Point of discussion
Martijn Benders
Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
movie.
Martijn
--
************************
The Sea Cannibal online:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.benders/sea/zeekannibaal.htm
De nederlandsche Cacaofabriek:
http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
************************
Rubysfathe
I have taken good phots just doing that, walking down a street without a
consceous concept. However, I said conscious concept. If you devote a number
of years to photography it sinks into the subconscious mind to look for
compostition where ever you are.
My question is poetry different then photography? I have have just started
the art/craft and wonder if I will improve with persistant practice?
Mark McLain.
Martijn Benders
Rubysfathe wrote:
>
> Marty,
> I have taken good phots just doing that, walking down a street without a
> consceous concept.
Sure, I didn't say it's impossible. However, I do feel that poetry as a
medium has more in common with movies than with photographs. Photographs
are more like books, a perfectly closed structure not as fluid as movies
or poetry.
> If you devote a number
> of years to photography it sinks into the subconscious mind to look for
> compostition where ever you are.
This is of course true of poetry as well. It helps a lot to write down
anything that seems impressive, and brew a concept from it.
> My question is poetry different then photography? I have have just started
> the art/craft and wonder if I will improve with persistant practice?
Up to a point, yes. That point will be mediocrity. After that, the race
gets really hard but the views are magnificent and the drinks cheap.
Maori
the urge takes me and more than not the poem takes on it's own meaning quite
quickly. sitting thinking "oh i'll write a poem about this..." can sometimes
create very contrived, cliched poetry. poetry for me at least is a letting
off of some steam thats been building. once the writing is finished i really
know what was niggling at me to write the poem in the first place. it's when
you go back over your work, that the best points can come.
--
--
Maori
bol...@bigfoot.com
ma...@mindless.com
http://members.xoom.com/ma0ri
PLEASE DON'T WORRY IF YOU GET ERROR MESSAGES WHEN YOU SEND ME A MAIL> I WILL
SORT OUT THIS PROBLEM SOON!
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3B646430...@chello.nl...
Rik Roots
> walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> movie.
>
observations often made months or years apart. For me, the blank paper
is where the concept of the poem is first sketched out - by the time I
reach the "first draft" stage I'm usually on my third different colour
biro and the paper is littered with scribbles and doodles...
> Martijn
>
Rik, knee deep
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare...
Martijn Benders
Maori wrote:
>
> poetry for me has always been subconscious.
That's completely wrong. Poets don't have a subconscious, poets have a
_Muse_ , which operates under completely different parametres.
The Muse is completely independant from either the subconscious or the
superconscious. Sometimes it's manifest, more than often it's not.
The subconscious makes guys visit hookers, and such sort of things.
The Muse has nothing at all to do with any of it.
Aidan Tynan
Maori wrote in message <9k1q8o$93a$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>poetry for me has always been subconscious. i begin to write words dowm
when
>the urge takes me and more than not the poem takes on it's own meaning
quite
>quickly. sitting thinking "oh i'll write a poem about this..." can
sometimes
>create very contrived, cliched poetry. poetry for me at least is a letting
>off of some steam thats been building. once the writing is finished i
really
>know what was niggling at me to write the poem in the first place.
Really? I find that very often I begin with what I assume to be an
impeccable logic of theme and concept, to see it disappear in the wash of
words. I find that instead of making things clear, the poem can confuse
things beyond recognition.
-Aidan
SiXWiNGS
So what is "The Muse" then, some sort of spirit?
Or is it part of some scientific theory about the make-up of the mind like
the ego or the id? If so, I've never heard about it.
I have heard of the mythological muses. Surely your not talking about
that...
Martijn Benders
SiXWiNGS wrote:
> So what is "The Muse" then, some sort of spirit?
Most certainly not. Yeats made that mistake, and look where he ended up.
> Or is it part of some scientific theory about the make-up of the mind like
> the ego or the id?
Nope. Poets should not be overly concerned with any such nonsense.
>
> I have heard of the mythological muses. Surely your not talking about
> that...
Every branch of art and science has it's own Muse. It is not a spirit,
god or anything like that but rather something really mysterious and
secret. Most mythologies are a bit like outdated maps into the
metaphysical, but The Muse is a better guide.
Martijn Benders
Rik Roots wrote:
>
> > Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> > walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> > movie.
> >
> Good poetry is meticulously planned, and will draw from notes and
> observations often made months or years apart.
Even centuries apart is not really uncommon, it's just hard to keep
notes over such distances. One more reason why the Muse is operational.
Paul Daly
> >
> > > Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> > > walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> > > movie.
Of course then you get people like WB Yeats who turned the blank piece of
paper without a concept into a lament for a lack of inspiration.
Martijn Benders
Paul Daly wrote:
> Of course then you get people like WB Yeats who turned the blank piece of
> paper without a concept into a lament for a lack of inspiration.
To understand Yeats a bit better it helps to read this article from
Ufologist John Chambers:
Nobel Prize Winner Predicted Alien/Human Hybrids
by John Chambers for _UFO Universe_
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Remember we will deceive you if we can," one communicator
told the poet, to his chagrin. He noted that they seemed
completely indifferent to the personal needs of him and
his wife, using the two of them simply as vehicles for
learning which the spirit guides seemed to be under an
enormous compulsion to impart. Said Yeats, "the spirits
do not tell a man what is true but create such conditions,
such a crisis of fate, that the man is compelled to listen
to his Daimon ... They have but one purpose, to bring their
chosen man to the greatest obstacle he may confront with
despair."
