt and I am a woman. NTIM
Dale Houstman
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:dEsJ8.1214$b5.1...@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
> >
> >You went pretty far as it was, and I am sure it couldn't be your poetry
> that
> >is taking up your valuable time, so why not spend a few more moments and
> try
> >to come up with something less childish and mimetic?
>
> He's probably too busy shaving his bath tub and attending to his mensa
> harem.
>
>
______________
My Mensa Harem
______________
Lydia is very smart
But she has a ugly part
Hidden in her ragged cerebellum
Alice smells like cigarettes
But she fixed my red Corvette
And drove a Latin teacher out to Pelham
Stupid people cannot scare'em
They're my darling Mensa harem
Victoria's a little rude
As she sculpts another nude
Soon to grace the inner sanctums of the MOMA
Betty looks like an old sturgeon
But she's a credited day surgeon
And to think she does it best while in a coma
Stupid people cannot scare'em
They're my pretty Mensa harem
Love them all
Equally
I clean their stalls
Oh - weekily
I check for fleas and ants and floating bits of hay
I read their tests
So monumental!
Look at those breasts
They're so essential
To the general run of what I call "my play"
Stupid people cannot scare'em
They're my charming
So disarming
My sentimental
With tails prehensile
My intellectual
So erectual
PRETTY MENSA HAREM
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
>Typical.
You argue like a lawyer.
>> My take on them, anyway. And none of this has very much to do with why
>> one is better than the other.
>
>You keep on bringing the message that anything younger than a century is
>necessarily worse than anything that was part of the expensive harvard education
>your pops paid for. It's rather daft to claim such has 'nothing to do with one
>being better than the other' when someone asks for an explanation.
Again, one need only look at the tone of what you've said here to
understand why I have little interest in a comprehensive response to
your "question." How is one to respond to assertions such as "you keep
on bringing the message that anything younger than a century is
necessarily worse than anything that was part of the expensive harvard
education your pops paid for"? I, of course, believe no such thing,
and so would have to waste an inordinate amount of time arguing
against something neither of us believe is true before I could even
able to address the question at hand, and for what? You would receive
whatever I said to you in a similar manner. How is one to argue with
someone who takes the statement "none of this has very much to do with
why one is better than the other," quoted above, and transmogrifies it
within a few lines to "nothing to do with one being better than the
other"? This is sound bite disputation, best reserved for cheesy talk
shows where the illusion of discourse is deemed preferable to the real
thing.
Josh
Jim Sheard
<snip>
> The simpler, more basic and
> unpretentious you make something, the more likely it is to appeal to
> someone directly, without the artists/ auther's brain getting in the
> way.
If I remember rightly, Bob's Poetic Surgery Shack offers a way to do this.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> >I'm totally honest, I have to
> >admit I've never really gotten past that moment in English Lit class.
> >
>
> the thing is, "typical old english farts" were not "farts" or "old" in their
> day. in fact, much of them were drugged out of their minds. it sounds like you
> don't enjoy dwelling on the past.
>
> >And I'm not just talking about poetry - I mean all art. It's a
> >love-hate thing for me. I actually have occasional moments when I
> >think we should just do away with all public funding for the arts.
> >Smash the statues! Feed the hungry!
> >
>
> well that's silly. you are blaming art for world famine? don't you think that's
> more about politics, sociology and economy?
Absolutely not; it's about spelling, a primary tool of a fundamental
art.
Consider "The Rape of the Sabine Women," which appears to have
eliminated Sabines. Had the artist merely spelled it correctly, he
could have eliminated Famines.
>
> art has been used for centuries as a means to speak for the hungry and
> oppressed; not all art is meant to be beautiful or reflective of a mind. much
> of it is used as a personal form of protest.
>
> our country favors sports over art, as far as funding. very much so actually.
> the arts encourage free thought, rebellion, individuality; organized sports
> encourage competition/combat, conforming, being part of a team (hmm...kind of
> like the military).
