Thoughts of an ignorant poet
SiXWiNGS
and influences. If clarity and meaning determine the value of a poem for
you, then you, by comparison, are like one who enjoys a painting of a
familiar or meaningful scene, with every detail in place. While others like
paintings that are abstract, with the meaning, or subject, only known by the
artist, or only hinted at, and the interpretation left to the viewer. In
either case the ability to use the paint well is a prerequisite. But in the
latter case, a pre-formed idea is not necessary.
The same is with poetry. Some people in this NG like everything spelled out
for them within a poem. While I, and many others, like an abstract quality
to poetry. The goal in both styles of poetry is different.
If you look at abstract visual art and say, "I don't get it..."
Just remember there is someone else looking at it and saying, "wow, look at
the contrast of colors here... this piece is very angry... this thing in the
middle, whatever it is, is really pretty... just looking at this makes me
feel sad..." etc, etc..
The same is with poetry.
All art forms have evolved similarly. Music for example used to follow the
strict rules of baroque and classical form, until rules started to be broke,
forming new styles, and now we have ended up with the equivalent of free
verse, where anything goes. Music has even started to venture into the
abstract arena.
Its all a matter of taste and open-mindedness.
--
JED -{SiXWiNGS}-
Visit http://www.hammertownmusic.com
Find out what's new.
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>Poetry is an art form,
(mercy snip)
Could someone please explain to me why diatribes that begin with the
above combination of words are almost always penned by people who
apparently have no clue what they are talking about?
gg
It's a universal constant,
isn't it?
SiXWiNGS
Ignorance can be corrected, but stupidity cannot.
Sorry that you are not ignorant. Your vast knowledge of poetry has gotten in
the way of common sense.
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3b687a70...@news.supernews.com...
Peter J Ross
news:3b687a70...@news.supernews.com...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:09:53 -0400, "SiXWiNGS" <sixw...@zoomnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Poetry is an art form,
>
> (mercy snip)
>
> Could someone please explain to me why diatribes that begin with the
> above combination of words are almost always penned by people who
> apparently have no clue what they are talking about?
Poetry is an art form.
Art is a poetry form.
Form is a poetry art.
Form-a-poetry is art.
They're all equally profound, aren't they? It's the refrigerator school of
criticism.
PJR :-)
--
"You have a lot of great spiritual meaning in your poems."
SiXWiNGS (to Candice Lee)
SiXWiNGS
"Peter J Ross" <p...@britishlibrary.net> wrote in message
news:9k48op$2c0v5$1...@ID-76477.news.dfncis.de...
Is this the only part of my comments that you people can talk about?
It's only one part of my complete sentence for goodness sake.
Let's discuss the issue at hand - or can you?
Aidan Tynan
SiXWiNGS wrote in message <9Ce97.6187$hv2.8...@nntp3.onemain.com>...
>Poetry is an art form, that just like all others,
Well, it's not like all the others, is it? A good poet isn't necessarily a
good painter or a good composer.
has many different styles
>and influences. If clarity and meaning determine the value of a poem for
>you,
Clarity and meaning are nothing on their own, though.
then you, by comparison, are like one who enjoys a painting of a
>familiar or meaningful scene, with every detail in place.
I don't think the comparison is tenable.
While others like
>paintings that are abstract, with the meaning, or subject, only
You're assuming abstract painting is devoid of clarity and obective
profundity. Rothko wanted people to be saved by his paintings. I can't
imagine anything clearer than a painting by Mondrian or Malevich or Ryman,
who all wanted to say something about the universe we share with the
inanimate and chaos. In many ways, the getting rid of objects was a way for
painting to do this, to get at the stuff beneath the objective skin of the
world. Hence non-objectivism. This is one area where painting differs from
poetry in a major way.
known by the
>artist, or only hinted at, and the interpretation left to the viewer.
Despite the fact that you can totally misinterpret an abstract painting,
personally I think that when I look at a Mondrian I feel I'm seeing it more
closely to the artist's way of seeing it than if I look at a
representational compostition.