-William Butler Yeats, G:.D:.
"Friend of the Martians"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Though he lived from 1865 to 1939, William Butler Yeats
was deeply involved with the anomalous phenomena that many
today call "New Age." Growing up in a culture steeped in
fairy lore, he was more interested than most, researching
and writing on the 'little people' of Ireland. Deeply
interested in magic, he gleaned concepts and metaphors for
his poetry from his active association with esoteric
societies like those of the Blavatsky Lodge of Theosophy
and the Order of the Golden Dawn. And, all his life, this
world-class poet read deeply in the writings on mysticism
and reincarnation of such ancients as Parmenides and
Pythagoras.
Most important of all, Yeats spent much of his life talking
to channeled, discarnate entities. These communicated with
him through his wife's automatic writing, beginning in
1917, continuing on a daily basis till 1921, and reappearing
sporadically thereafter. In a much-quoted passage in his
account of these experiences, A Vision, Yeats wrote, "On the
afternoon of October 24th 1917, four days after my marriage,
my wife surprised me by attempting automatic writing. What
came in disjointed sentences, in almost illegible writing,
was so exciting, sometimes so profound, that I persuaded her
to give an hour or two day after day to the unknown writer,
and, after some half dozen such hours, offered to spend what
remained of life explaining and piecing together those
scattered sentences. 'No,' was the answer, 'we have come to
give you metaphors for poetry.'"
Yeats's spirit "Communicators," as they called themselves,
enabled the poet to piece together what Colin Wilson, in
The Occult, describes as, "a system of symbols, based upon
the 28 phases of the moon, and upon two types of men: those
who gain power from their combat with circumstances, and
those who gain strength from the combat with themselves."
The system postulated a tension of contrarieties, with men
and women in their next incarnations tending to become the
opposite of what they had previously been. Yeats extended
this system to include entire civilizations, piecing
together from knowledge gained from his entree to secret
societies, his reading, and his wife's automatic writing a
concept of history based on the notion of cycles of roughly
2,000 years apiece, or "Great Wheels."
Yeats asserted that a new historical cycle was always
announced by birds and by acts of violence. Greco-Roman
civilization properly began to emerge, he said, when Zeus,
the king of the Gods, descended to earth in the form of a
swan and raped the irresistibly attractive mortal woman,
Leda. The fruit of this union was Helen, whose abduction
by Paris triggered off the Trojan War and resulted in the
destruction of the Trojan/Asian civilization which had
dominated the previous 2,000-year cycle.
Two thousand years later, according to Yeats, the advent of
the Christian cycle was announced by the descent of the
Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and the impregnation of
Mary, the Mother of Christ. The crucifixion of Christ was
the act of violence that inevitably followed upon this union.
Each of these civilizations was commenced by a rape from on
high.
Our civilization is presently reaching the end of the 2,000-
year cycle that began with the birth of Christ. And, eerily
-- if those who report on UFO alien abductions are perceiving
correctly -- in our time extraterrestrial beings are descending
from the sky in increasing numbers to snatch up humans and
subject them to gruesome breeding experiments in spaceships.
The purpose of this cosmic rape, according to researchers
like Assistant History Professor David M. Jacobs, Ph.D, of
Temple University, in Philadelphia, PA, is to create
human/alien hybrid offspring. "That is the whole function
of the abduction scenario," says Jacobs. "And, increasingly,
the hybrids are coming among us to help out with these
abductions."
Jacobs's words, which are typical of descriptions of the
UFO/alien abduction phenomenon, suggest a startling similarity
between the Yeatsian notion of the "annunciation" of a new age,
and the modern-day phenomenon of alien abductions. If Zeus
descended from on high in the form of a swan and violated Leda,
if the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove and caused
Mary to immaculately conceive, then in our time creatures are
descending in metal birds to engage in a program of mass rape;
this is the bizarre modem counterpart of these two earlier
encounters between the supernatural and the natural.
In his most famous poem, The Second Coming, published in
1919, Yeats hinted darkly that our century would come to an
end amid sinister strife and catastrophic events. The poem
begins, "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere
anarchy is loosed upon the world;" it ends with the lines,
"What rough beast, its hour come round at last -- Slouches
toward Bethlehem to be born?"
Some critics have thought Yeats was alluding to civil
strife in Ireland; others have suggested he was referring
to the carnage of World War One. Today, most agree he
foresaw the radical decline in moral standards in our time.
In the light of New Age, end-time phenomena, some are
asking: If alien abduction-initiated extraterrestrial
insemination is meant to produce alien/human hybrids, are
such hybrids Yeats's 'rough beasts' "slouching toward
Bethlehem to be born?"
In The Second Coming, the image of the Sphinx is closely
allied with that of the 'rough beast' -- and, historically,
the Sphinx itself is a hybrid: a winged creature with a
woman's face and a lion's body. Overall, the image of the
Sphinx played a pivotal role in Yeats's bimillennial
predictions.
The Trojan War, marking the end of one 2,000-year-long
cycle and the beginning of another, came roughly at the
same time as the tragedy of Oedipus at Thebes, as
chronicled, for example, in Oedipus Rex, by Sophocles.