Since combat and conforming are exact opposites, I have to wonder if
you have /any/ idea what you're talking about, esp. since playing
with a ball at public expense has absolutely nothing to do with
combat, either.
>
> our kids need art, to learn creativity and self-expression. why would you be
> anti-intellect? do you want your kid to grow up to be a drone, or do you want
> him to grow and explore himself?
Or do you want him to grow up to a a Poet, droning about exploring
himself?
>
> >We tend to think anything that can't be
> >achieved by a reasonably intelligent person through his own initiative
> >and hard work must be frivolous, hoity-toity nonsense.
>
> nah.
Nah, indeed. Anything that can't be achieved through paying off a
30-year mortgage and three 28% credit cards by flipping burgers or
counting other people's money, /that's/ hoity-toity nonsense.
>
> >And then
> >there's the Christian guilt argument: there are hungry children in the
> >world, so how can you waste time [insert gerund here]?
>
> why can't a person do both? in fact, with art, one can do it simultaneously.
> why are you here typing this post? why aren't you somewhere in the third world
> feeding people?
I feed starving children for only 0.79 poem a day, Kid. For what
doth it profit them if they shall gain the whole MRE and suffer the
loss of their Higher Sensibilities ("soul" to some)?
>
> >what is the point of
> >poetry, of art, of being an intellectual and making art for other
> >intellectuals?
>
> expression. utilizing our free speech. exploration of the human mind. protest.
> to capture a strong moment in life/to document. communication. stress relief.
> appreciation of beauty. appreciation of ugly. just acknowledgement of
> surroundings in general, abstract or realistic. new ideas.
For any or all of the above, a cell phone is both cheaper and
faster.
>
> one woman at a painting class of mine suffered the effects of a stroke; she
> couldn't talk at all, and could only use her left arm. she was able to
> communicate through her painting.
Morse. Push the button on the cell phone in Morse. I seen it in a
movie.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
I am in the habit of taking large quantities
of bad coffee in such cases. -- V. van Gogh
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Sarandipidy
"to be in agreement or harmony" isn't the only definition used for
"conformity."
to be obedient and compliant is another. are you saying that people who fight
in the army are not obedient?
> since playing
>with a ball at public expense has absolutely nothing to do with
>combat, either.
it is not meant to encourage hostility or fierceness; however, it most often
does. have you ever played high school football? or seen a kid cry during gym
class?
>Or do you want him to grow up to a a Poet, droning about exploring
>himself?
or he could be like baraka.
Art McNutt
saran...@aol.com wrote on 5/30/02 8:14 PM:
[snip]
>
>> since playing
>> with a ball at public expense has absolutely nothing to do with
>> combat, either.
>
> it is not meant to encourage hostility or fierceness; however, it most often
> does. have you ever played high school football? or seen a kid cry during gym
> class?
>
Soccer Moms would be horrified to learn the origin of the game, then.
I would beg to differ, Sara. All organized sports are designed to encourage
hostility and fierceness. Certainly, there are many who would love to change
this simple fact, but just like the Soviets learned, you can't change
history with an eraser.
---
Art
Tom Bishop
And you don't want to win at Mayan football.
--
Tom Bishop
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> >Since combat and conforming are exact opposites,
>
> "to be in agreement or harmony" isn't the only definition used for
> "conformity."
>
> to be obedient and compliant is another. are you saying that people who fight
> in the army are not obedient?
Obviously, you never been in the Army.
>
> > since playing
> >with a ball at public expense has absolutely nothing to do with
> >combat, either.
>
> it is not meant to encourage hostility or fierceness; however, it most often
> does. have you ever played high school football? or seen a kid cry during gym
> class?
Sure. He's the one it's safe to pick on. It's half the purpose of
gym class. The other half is to line up the student body at
gunpoint every Friday afternoon to assure the Team that they're the
Winners.
>
> >Or do you want him to grow up to a a Poet, droning about exploring
> >himself?
>
> or he could be like baraka.
I had in mind the sort of exploration DB writes about.