In
>either case the ability to use the paint well is a prerequisite.
Or abuse it.
But in the
>latter case, a pre-formed idea is not necessary.
Even the absence of a pre-formed idea is a pre-formed idea.
>
>The same is with poetry.
So, you decided to take something you admittedly know little about (poetry)
and decided to compare it to something you know even less about (painting).
What gives you the right to do that?
Some people in this NG like everything spelled out
>for them within a poem. While I, and many others, like an abstract quality
>to poetry. The goal in both styles of poetry is different.
I feel an Ezra Pound quote should go here.
>
>If you look at abstract visual art and say, "I don't get it..."
>Just remember there is someone else looking at it and saying, "wow, look at
>the contrast of colors here... this piece is very angry... this thing in
the
>middle, whatever it is, is really pretty... just looking at this makes me
>feel sad..." etc, etc..
Yes, but you still might not 'get it', after all.
>
>The same is with poetry.
>All art forms have evolved similarly. Music for example used to follow the
>strict rules of baroque and classical form, until rules started to be
broke,
>forming new styles, and now we have ended up with the equivalent of free
>verse, where anything goes. Music has even started to venture into the
>abstract arena.
>
>Its all a matter of taste and open-mindedness.
Yes, but I've read your poetry, and it (despite your comparisons to modern
painting) really is just suffering from the typical syndromes of that
mediocre stage (that's not an insult, btw), and not a radical style. Well,
maybe it was an insult.
-Aidan
Chuck Lysaght
> Is this this all you have to say?
>
> Ignorance can be corrected, but stupidity cannot.
> Sorry that you are not ignorant. Your vast knowledge of poetry has gotten in
> the way of common sense.
SiXWiNGS, you hit one out of the ballpark!!!
Chuck Lysaght
"Peter J Ross" <p...@britishlibrary.net> wrote in message news:<9k48op$2c0v5$1...@ID-76477.news.dfncis.de>...
Dennis M. Hammes
Ah, but I especially liked the profound comparison of poetry with
the art that, because it has no referent meaning, is the One True Art:
"Music has even started to venture into the
abstract arena." --sixwings, his own angelic fingers
This "means," of course, that on the authority of throwing a steel
dishpan full of 30d nails against a tin shed and calling it the
ultimate creativity in music (because it has no referent /or/ innate
meaning), we are to bow to the same "theory" as "used" in the
"writing" of poetry.
Remind me to burn my vinyls of the Munchinger Kammerorchester's
Brandenburgs, or at least to use them as beer coasters. Not because
of the rules, or their relaxation. Because of my resentment: my
attempts to play the Third on a valveless military trumpet never came
up to their use of the lippiphone (a rotary-valved, sopranino trumpet
that fits in a coat pocket).
--
>^,,^<
/Veni, vidi, rorarum/.
[I came, I saw, I was dropped.]
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
SiXWiNGS
news:3B6601D3...@cableone.net...
If you would like to hear my fingers play music, then go to
http://www.hammertownmusic.com - judge for yourself... It is not abstract,
by the way, but it is hard rock music.
>
> This "means," of course, that on the authority of throwing a steel
> dishpan full of 30d nails against a tin shed and calling it the
> ultimate creativity in music (because it has no referent /or/ innate
> meaning), we are to bow to the same "theory" as "used" in the
> "writing" of poetry.
Depending on the use of the sound, it may work very well.
> Remind me to burn my vinyls of the Munchinger Kammerorchester's
> Brandenburgs, or at least to use them as beer coasters. Not because
> of the rules, or their relaxation. Because of my resentment: my
> attempts to play the Third on a valveless military trumpet never came
> up to their use of the lippiphone (a rotary-valved, sopranino trumpet
> that fits in a coat pocket).
> --
> >^,,^<
> /Veni, vidi, rorarum/.
> [I came, I saw, I was dropped.]
> http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
And your point is...?
I am a lover of all musical, literary and visual arts, from the classical to
the modern. It doesn't matter if I have learned their style or technique, or
if I've attained their level of mastery.