(Some scholars say the Trojan War and Oedipus came much
later than 4,000 years ago; Yeats seems to use the figure
"2,000" very elastically.)
If the world knows Oedipus primarily as the king who,
however unknowingly, murdered his father and married his
mother, Yeats focussed on him as the mortal who achieved
kingship by defeating the monstrous Sphinx who guarded the
gates to Thebes. According to Yeats and his spirit
"Communicators," as they called themselves, the death of
the Sphinx, as much as the defeat of Troy, heralded the
end of that historical epoque. Yeats believed that what
had vanished at the end of one historical cycle might
reappear at the end of the next; he believed that the
Sphinx was not dead but slumbering, and that the beginning
of the next 2,000-year cycle, heralded by the birth of
Christ, would reawaken this monstrous reminder of the
dominance of Ancient Egyptian civilization.
In The Second Coming, the poet made it clear that the
Sphinx had indeed been re-emerging into consciousness
during this 2,000-year period. "But now I know," he
wrote, "that twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed
to nightmare by a rocking cradle."
As scholar Judith Weissman puts it: "No unenlightened
reader could possibly realize that Oedipus, the god of the
classical cycle of history, condemned the Sphinx, a monster,
to twenty centuries of quiescence; that Jesus's birth, his
"rocking cradle," initiates a new cycle during which the
Sphinx begins to wake up; and that a third and terrible
cycle will begin when the Sphinx, the rough beast, 'Slouches
toward Bethlehem to be born.'"
However inscrutable the aliens may be, no one has reported
that they resemble winged women-lions. And the hybrids are
Sphinx-like only in their hybridhood. But, uncannily, a new
kind of Sphinx seems to have swum into human consciousness
over the past two decades. Many are convinced that NASA
photos beamed from Mars in 1977 show, on the Cydonian
plain, a Sphinx-like face, located not far from a group
of pyramids. NASA claims these apparent features are
coincidental, a suggestive play of light and shadow.
Proponents of the "face on Mars" theory insist that NASA
is engaged in a cover-up.
Of course, Yeats never actually predicted that a Sphinx-
like face would one day be found on Mars. In speaking of
the births of Helen and Christ as insertions of the divine
into the earthly that launched new ages, he was not
necessarily concerned with the historical truth of these
events, but rather with their power as archetypal images
suddenly emerging out of the collective unconscious of
humankind. At the same time as Jung was developing his
notion of the "collective unconscious," Yeats was
elaborating a similar theory of the "Spiritus Mundi," the
"world soul" -- the collectivity, greater than the sum of
its parts, of all our individual souls, in which souls
Yeats implicitly believed, and which he called "Daimons."
Yeats felt, along with Jung, that such was the power of the
collective unconscious, or World Soul, that the archetypes
to which it gave birth actually molded physical reality.
Few would deny that today we are at the ending of an old
epoque and the beginning of an entirely new one. Yeats
might suggest that the sighting of a Sphinx-like face on
Mars is in some inscrutable way an eruption into physical
reality of one aspect of this archetype of the collective
unconscious of humankind (or mass creation out of the
Spiritus Mundi) that is emerging into being once again
after 2,000 years.
How literally did Yeats take the contents of his wife's
automatic writing? An examination of the record,
particularly in A Vision, shows that the poet's belief in
the Spiritus Mundi was also crucial to his understanding
of this experience. Yeats took the words of his
"Communicators" with a grain of salt. He had quickly found
he had to deal not only with these Communicators, but also
with "Frustrators' who slipped in from time to time to give
him misleading teachings. The Communicators never told him
when the Frustrators had been at work; he could only find
out if he happened to ask them point-blank. The situation
seemed irremediable: "Remember we will deceive you if we
can," one communicator told the poet, to his chagrin.
Yeats could never quite decide if these spirit voices were
his own creation, or creations of his wife, or entities
with the reality of a dream-state, or separate entities or
an uncanny composite of all four. He noted that they seemed
completely indifferent to the personal needs of him and his
wife, using the two of them simply as vehicles for learning
which the spirit guides seemed to be under an enormous
compulsion to impart. Finally, Yeats tended to believe that
the communications were part of a dialogue, from deep within
the Spiritus Mundi, between his wife's soul, or Daimon, and
his own soul, or Daimon.
Ultimately Yeats was led to conclude that, as he put it in
A Vision, "the spirits do not tell a man what is true but
create such conditions, such a crisis of fate, that the man
is compelled to listen to his Daimon." Yeats reinforced
this statement elsewhere in his writings, saying, for
example, that: "There are, indeed, personifying spirits
that we had best call but gates and gatekeepers, because
through their dramatic power, they bring our souls to
crisis. They have but one purpose, to bring their chosen
man to the greatest obstacle he may confront with despair."
What came to dominate Yeats's thinking, though, was the
notion of Spiritus Mundi, or "world soul, in which all
souls lived and had their being. The Nobel Prize-winning
poet stated that: "We may think that nothing exists but a
stream of souls, that all knowledge is biography, and that
every soul is unique; and that these souls, these eternal
archetypes combine into greater units as days and nights
into months, months into years, and at last into the final
unit that differs in nothing from that which they were at
the beginning."