>
> sara
>
> king kong, little elves
> on the rooftops they dance
> valentino-type tangoes
> while the makeup mans hands
> shut the eyes of the dead
> not to embarass anyone
>
> farewell angelina
> the sky is embarrassed
> and i must be gone
Sarandipidy
>gym class. The other half is to line up the student body at
>gunpoint every Friday afternoon to assure the Team that they're the
>Winners.
haha. well i don't think it's the motive, or purpose, at all. it just seems
that capture the flag resembles military strategy a little more than painting a
picture seems to. although we used to make paper mache masks. and i've been on
a high school sports team, and coaches scream at you to do what they want you
to do (very loudly. and alot.).
speaking from a kid who loved art and hated gym, it's just not fair that art
programs keep disappearing.
Sarandipidy
well, i'm not saying it was the origin.
>I would beg to differ, Sara. All organized sports are designed to encourage
>hostility and fierceness. Certainly, there are many who would love to change
>this simple fact, but just like the Soviets learned, you can't change
>history with an eraser.
hehe yeah. it's just mo that art is equally important to a child's development
as physical activity.
sara<----loves wiffleball with her friends
j r sherman
says...
>
>>Soccer Moms would be horrified to learn the origin of the game, then.
>
>well, i'm not saying it was the origin.
>
>>I would beg to differ, Sara. All organized sports are designed to encourage
>>hostility and fierceness. Certainly, there are many who would love to change
>>this simple fact, but just like the Soviets learned, you can't change
>>history with an eraser.
>
>hehe yeah. it's just mo that art is equally important to a child's development
>as physical activity.
>
>sara<----loves wiffleball with her friends
>
WIFFLEBALL!!!!???? Wiffleball is the most DEADLIEST, most savage, most
aggressive game OF THEM ALL!
and no one just LOVES Wiffleball, sara. you LIVE Wiffleball, you EAT Wiffleball,
and when you play the game you ARE Wiffleball.
originally Whiffleball was created by the generals of the Roman legions to keep
their troops aggressive during idle, non-warring times.
later the sport was taken up by the Divisions of the Wehrmacht in Germany as a
way to keep the soldiers sharp.
NAY, my young friend, one doesn't just PLAY Whiffleball with their friends. one
USES Whiffleball as a way to DESTROY ALL WHO DARE ATTEMPT TO STAND BEFORE YOU!!!
and it's really cool to play at picnics.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
>sara
>
>king kong, little elves
>on the rooftops they dance
>valentino-type tangoes
>while the makeup mans hands
>shut the eyes of the dead
>not to embarass anyone
>
>farewell angelina
>the sky is embarrassed
>and i must be gone
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Tynan
>
>Obviously, you never been in the Army.
Well, war is little more than ritual sacrifice anyway, and, like sporting
events, a sort of commodification of bodily practice by the polity. I'd say
'obedience', one way or another, is at the heart of it. I can't think of
anything more socially stabilising (as ritual and sacrifice both tend to be)
than war.
-Aidan
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> >Sure. He's the one it's safe to pick on. It's half the purpose of
> >gym class. The other half is to line up the student body at
> >gunpoint every Friday afternoon to assure the Team that they're the
> >Winners.
>
> haha. well i don't think it's the motive, or purpose, at all. it just seems
> that capture the flag resembles military strategy a little more than painting a
> picture seems to. although we used to make paper mache masks. and i've been on
> a high school sports team, and coaches scream at you to do what they want you
> to do (very loudly. and alot.).
>
> speaking from a kid who loved art and hated gym, it's just not fair that art
> programs keep disappearing.
>
stick to cell phones better than they stick to copal, that will
remain the case.
Dennis M. Hammes
Shall I have to say it should be expected of a bunch of Druids? Or
should I just say that it's 'way too long to make a good /slaugh
gairm/; by the time you're through yelling it, the enemy has walked
all over you?
Wars are not won by dying for your country; wars are won by making
the other sorry, sad sonofabitch die for /his/ country. Not much of
a ritual, and no sacrifice beyond a few years you had no better use
for at that age, anyway.