SiXWiNGS
SiXWiNGS
Oops, I hit "send" by accident before I responded.
"SiXWiNGS" <sixw...@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:GSq97.7943$dz2.1...@nntp2.onemain.com...
>
> "Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:lMi97.20955$Fk7.2...@news.indigo.ie...
> >
> > SiXWiNGS wrote in message <9Ce97.6187$hv2.8...@nntp3.onemain.com>...
> > >Poetry is an art form, that just like all others,
> >
> > Well, it's not like all the others, is it? A good poet isn't necessarily
a
> > good painter or a good composer.
isn't anyone going to read the complete sentence before commenting stupidly
on a partial sentence? A sentence is a complete thought. You've only got
half of it here.
This is my complete thought, as it was originally posted:
(Poetry is an art form, that just like all others, has many different styles
and influences.)
Can't argue with that, no matter how dumb you are.
I never would have guessed that anyone would have a problem with my opening
statement, but this is a unique NG with some "unique" subscribers.
> >
> > has many different styles
> > >and influences. If clarity and meaning determine the value of a poem
for
> > >you,
> >
> > Clarity and meaning are nothing on their own, though.
My point exactly - but this only applies to some forms and styles.
Sometimes clarity and meaning are essential, and all important.
> >
> > then you, by comparison, are like one who enjoys a painting of a
> > >familiar or meaningful scene, with every detail in place.
> >
> > I don't think the comparison is tenable.
It is a loose comparison. There are many variables.
> >
> > While others like
> > >paintings that are abstract, with the meaning, or subject, only
> >
> > You're assuming abstract painting is devoid of clarity and obective
> > profundity.
No, I'm not. And this whole time I'm also making a point about poetry.
Sometimes there are only parts of a poem or painting that is not understood,
and that breaks conventional rules well, or that is self interpreted rather
than has a predetermined meaning.
> > Rothko wanted people to be saved by his paintings. I can't
> > imagine anything clearer than a painting by Mondrian or Malevich or
Ryman,
> > who all wanted to say something about the universe we share with the
> > inanimate and chaos. In many ways, the getting rid of objects was a way
> for
> > painting to do this, to get at the stuff beneath the objective skin of
the
> > world. Hence non-objectivism. This is one area where painting differs
from
> > poetry in a major way.
Totally agree.
> >
> > known by the
> > >artist, or only hinted at, and the interpretation left to the viewer.
> >
> > Despite the fact that you can totally misinterpret an abstract painting,
> > personally I think that when I look at a Mondrian I feel I'm seeing it
> more
> > closely to the artist's way of seeing it than if I look at a
> > representational compostition.
good for you.
> >
> > In
> > >either case the ability to use the paint well is a prerequisite.
> >
> > Or abuse it.
True - but many a successful abstract artist have been accused of this very
thing.
> >
> > But in the
> > >latter case, a pre-formed idea is not necessary.
> >
> > Even the absence of a pre-formed idea is a pre-formed idea.
True, I suppose.
> >
> > >
> > >The same is with poetry.
> >
> > So, you decided to take something you admittedly know little about
> (poetry)
> > and decided to compare it to something you know even less about
> (painting).
> > What gives you the right to do that?
What gives you the right to say that I know little about painting?
Besides, I'm not just talking about painting, I'm talking about all visual
art.
These are areas that have been a part of my life for as long as I can
remeber.
I may not have book smarts about them all (but some I do) however this does
not disqualify me of a valid opinion.
> >
> >
> > Some people in this NG like everything spelled out
> > >for them within a poem. While I, and many others, like an abstract
> quality
> > >to poetry. The goal in both styles of poetry is different.
> >
> > I feel an Ezra Pound quote should go here.
> >
> > >
> > >If you look at abstract visual art and say, "I don't get it..."
> > >Just remember there is someone else looking at it and saying, "wow,
look
> at
> > >the contrast of colors here... this piece is very angry... this thing
in
> > the
> > >middle, whatever it is, is really pretty... just looking at this makes
me
> > >feel sad..." etc, etc..