Yeats would have concluded that it is out of the powerful
and eternal fecundity of the world soul that were generated
the strange archetypes of descent from on high and rape,
accompanied by the brooding presence of the Sphinx, which
seem to characterize the inception of new historical cycles
-- and which seem to have taken physical form in our period
in the shape of alien abductions of humans and a brooding,
Sphinx-like face on Mars.
Alacrity Stone
>
>
> Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> movie.
>
> Martijn
No, Martijn.
Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is "simular" to just
starting to shoot a movie on blank film without a concept.
Not a bad concept, really, in so far as the blankness is concerned. Do you
advocate writing on un-blank paper?
Now, the "without a concept" thing is a little silly, in that one can't
write a coherent phrase without a plethora of the pesky things wrestling for
control over the direction of the piece in progress, thus either you
advocate writing on "paper with a concept" (where do they sell the
stuff?),or you're initiating some odd ball rally-for-support of your
criticism of Mike's approach to writing his piece, "drowning". I fail to
see how you've managed to divine what his approach was, but I assure you
that a blank page doesn't last long for a writer with any creative power to
speak of.
R.F
Maori
poetry in particular is a VERY personal thing. some use it for expression of
their desires, some use it to make a profound point, some use it to show
their skill at word juggling and to impress you with their metaphors. some
use it for a joke and some take it seriously. an answer would only be wrong
to this point of discussion, so yeah, keep your version of events coming and
accept other peoples.
--
--
Maori
bol...@bigfoot.com
ma...@mindless.com
http://members.xoom.com/ma0ri
PLEASE DON'T WORRY IF YOU GET ERROR MESSAGES WHEN YOU SEND ME A MAIL> I WILL
SORT OUT THIS PROBLEM SOON!
"Alacrity Stone" <dee...@home.com> wrote in message
news:bF197.206780$W02.3...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
Martijn Benders
Alacrity Stone wrote:
> > Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> > walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> > movie.
> >
> > Martijn
>
> No, Martijn.
I'd appreciate it if you stopped emailing me personally. I don't like
you, and I won't respond anymore to any of your fluff one way or the
other. That's another golden rule of poetry: never spent more than a
minute in the presence of an asshole.
Martijn
SiXWiNGS
"Maori" <bol...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9k298v$l6e$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> there is no one way to do anything
>
> poetry in particular is a VERY personal thing. some use it for expression
of
> their desires, some use it to make a profound point, some use it to show
> their skill at word juggling and to impress you with their metaphors. some
> use it for a joke and some take it seriously. an answer would only be
wrong
> to this point of discussion, so yeah, keep your version of events coming
and
> accept other peoples.
Amen Maori,
I have created poetry with both methods. Sometimes I have a particular
subject that I write about, and I know exactly how I want the poem to be.
Then other times I used a method where I start with no idea whatsoever. I
just quickly start writing down the first things that pop into my mind no
matter how silly or weird they sound, and with no thought of meter or rhyme
or style. Then I take the phrases and put them together and fill in missing
thoughts to form a subject. (it is amazing how well the phrases ALWAYS fit
into one subject) Then I place them into a particular style (traditional,
free verse, sonnet ...etc). It takes a lot of work and creativity to make
them work, but some of my best poems have came into being this way. You
should try it sometime.
Dale Houstman
> walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> movie.
>
between concept and completion and is inherent in movie-making means that
more preparation is usually needed for a great variety of reasons. This
simply doesn't exist as a problem in poetry, no matter what one thinks of
the "technical" aspects of poetry. I am more than certain a great many poems
have been begun in precisely this way. And personally it is about the only
way I do work. For the most part, poetic "concepts" are discovered in the
process of writing, and no more "motive" is needed than an interestring
string of words, or an abhorrence of blank white paper.
dmh
Dennis M. Hammes
1. Both are arts.
2. Both start with a blank frame.
3. The artist may know what he wants to put in the frame before he
starts, or he may trip over it on a ramble.
a. By either method, he may get pay copy, squirrel shit, a smear,
or a small pile of spoiled materials.
4. He may fill a single frame, or do a sequence.
5. Either may be improved with practice.
a. Most don't; it depends on what you practice.
"Different from."
--
>^,,^<
/Veni, vidi, rorarum/.
[I came, I saw, I was dropped.]
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Dennis M. Hammes
Nothing "mythological" about it. Pic of the 10th Muse on my page...
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Rik Roots wrote:
> >
> > > Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> > > walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> > > movie.
> > >
> > Good poetry is meticulously planned, and will draw from notes and
> > observations often made months or years apart.
>
> Even centuries apart is not really uncommon, it's just hard to keep
> notes over such distances. One more reason why the Muse is operational.
>
> Martijn
>
a Provencal form?
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> movie.
>
> Martijn
>
It's the blank mind.
Martijn Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> > walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> > movie.
> >
> Not in the least. For one thing the "technological distance" that lies
> between concept and completion and is inherent in movie-making means that
> more preparation is usually needed for a great variety of reasons. This
> simply doesn't exist as a problem in poetry, no matter what one thinks of
> the "technical" aspects of poetry.
That's not really true, is it? Poems take a great deal of preperation.
It is overly internal, that's true, but it is preparation nonetheless.