I will admit that Hollywood keeps reiterating the ritual, but when
it comes to the "sacrifice" bit, they haven't been able to find a
virgin for about 70 years.
Whereas Mad Catholic Ireland seems only to hurt its virgins into
poetry, though I think the Irish call it "politics." (Either has
been known to approach indecipherability by outsiders.)
Aidan Tynan
> Wars are not won by dying for your country; wars are won by making
>the other sorry, sad sonofabitch die for /his/ country. Not much of
>a ritual, and no sacrifice beyond a few years you had no better use
>for at that age, anyway.
Well, I'd recommend some books on the subject (it's well documented) if I
thought it'd convince you. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of
ritual? Bateson would be a good place to start.
> I will admit that Hollywood keeps reiterating the ritual,
Not only Hollywood, but memorials, mass grieving a la 911, Veterans' day',
and lots of other distasteful things.
but when
>it comes to the "sacrifice" bit, they haven't been able to find a
>virgin for about 70 years.
> Whereas Mad Catholic Ireland seems only to hurt its virgins into
>poetry, though I think the Irish call it "politics."
There hasn't been any politics in this god forsaken country for years. Lots
of poetry, though, and I'd favour that any day.
(Either has
>been known to approach indecipherability by outsiders.)
We have little trouble electing presidents, however, since ours don't do
much ...
-Aidan
Art McNutt
aty...@eircom.net wrote on 5/31/02 6:19 PM:
>
>
>> Wars are not won by dying for your country; wars are won by making
>> the other sorry, sad sonofabitch die for /his/ country. Not much of
>> a ritual, and no sacrifice beyond a few years you had no better use
>> for at that age, anyway.
>
> Well, I'd recommend some books on the subject (it's well documented) if I
> thought it'd convince you. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of
> ritual? Bateson would be a good place to start.
>
>> I will admit that Hollywood keeps reiterating the ritual,
>
> Not only Hollywood, but memorials, mass grieving a la 911, Veterans' day',
> and lots of other distasteful things.
>
Hey Honey! Bring me some pop corn and another coke, please! I'd do it myself
but there's gonna be a good show on AAPC tonight. You see there's this guy
trying to tell Dennis he ought to read books about ritual and the military
and...
---
Art
Art McNutt
saran...@aol.com wrote on 5/31/02 8:22 AM:
>> Soccer Moms would be horrified to learn the origin of the game, then.
>
> well, i'm not saying it was the origin.
>
>> I would beg to differ, Sara. All organized sports are designed to encourage
>> hostility and fierceness. Certainly, there are many who would love to change
>> this simple fact, but just like the Soviets learned, you can't change
>> history with an eraser.
>
> hehe yeah. it's just mo that art is equally important to a child's development
> as physical activity.
Well suren' you're someone after my own heart. A lot of times in middle
school and even high school I couldn't take art class 'cause it wasn't
there. Sports is always last to go. Well, those paying for it oughta get
what they want, I suppose. And thas what they want. Don't have to like it,
though.
And yes it is equally as important. Learning to draw means learning to
/see./ Used to be required for botanists and biologists, for instance.
>
> sara<----loves wiffleball with her friends
>
---
Art
Art McNutt
wrote on 5/31/02 11:54 AM:
> In article <20020531092204...@mb-cn.aol.com>, saran...@aol.com
> says...
>>
>>> Soccer Moms would be horrified to learn the origin of the game, then.
>>
>> well, i'm not saying it was the origin.
>>
>>> I would beg to differ, Sara. All organized sports are designed to encourage
>>> hostility and fierceness. Certainly, there are many who would love to change
>>> this simple fact, but just like the Soviets learned, you can't change
>>> history with an eraser.
>>
>> hehe yeah. it's just mo that art is equally important to a child's
>> development
>> as physical activity.