> >
> > Yes, but you still might not 'get it', after all.
If it made you feel anything, then quite possibly, the goal has been
reached.
> >
> > >
> > >The same is with poetry.
> > >All art forms have evolved similarly. Music for example used to follow
> the
> > >strict rules of baroque and classical form, until rules started to be
> > broke,
> > >forming new styles, and now we have ended up with the equivalent of
free
> > >verse, where anything goes. Music has even started to venture into the
> > >abstract arena.
> > >
> > >Its all a matter of taste and open-mindedness.
> >
> > Yes, but I've read your poetry, and it (despite your comparisons to
modern
> > painting) really is just suffering from the typical syndromes of that
> > mediocre stage (that's not an insult, btw), and not a radical style.
Well,
> > maybe it was an insult.
I didn't find it insulting... maybe it is true.
My opinions about abstract art, however, are not effected by this.
shunichi waha
try this on for size - royal trux 'Twin Infinitives' (the ultimate test of
your capacity to milk music out of noise. i think you'd have a heart attack)
--
the stupidity is limited to these areas -
www.geocities.com/shunichi_waha
or
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~shunichi
/
Aidan Tynan
>
>This is my complete thought, as it was originally posted:
>
>(Poetry is an art form, that just like all others, has many different
styles
>and influences.)
Well, your comma misplacement threw me off. Still, your statement is pretty
meaningless. At best it's tautological.
>> > While others like
>> > >paintings that are abstract, with the meaning, or subject, only
>> >
>> > You're assuming abstract painting is devoid of clarity and obective
>> > profundity.
>
>
>No, I'm not.
Yeah you are. You claim that clarity and meaning have no place in abstract
painting.
>> > In
>> > >either case the ability to use the paint well is a prerequisite.
>> >
>> > Or abuse it.
>
>True - but many a successful abstract artist have been accused of this very
>thing.
My point.
>> > So, you decided to take something you admittedly know little about
>> (poetry)
>> > and decided to compare it to something you know even less about
>> (painting).
>> > What gives you the right to do that?
>
>What gives you the right to say that I know little about painting?
I don't know you, so I can only judge you on what you say here.
>
>These are areas that have been a part of my life for as long as I can
>remeber.
So?
>My opinions about abstract art, however, are not effected by this.
You already changed your opinion halfway through your reply.
-Aidan
>
>
>
SiXWiNGS
>
> >
> >This is my complete thought, as it was originally posted:
> >
> >(Poetry is an art form, that just like all others, has many different
> styles
> >and influences.)
>
> Well, your comma misplacement threw me off. Still, your statement is
pretty
> meaningless. At best it's tautological.
Your right! My comma was misplaced - oops.
I don't think it is meaningless.
>
>
> >> > While others like
> >> > >paintings that are abstract, with the meaning, or subject, only
> >> >
> >> > You're assuming abstract painting is devoid of clarity and obective
> >> > profundity.
> >
> >
> >No, I'm not.
>
> Yeah you are. You claim that clarity and meaning have no place in abstract
> painting.
No, I'm saying that they are not essential.
>
> >> > In
> >> > >either case the ability to use the paint well is a prerequisite.
> >> >
> >> > Or abuse it.
> >
> >True - but many a successful abstract artist have been accused of this
very
> >thing.
>
> My point.
>
>
> >> > So, you decided to take something you admittedly know little about
> >> (poetry)
> >> > and decided to compare it to something you know even less about
> >> (painting).
> >> > What gives you the right to do that?
> >
> >What gives you the right to say that I know little about painting?
>
> I don't know you, so I can only judge you on what you say here.
>
>
> >
> >These are areas that have been a part of my life for as long as I can
> >remeber.
>
> So?
>
>
>
> >My opinions about abstract art, however, are not effected by this.
>
> You already changed your opinion halfway through your reply.
I think that if you will review my original post, you will see my opinions
have not changed. Although, if someone gives me reason to believe otherwise,
I would be willing to change it.
>
>
> -Aidan
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>