I'm not subscribing to the 'language puritician school of thought' as it
seems obvious to me that its an instrument and not a purpose. Most great
poetry does not float on great language by itself but rather on the
clarity of the concept combined with great use of language. I don't
think Strand's 'The Mailman' just unfolded on paper as he was playing
around with words - usually such poetry starts with either a visual or a
sudden idea that seems perfectly clear. It's clarity and meaning that in
the end determine the value of a poem, not how the language is being
used. If that was true it would mean that poetry is by definition
untranslatable, and this is simply untrue.
Martijn Benders
"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
>
> Martijn Benders wrote:
> >
> > Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
> > walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
> > movie.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> The "blank paper" isn't the problem; all the masters use it.
> It's the blank mind.
But ironically, a blank mind is more of a requisite for poetry rather
than an obstacle. My idea is that a poet has to listen first of all,
listen really really well. Listen to nature, to his own mind, to the
Muse, to the language he uses.
SiXWiNGS
> the end determine the value of a poem, not how the language is being
> used. If that was true it would mean that poetry is by definition
> untranslatable, and this is simply untrue.
Poetry is an art form, that just like all others, has many different styles
and influences. Some may agree with you, but your view of poetry is a
limited one.
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. In contrast, I also like paintings that
are abstract, with the meaning only known by the artist, or only hinted at,
while 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. You, among others in this NG, like everything
spelled out for you within the poem. While I, and many others, like an
abstract quality to poetry. The goal in both styles of poetry is different.
Both styles can exist without defining poetry as untranslatable.
When 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.
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3B6522B1...@chello.nl...
Nic Ollivère
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Starting a poem on blank paper without a concept is simular to just
>walking down the street with a camera hoping it will result in a good
>movie.
Hi, Martijn,
What do you mean by concept? Without a concept of what you're going to
write? Or without a concept of anything? Or, do you mean by concept
something completely removed from the language you will use? I often
get a concept coupled with the language of a poem when I'm walking in
the woods, and write it down when I get back. Otherwise I collect
phrases, repeating them in my head until a concept of a poem forms
using all, or some, of them. How is married life?
Martijn Benders
SiXWiNGS wrote:
>
> > It's clarity and meaning that in
> > the end determine the value of a poem, not how the language is being
> > used. If that was true it would mean that poetry is by definition
> > untranslatable, and this is simply untrue.
>
> Poetry is an art form, that just like all others, has many different styles
> and influences. Some may agree with you, but your view of poetry is a
> limited one.
>
> 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.
Nope. You are completely wrong, since clarity and meaning are attributes
that one can attain in any medium and any style. It is in fact rather
silly to suggest that it would be easier to attain to lucidity in
surrealism rather than impressionism, or whatever the comparison may be.
That would be like saying it's more easy to speak clearly in french than
it is in italian.
In contrast, I also like paintings that
> are abstract, with the meaning only known by the artist, or only hinted at,
> while the interpretation left to the viewer.
That's true of all paintings and none. The work determines its meaning
itself, so it's impossible that 'it's meaning would be only known by the
artist' - that's just poppycock.
In either case the ability to
> use the paint well is a prerequisite.
Ha! But that's not exactly the case in modern art; there are plenty of
famous modern artists that paint mediocre at best.
But in the latter case, a pre-formed
> idea is not necessary.
An idea is not a concept.
> The same is with poetry. You, among others in this NG, like everything
> spelled out for you within the poem.
You're quite a psychologist, aren't you?
While I, and many others, like an
> abstract quality to poetry.
I like abstract quality too, but haven't seen any in your work.
> Its all a matter of taste and open-mindedness.
It's all a matter of poetry.
SiXWiNGS
>
>
> SiXWiNGS wrote:
> >
> > > It's clarity and meaning that in
> > > the end determine the value of a poem, not how the language is being
> > > used. If that was true it would mean that poetry is by definition
> > > untranslatable, and this is simply untrue.
> >
> > Poetry is an art form, that just like all others, has many different
styles
> > and influences. Some may agree with you, but your view of poetry is a
> > limited one.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Nope. You are completely wrong, since clarity and meaning are attributes
> that one can attain in any medium and any style.
Yes, if clarity and meaning are the goals of the artist - Like I said, to
the abstract artist the goals are different. The goal is not clarity and
meaning - that would be a contridiction now wouldn't it. the subject of
abstract art, in any form is to be created in the mind of the person who is
observing it.
> It is in fact rather
> silly to suggest that it would be easier to attain to lucidity in
> surrealism rather than impressionism, or whatever the comparison may be.
> That would be like saying it's more easy to speak clearly in french than
> it is in italian.
No one said anything about it being easier. You've lost me here.
>
>
> In contrast, I also like paintings that
> > are abstract, with the meaning only known by the artist, or only hinted
at,
> > while the interpretation left to the viewer.
>
> That's true of all paintings and none.
This sentence is poppycock.
> The work determines its meaning
> itself, so it's impossible that 'it's meaning would be only known by the
> artist' - that's just poppycock.
Not true. I'm also a visual artist. I have made many pictures that have a
personal meaning in them that no one else could know. It is true that it
takes on a personal meaning to those who view it also, but not the same one
for everybody.
>
>
> In either case the ability to
> > use the paint well is a prerequisite.
>
> Ha! But that's not exactly the case in modern art; there are plenty of
> famous modern artists that paint mediocre at best.
Ha.. Ha! But, I am not talking about ones technical skills, but rather ones
ability to use paint creatively. Some styles of abstract modern art doesn't
require the technical skill that was attained by the classical masters. That
doesn't mean they are not good painters.