>>
>> sara<----loves wiffleball with her friends
>>
>
> WIFFLEBALL!!!!???? Wiffleball is the most DEADLIEST, most savage, most
> aggressive game OF THEM ALL!
>
> and no one just LOVES Wiffleball, sara. you LIVE Wiffleball, you EAT
> Wiffleball,
> and when you play the game you ARE Wiffleball.
>
> originally Whiffleball was created by the generals of the Roman legions to
> keep
> their troops aggressive during idle, non-warring times.
>
Funny, for as smart as you are, Sherm, and you are, you seem to not know
very much about the things you love. Like FDR. Like baseball. Wiffle ball is
just baseball with its teeth pulled--and quite fun--I like playing it with
my boys. A Civil War general is credited with establishing uniform rules for
baseball, not a Roman General. You know the rule where you have to touch the
other player with the ball in your glove to "tag him out?" Well, this
derives from the original rules in Rounders and early baseball where the
only requirement was that the /ball/ touch the player. Basically, what this
means is a player going for third base was target practice for the fielders.
Many died attempting to steal a base. So often that baseball was outlawed
several times until they came up with the compromise we have today--thanks
to Gen. Doubleday. When baseball was called One Hole Catapult, well never
mind. You're right, no organized sports were ever "war games."
---
Art
Dennis M. Hammes
Naah. Bugs wiggles the big pink cape in front of the anvil, and the
Huffing Whatever charges straight into the anvil. Bugs lifts the
whiskers on the off side three times while halfeyeing the camera
onside, and...
Cheaper on half.com.
Sarandipidy
>
>WIFFLEBALL!!!!???? Wiffleball is the most DEADLIEST, most savage, most
>aggressive game OF THEM ALL!
>
>and no one just LOVES Wiffleball, sara. you LIVE Wiffleball, you EAT
>Wiffleball,
>and when you play the game you ARE Wiffleball.
>
>originally Whiffleball was created by the generals of the Roman legions to
>keep
>their troops aggressive during idle, non-warring times.
>
>later the sport was taken up by the Divisions of the Wehrmacht in Germany as
>a
>way to keep the soldiers sharp.
>
>NAY, my young friend, one doesn't just PLAY Whiffleball with their friends.
>one
>USES Whiffleball as a way to DESTROY ALL WHO DARE ATTEMPT TO STAND BEFORE
>YOU!!!
>
>and it's really cool to play at picnics.
hahahahaha. yeah. pitcher tim hit steve with the ball a couple times. on
purpose!
j r sherman
says...
>
>
>>
>>WIFFLEBALL!!!!???? Wiffleball is the most DEADLIEST, most savage, most
>>aggressive game OF THEM ALL!
>>
>>and no one just LOVES Wiffleball, sara. you LIVE Wiffleball, you EAT
>>Wiffleball,
>>and when you play the game you ARE Wiffleball.
>>
>>originally Whiffleball was created by the generals of the Roman legions to
>>keep
>>their troops aggressive during idle, non-warring times.
>>
>>later the sport was taken up by the Divisions of the Wehrmacht in Germany as
>>a
>>way to keep the soldiers sharp.
>>
>>NAY, my young friend, one doesn't just PLAY Whiffleball with their friends.
>>one
>>USES Whiffleball as a way to DESTROY ALL WHO DARE ATTEMPT TO STAND BEFORE
>>YOU!!!
>>
>>and it's really cool to play at picnics.
>
>hahahahaha. yeah. pitcher tim hit steve with the ball a couple times. on
>purpose!
see? am i not right? it's a cruel game where only the strong survive and weak
are vanquished like an example of Darwin!
you shall go far!
most sincerely,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
RSommo
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>WIFFLEBALL!!!!???? Wiffleball is the most DEADLIEST,
most savage, most
> >>aggressive game OF THEM ALL!
Obviously, you have never seen my family play croquet.
R.
d'huit
"sophie" <sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cVSL5dO2...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tom Bishop <t...@truly.nu> said
>
> <snip>
>
> >> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry?
> >
> >You listen to it in popular music all the time.