>
>
> But in the latter case, a pre-formed
> > idea is not necessary.
>
> An idea is not a concept.
Websters Dictionary:
Idea - a thought; mental CONCEPTion or image; notion
Roget's Thesaurus:
Ideah - thought, CONCEPT, notion; opinion; belief
Go back to school.
>
>
>
> > The same is with poetry. You, among others in this NG, like everything
> > spelled out for you within the poem.
>
> You're quite a psychologist, aren't you?
Why, because I stated something that is obvious?
>
> While I, and many others, like an
> > abstract quality to poetry.
>
> I like abstract quality too, but haven't seen any in your work.
That's funny - everbody in this NG who comments on it says that it is.
>
> > Its all a matter of taste and open-mindedness.
>
> It's all a matter of poetry.
It's all a matter of losing your inhibitions.
Aidan Tynan
>Yes, if clarity and meaning are the goals of the artist - Like I said, to
>the abstract artist the goals are different. The goal is not clarity and
>meaning - that would be a contridiction now wouldn't it. the subject of
>abstract art, in any form is to be created in the mind of the person who is
>observing it.
If that were the case, then no movement in abstract painting in the last 60
years or so could have been maintained, not to mention that the goal of any
artist is to bring to attention in the mind of the viewer certain facts or
potentialities regarding the universe.
-Aidan
Martijn Benders
SiXWiNGS wrote:
> > Nope. You are completely wrong, since clarity and meaning are attributes
> > that one can attain in any medium and any style.
>
> Yes, if clarity and meaning are the goals of the artist - Like I said, to
> the abstract artist the goals are different.
I find it quite amazing that you know so well what the goals of zillions
of abstract painters are.
The goal is not clarity and
> meaning - that would be a contridiction now wouldn't it.
Getting rid of objects is rather a way of clearing than obscuring.
the subject of
> abstract art, in any form is to be created in the mind of the person who is
> observing it.
And I suppose a Vermeer is the same to just anyone? This kind of
bullshit is just the worst kind of fluff one encounters when discussing
art with the naieve.
>
> > The work determines its meaning
> > itself, so it's impossible that 'it's meaning would be only known by the
> > artist' - that's just poppycock.
>
> Not true. I'm also a visual artist. I have made many pictures that have a
> personal meaning in them that no one else could know.
And who says that personal meaning is the real meaning of the work?
I think you are quite arrogant to suggest that you can determine the
meaning of a single work for entire humanity. Isn't it ironic that this
kind of bleeting comes from a person that also claims that everyone
should make his own painting when it comes to abstract art. Not that you
have any clue what 'abstract' would be.
> > > The same is with poetry. You, among others in this NG, like everything
> > > spelled out for you within the poem.
> >
> > You're quite a psychologist, aren't you?
>
> Why, because I stated something that is obvious?
You're an idiot, and a quite annoying idiot at that.
You should shut up or go vent elsewhere.
Martijn Benders
SiXWiNGS wrote:
> > Nope. You are completely wrong, since clarity and meaning are attributes
> > that one can attain in any medium and any style.
>
> Yes, if clarity and meaning are the goals of the artist - Like I said, to
> the abstract artist the goals are different.
I find it quite amazing that you know so well what the goals of zillions
of abstract painters are.
The goal is not clarity and
> meaning - that would be a contridiction now wouldn't it.
Getting rid of objects is rather a way of clearing than obscuring.
the subject of
> abstract art, in any form is to be created in the mind of the person who is
> observing it.
And I suppose a Vermeer is the same to just anyone? This kind of
bullshit is just the worst kind of fluff one encounters when discussing
art with the naieve.
>
> > The work determines its meaning
> > itself, so it's impossible that 'it's meaning would be only known by the
> > artist' - that's just poppycock.
>
> Not true. I'm also a visual artist. I have made many pictures that have a
> personal meaning in them that no one else could know.
And who says that personal meaning is the real meaning of the work?
I think you are quite arrogant to suggest that you can determine the
meaning of a single work for entire humanity. Isn't it ironic that this
kind of bleeting comes from a person that also claims that everyone
should make his own painting when it comes to abstract art. Not that you
have any clue what 'abstract' would be.
> > > The same is with poetry. You, among others in this NG, like everything
> > > spelled out for you within the poem.
> >
> > You're quite a psychologist, aren't you?
>
> Why, because I stated something that is obvious?
You're an idiot, and a quite annoying idiot at that.
You should shut up & go vent elsewhere.
Fernando
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> schreef in bericht
news:3B65ECA2...@chello.nl...
>
>
> SiXWiNGS wrote:
>
Why don't you two discuss Piet Mondriaan's "Art must be forgotten. Beauty
must be realised."
ie Art is recognised beauty
(recognised by more people the your mom and dad)
SiXWiNGS
The artist that creates the work can have his/her own personal meaning.
> I think you are quite arrogant to suggest that you can determine the
> meaning of a single work for entire humanity.
What in the world are you talking about?
The artist who makes the work definitely knows what the meaning of a work
is.
That is not arrogance, it is common sense.
> Isn't it ironic that this
> kind of bleeting comes from a person that also claims that everyone
> should make his own painting when it comes to abstract art.
Again, you are not making sense. I never said any such thing.
I said that interpretations may differ.
> Not that you
> have any clue what 'abstract' would be.