>
> ok, I ask this in all sincerity; are you suggesting that popular music
> is poetry?
>
> >I knew Marcus Uzilevsky somewhat personally, and he made art
> >(which was on the Cosby set for example) to make money, as do
> >many artists/authors.. Dickens for example worked to his audience
> >in serials, got feedback, and modified the story line to suite.
> >
> >Perhaps they aren't artists?
>
> I can't stand Dickens.
> I've spent a fair amount of time in the past arguing that he wrote
> Victorian soaps, although I'm too tired to argue the toss now (UK soaps
> are very different from what I've seen of American soaps, btw, being
> full of pain, ugly people, the working classes, and ludicrously,
> ludicrously gritty plotlines). So no, Dickens wasn't an artist as I'd
> define artist. He was definitely a novelist; but so is Jackie Collins,
> to go to extremes.
> --
>
> sophie
dickens was a story teller. his work was based on that premise. while it
takes a certain amount of skill to spin a good yarn, it doesn't necessarily
follow that it takes artistic creativity. the difference, to me, is that
the creative artist perceives things slightly differently than the norm and
creates from that slightly skewed vantage. dickens' perceptivity was
singularly right there with the norm and he used his ability to write about
those perceptions, which is why his books sold.
kate
d'huit
internal and vice versa. however, art does that in such a way that speaks
to something visceral in others, because it approaches that something
visceral with its slightly skewed and creative perspective. what good is
it? perhaps, we might all become automatons without some form of art to
help us connect the internal with the external. without that connection, we
would all be inside the box, so to speak.
kate
"Rose Blush" <hiddenro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a95c6a81.02052...@posting.google.com...
> > There's a South American activist folk song called "Bread And Roses"
that
> > answers this quite well: the masses cannot live a full existence merely
from
> > sustenance. Beauty is its own reward and is - in a world of overwhelming
> > ugliness and utilitarianism (your philosophy it seems) - it is downright
> > revolutionary to "waste" one's life pursuing it.
>
> So you think the masses can appreciate art? Surprising, I would have
> thought...well, nevermind. :)
>
> As a member of the masses, I must say it's not easy. I know I used to
> appreciate beauty when I was young, but I kept quiet about it because
> I didn't want to get my ass kicked. Then I went to work and over the
> years it was slowly but steadily ground out of me.
>
> That's pretty much standard, I think. Who reads poetry? Rich people
> and intellectuals. Not ordinary people who work in banks or factories
> or whatever (i.e. most people). I'm sure there are lots of exceptions,
> but pick an office, any office anywhere, find a cubicle, and ask the
> guy inside if he reads poetry. Ask any cop, or waitress, accountant or
> computer programmer.
>
> > Artists make art for the sake of creating a beautiful order, of
fulfilling
> > mankind's basic pattern-making mind in forms that might - but might
not -
> > live forever. Every child knows the thrill of pattern-making, and it is
no
> > wonder you seem to have lost it,
>
> I have lost it, and thinking about it makes me sad, so why think about
> it?
>
> and replaced it with the vagaries of the
> > "efficient" and the "useful." That is - of course - the philsophy of the
> > salesman.
>
> > Bolshevik indeed: you're Willy Loman.
>
> LOL...what else would I be? What else SHOULD I be? A sad Willy Loman
> with yearnings and pretensions, or a happy Willy Loman who's good at
> what he does?
>
> Tired...must go...thanks for your response,
> Rose
d'huit
fad-ishness of the era of composition to warrant the ''celebrity'' of 400
years. ''billie quiverstick's'' work (for example) fits into an 'era of
english literature' (for the intellectual who also studies this kind of
minutae) and it also transcends his era (for the not so academic person).
the same holds true for any of the true masters of whatever craft. these
works (of all kinds) still breathe when you look at them, whether you are an
academic or not. and i, personally, disavow that beauty has anything to do
with it.
when one cannot create with originality, one ''borrows'' from someone who
can or did. which, to me, explains the many copycats.
kate
(Juliet might have taken umbrage for being unseated by ''Julia'' as Romeo's
paramour<smile> but, ''Julia'' was one hell of a movie!)
"<DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK>" <in...@cacaofabriek.com> wrote in message
news:3CF4BE01...@cacaofabriek.com...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > Although I agree with the general thrust of your post, I must say that
> > Rembrandt and Shakespeare are NOT just "celebrities" and that the
features
> > in their work that make them at least memorable are discernible.
>
> No doubt. But they're just examples, and they *are* celebrities, no
> matter what.
> I do not really question the value of Shakespeare's sonnets, as their
> quality is quite evident. However, I do question the rather huge
> emphasisis the guy receives in 'English literature' - and not only
> there: God knows how many movies I've seen where 'hamlet' or 'romeo and
> julia' is translated into modern images with shooting gangmembers and
> whatnot. And I must say that these movies to me were always quite
> painful to watch. There's the eery feeling that the director wanted to
> prove himself by 'proving' that Shakespeare is still 'actual' by
> translating all the imagery into so-called contemporary imagery, and
> sorry, but to me it's simply irritating to see a few gang members talk
> Shakespearean poetry. There's too much of this sort of kitsch created
> under the auspicion of the canonists which more than often is simply an
> excuse to 'play it safe': shoot shakespeare, everyone does it, no one
> will question your integrity.
>
>
> Celebrity though is a particularly degradable product, and if it
> > lasts for over 400 years I think something else is going on, albeit a
mere
> > academic fixation.
>
> I don't think most of the 'classic dutch poets' one is taught to worship
> in highschool here are very good. The most interesting dutch poet was
> doubtlessly Achterberg and he's famous enough but not very
> 'didacticable' since his work is too comple for simple literature
> lessons. I don't see much qualification in being famous for over 400
> years - once you pass beyond a certain point you will always be famous,
> no matter what happens.
>
> M.H.Benders
d'huit
"Critic Guy" <cri...@poetica.org> wrote in message
news:3cf4...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> coo...@ameritech.net (Mike Cook) wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > ...the spirit of intellectualism is moved chiefly by beauty.
> > Beauty in art, music and nature, indeed it is the chief
> > spiritual food of our 'type'; beauty is, the stopgap, which
> > keeps us spiritually alive...
>
> It would be difficult to arrive at that conclusion
> based on the content of this newsgroup.
>
> Here, the spirit appears to be moved by ego, vanity,
> smugness, puffery, elitism, boorishness, posturing,
> snobbery and ad hominems.
****there are some of these things here on this ng. but do not deceive
yourself into believing that many of the masters (of any artform),
throughout the centuries, were without these flaws and faults. you'd be
amazed at how this group will look like pussycats to you, if you did a
little homework on the spirits of the masters.<smile>
kate
>
>
> ---
> "From the ground we've come, and we're all going back to earth."
>
> - Rod McKuen
> 'The Earth'
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
>
Aidan Tynan
>dickens was a story teller. his work was based on that premise.
Although I'm turned off by much of his social conservatism and twee
characterisation, some of his language is simply rapturous. The man,
although the least 'literary' of his contemporaries, had a great ear for
turn of phrase and trope. The dockyard sequences in Great Expectations are
wonderfully well written, and his use repetition is analogous to how a
poetry builds up textual echoes, (which lead Paulin to write an essay called
Great Expectations as Epic Poem).
while it
>takes a certain amount of skill to spin a good yarn, it doesn't necessarily
>follow that it takes artistic creativity.
You'll find few people who'll ever claim Dickens had no artistic creativity,
and his works are more than simply soap operas, which is why he has endured.
the difference, to me, is that
>the creative artist perceives things slightly differently than the norm and
>creates from that slightly skewed vantage. dickens' perceptivity was
>singularly right there with the norm
Was it? He had some very damning things to say about the English
establishment (moreso than Austen), particularly the judiciary and the laize
faire economic system.
-Aidan