You forget, I'm the one who owns a Webster's Dictionary.
Abstract - 1. thought of apart from any particular instances or material
objects 2. expressing a quality so thought of 3. not easy to understand;
abstruse 4. theoretical; not practical or applied 5. ...art that does not
depict objects realistically....etc
>
>
> > > > The same is with poetry. You, among others in this NG, like
everything
> > > > spelled out for you within the poem.
> > >
> > > You're quite a psychologist, aren't you?
> >
> > Why, because I stated something that is obvious?
>
> You're an idiot, and a quite annoying idiot at that.
> You should shut up & go vent elsewhere.
Aaww... someone don't agree with you...
Now it's time to cry and call them names because your "rational" arguements
have reached there pitiful end.
SiXWiNGS
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:a8j97.20964$Fk7.2...@news.indigo.ie...
Yeah, facts and potentialities reguarding the universe are exactly the goal
of all abstract art.
Why, just the other day I wrote a poem about a fart...
I didn't post it though, because I was afraid that others would think it
stinks.
>
>
> -Aidan
>
>
>
>
Martijn Benders
SiXWiNGS wrote:
> > > Not true. I'm also a visual artist. I have made many pictures that have
> a
> > > personal meaning in them that no one else could know.
> >
> > And who says that personal meaning is the real meaning of the work?
>
> The artist that creates the work can have his/her own personal meaning.
Everyone can have a personal meaning with any artwork.
That says nothing of the value of a work of art to the cannon, or the
meaning of the work on its own.
> > I think you are quite arrogant to suggest that you can determine the
> > meaning of a single work for entire humanity.
>
> What in the world are you talking about?
> The artist who makes the work definitely knows what the meaning of a work
> is.
> That is not arrogance, it is common sense.
Those who like to call their own viewpoints 'common sense' are usually
pretty arrogant and pointless.
Janice
It has been my experience that an artist doesn't always *definitely know* the
where, the what and why, of the meaning of their creation(s).
Janice
>From: "SiXWiNGS"
>What in the world are you talking about?
>The artist who makes the work definitely knows what the meaning of a work
>is.
>That is not arrogance, it is common sense.
>"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote
>> I think you are quite arrogant to suggest that you can determine the
>> meaning of a single work for entire humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/jny.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
SiXWiNGS
>
>
> SiXWiNGS wrote:
>
> > > > Not true. I'm also a visual artist. I have made many pictures that
have
> > a
> > > > personal meaning in them that no one else could know.
> > >
> > > And who says that personal meaning is the real meaning of the work?
> >
> > The artist that creates the work can have his/her own personal meaning.
>
> Everyone can have a personal meaning with any artwork.
> That says nothing of the value of a work of art to the cannon, or the
> meaning of the work on its own.
Very true, I completely agree.
>
>
> > > I think you are quite arrogant to suggest that you can determine the
> > > meaning of a single work for entire humanity.
> >
> > What in the world are you talking about?
> > The artist who makes the work definitely knows what the meaning of a
work
> > is.
> > That is not arrogance, it is common sense.
>
> Those who like to call their own viewpoints 'common sense' are usually
> pretty arrogant and pointless.
Correction - I said that the artist "definitly knows", I meant to say that
he "definitely has the ability to know" the meaning of his/her own works.
This is not a viewpoint, it is a fact.
SiXWiNGS
"Janice" <softp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010731041623...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
> Hi SiXWiNGS,
> It has been my experience that an artist doesn't always *definitely
know* the
> where, the what and why, of the meaning of their creation(s).
>
> Janice
Your right.
When I said that the artist "definitly knows", I meant to say that he
"definitely has the ability to know" the meaning of his/her own works.
Thank you.
gnarl
--
Poetry stolen by Charles Lysaght:
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/plagiarism.htm
(page recently updated)
AAPC FAQ and Resources
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
> I have heard of the mythological muses. Surely your not talking about
> that...
>
He is indeed.
On the other hand, I think they can be responsible for hooker
visits(in the name of art, of course).
g.
gnarl
Handbook.
It might be time for another injection?
g.
--
Poetry stolen by Charles Lysaght:
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/plagiarism.htm
(page recently updated)
AAPC FAQ and Resources
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3B647803...@chello.nl...
>
>
> SiXWiNGS wrote:
>
>
> > So what is "The Muse" then, some sort of spirit?
>
> Most certainly not. Yeats made that mistake, and look where he ended up.
>
> > Or is it part of some scientific theory about the make-up of the mind
like
> > the ego or the id?
>
> Nope. Poets should not be overly concerned with any such nonsense.
>
>
> >
> > I have heard of the mythological muses. Surely your not talking about
> > that...
>
> Every branch of art and science has it's own Muse. It is not a spirit,
> god or anything like that but rather something really mysterious and
> secret. Most mythologies are a bit like outdated maps into the
> metaphysical, but The Muse is a better guide.
gnarl
g.
--
Poetry stolen by Charles Lysaght:
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/plagiarism.htm
(page recently updated)
AAPC FAQ and Resources
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3B650F0C...@cableone.net...
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Martijin is quoting just a little to closely to the AAPC Official Cabal
> Handbook.
> It might be time for another injection?
>
> g.
>
> --
> Poetry stolen by Charles Lysaght:
> http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/plagiarism.htm
> (page recently updated)
>
> AAPC FAQ and Resources
> http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
>
> "Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:3B647803...@chello.nl...
> >
> >
> > SiXWiNGS wrote:
> >
> >
> > > So what is "The Muse" then, some sort of spirit?
> >
> > Most certainly not. Yeats made that mistake, and look where he ended up.
> >
> > > Or is it part of some scientific theory about the make-up of the mind
> like
> > > the ego or the id?
> >
> > Nope. Poets should not be overly concerned with any such nonsense.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have heard of the mythological muses. Surely your not talking about
> > > that...
> >
> > Every branch of art and science has it's own Muse. It is not a spirit,
> > god or anything like that but rather something really mysterious and
> > secret. Most mythologies are a bit like outdated maps into the
> > metaphysical, but The Muse is a better guide.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
--
>^,,^<
If the pieces are only put back in the box,
life is a zero-sum game.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> But rewrites can be a real bitch in phtography sometimes.
>
> g.
gnarl
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3B8E396F...@cableone.net...
> gnarl wrote:
> >
> > Martijin is quoting just a little to closely to the AAPC Official Cabal
> > Handbook.
> > It might be time for another injection?
> >
> > g.
> >
> Injecting a signal into a Cabal Service? Isn't that illegal?
>
> > --
Live dangerous sometimes, Dennis.
g.
Paul Daly
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> Injecting a signal into a Cabal Service? Isn't that illegal?
I dunno - depends if you've been sharing needles with the Rosicrucians....
Jim Sheard
>But rewrites can be a real bitch in phtography sometimes.
I dunno about this - you can always go back to the darkroom to reframe
and play with exposure. It's years since I did any photography, but I
remember that interrupting regions of the enlarger beam with fingers
or bits of card can dramatically redefine contrast and effect. I'm
not sure if/how you could do this with colour exposures.
Jim
--
http://www.jsheard.co.uk/poetry
texts and sound files
Mikel Potts
(in message <LwOOOzbzfBq28j=HjYMQA...@4ax.com>):
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:16:48 -0700, "gnarl" <gn...@olypen.xcom> wrote:
>
>> But rewrites can be a real bitch in phtography sometimes.
>
> I dunno about this - you can always go back to the darkroom to reframe
> and play with exposure. It's years since I did any photography, but I
> remember that interrupting regions of the enlarger beam with fingers
> or bits of card can dramatically redefine contrast and effect. I'm
> not sure if/how you could do this with colour exposures.
>
> Jim
Cheat. Put it in a good scanner (1200 dpi optical at least)
then destroy it as many times as you want. If you really
want to spend money, you can bypass the print and get a negative
scanner (slides too). The only chemical you need is silicon.
Mikel
gnarl
Still, one can't beat paper and pencil for sheer simplicity.
g.
"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LwOOOzbzfBq28j=HjYMQA...@4ax.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.274 / Virus Database: 144 - Release Date: 8/23/01
Dennis M. Hammes
Heh. It was sort of my point. Jim is writing of "dodge" and "burn,"
however (which can be done in color quite as well as b/w), and I don't
know of a "photo editor" that has solved those in sillycon as yet,
however they allow one to go 'way too far too often with color change,
solarisation, posterising, etc.
--
>^,,^<
There are many intelligent species in the universe.
They are all owned by cats.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Still, one can't beat paper and pencil for sheer simplicity.
>
> g.
For pomes, or for naked ladies?
I concur in either case.
Mikel Potts
(in message <3B99180E...@ideaone.net>):
There isn't much that you can't do with a high end editor
like Adobe PhotoShop. I only have the cheap LE version,
and within the limits of the picture I start with, I've
had no trouble adjusting portions of the photo. The hard
part is getting the information into the computer. The
digitizing process does not yet match the range and
subtlety of the human eye, in my experience. Of course,
neither does film. Transitions between the two always
lose a bit more, sometimes leaving the would be artist
with too little to work with.
Disclaimer: I've only dabbled in photography, so the actual
range and limitations of both modes are beyond my direct
experience.
Mikel
JAS Carter
Potts <pewt...@earthlink.net> warbled oh so charmingly:
>There isn't much that you can't do with a high end editor
>like Adobe PhotoShop. I only have the cheap LE version,
>and within the limits of the picture I start with, I've
>had no trouble adjusting portions of the photo. The hard
>part is getting the information into the computer. The
>digitizing process does not yet match the range and
>subtlety of the human eye, in my experience. Of course,
>neither does film. Transitions between the two always
>lose a bit more, sometimes leaving the would be artist
>with too little to work with.
>
>Disclaimer: I've only dabbled in photography, so the actual
>range and limitations of both modes are beyond my direct
>experience.
Photoshop can do some amazing things, indeed, though I have only up to
5.0. Do I see 6.0 on my horizon? Do I? Do I?
Julie Carter
--
Good link: http://www.aldaily.com/
Mikel Potts
(in message <3ba22c3a...@news.supernews.com>):
> Photoshop can do some amazing things, indeed, though I have only up to
> 5.0. Do I see 6.0 on my horizon? Do I? Do I?
Can you afford to go that far in debt? I want it, but can't justify
the expence just for the bit of picture twidling I do. Of course
all you have to pay for is the upgrade, a measly $199.
I love my LE version though. I've used other cheap editors, but
this one always seems to do what I want.
Mikel