|
|
Reply
| |
3 Views of Art
So blatantly I see this eternity stretched out like a way fuckin limp rag and the backwards glance so blatantly so. and those lip s so red and luscious with each and every word... you were saying afore I skinneed we weree entirely out of boundaries and there I found a world so empty of my own I could not help but love you. *** And in it I saw reality not a simple request and saw a reflection across the hall in the mirror I squared my jaw (up to myself seeing as only self can see) and with assured vigour and decency said. do you mind...” And on my Eroica’s lips a shine of promise to spend my quarter seeing beauty shine. *** Here in the late motets we stare amidst the shadows and listen to the strings reach their uncertain crescendo and settle us like rain into the bows of each
|
|
Reply
| | From: _susan_ | Sent: 4/17/2003 4:02 AM |
howmanynames is a good question. but as far as Views on Art - there are way more than 3. the view depends on the time - historical period - and it also depends on locationlocationlocation. the East? or the West? & above, or below, the Equator. views on "Art" are mercurial. nice poems, not crummie at all. |
|
Reply
| |
The impetus for the essay was as the title implies, it is a criticism of sorts, experiential at best, maudlin at worst, the basis for the thought was a book by the NYC times classical music critic from the 50's, he said something about art being 'deed' but it has been about six years since I read it and my notes are no longer clear, so I abandoned it. What I was left with is more of a Jungian exploration into the ages of man and what art means in a personal historical sense I believe I would add about three parts between the first and second stanzas were I to redux this one...
thanks for the compliment, on this board, it means something to me... |
|
Reply
| | From: Landon1 | Sent: 4/19/2003 2:11 PM |
Howymenymyns -? Were you going for Jonathan Swift or Johnny Quest? Both are cartoonish - so it doesn't matter. But you were correct to construct your poem in fragments. Eliot finally realized he couldn't unify "The Wasteland" in the conventional sense; therefore, he did what he did best . . . he "convinced" us there was a precision to his masterpiece by straining it to book-length so that he could include his notes. What a marketing genius! ---- He gave us the answers to the test! But, he had to . . . Can you imagine the e-mail? I think Hart Crane needed a better press agent. His "Bridge" would have survived the storm of criticism which so unkindly sent it crashing as soon as he had driven the last rivet. But, I will give this brilliant lush his due: He defended every word masterfully. I read his letters to Harriet Monroe, and although I think his explanations were simply "invented" after the composition, he was convincing. So, you want to join this group whose "sweep" is meant to overwhelm us? Very bold, Prof. Wouldn't Bloom say something cranky like . . . "The Professor cannot enlighten us with epic surprise since he, too, is startled by his own conclusion of literary history." Or, maybe not. I will say that you have either a lot of time, or a lot of notes scattered about the house. In any case, the thought of such a task sends me running to my Batman archive. One needs to unwind with light mythology, don't you know? Good luck. Landon |
|
Reply
| |
Again in my mind, to get some hopeful understanding of this three part poem, I had to view the title and the word Art as Love ( holding the meaning that love is art for it is how you apreciate it and wether you can enjoy it's beauty. ) Yet, can one recognize its beauty? Well, with the three tips you have shared with us, you give one hope in recognizeing its form in " 3 views of Art." The first section; Hopelessly in Love The second section; For twenty five years holding self and the others beauty at best. The third section; When what appears from outsiders that all the beauty is gone, it has actually arrived at it's ut most form decifered only as music to the two loves ears. Even though you may have other directions with your words above, I can see it total from title to the last line in this manner. Making this an interesting poem and well written to me. From, Enchantress |
|
Reply
| | From: _susan_ | Sent: 4/20/2003 12:22 AM |
from For the Marriage of Faustus and Helen (1923) just to clarify the Crane quote. |
|
Reply
| |
Landon,
To say that I am ambitious with The Word is to say nothing, to say that I know something about the word, again is to say nothing, to say I know nothing, now that is to say something. Oh, Swift, I never saw Johnny Quest.
Oh steel cognizance who's leap commits...
Most of my literate friends say I am too much a lover of dead white canonical guys, is modern exploration into the notion of poetics dead? I admit to ascribing to elevated notions of consciousness regarding poetic metaphor. To invent my own exploration of meaning after the fact; to take a love song and twist it to my own ends somehow made sense. The essay was too bombastic, didactic, and just plain silly. I must be insane and megalomaniacal, because I still am a fan of Robinson and Swineburne, though would never admit it to anybody, face to face. "Because we do not justify the words, for the word is lazy...these small children of thought lie in the rutting road." But most of all, I agree with your assesment of Bloom's thought. Although, in humoring myself I might challenge him to a duel with rapiers. But not really, the last stanza is very carefully controlled, 13, 6, 8, 12, almost approaching itself, but not quite. Count it out , look at the placement of the beats, the 'plain language' and read it flowingly, Eroica could do no better, unless she tried. For not to attempt is not to succeed, even though to attempt is to fail. I am very familiar with this concept. Is this worth adding to, in your opinion. I have four other stanzas written, but the jumps seem less important, or shocking when included. I have waffled with this one for quite some time. Enough with the bullshit, the important thing is that you dig out Komandi - Last Boy On Earth and give up the Batman stuff, save the early Stan Lee stuff. Then reread The Watchmen, a graphic novel. Now that's the stuff... I had a friend who owned a Comic Book Lending Library, he had an operation and I watched it for him while he recuperated, myth re-interpreted , now that's the stuff.
Thank You
Sue,
Thanks, you are like the coach that can heal a broken leg on the field in mid-game.
Enchantress,
Your readings are so far from my intentions that I truly enjoy them. Make stuff up or interpret it in your own fashion and I will still enjoy it. |
|
Reply
| | From: mailman | Sent: 11/8/2003 2:48 PM |
Views The window glass is fogged with steam thick with circumstance wiped to expose a view with which to pry the lid, a view with definite borders to assuage the vertigo of as-far-as-the-eye-can-see. They bend to the politics of the bleachers, the safety of the front door and the ivy in its frame; their paths worn through the cornfields, forked and spurred by the charge of Pound: To make it new. To Bloom’s binoculars we can toast the cure for myopic trope and hmmm a little louder with an index finger on our temple bone. How diminutive it has become from the sixth floor with the curtain drawn, and how simple it is, to finally endure when no one’s tinkered with the elevator.
Damn, these bleachers are crowded—hey you in front—please sit down. |
|
Reply
| | From: _susan_ | Sent: 11/9/2003 5:41 AM |
i believe it is a mistake to classify art. to divide it into categories. ........................................................................ each piece must be viewed as an entity unto itself. great artists can have so-so & bad days. and bad artists can enjoy a few great ones. the key is to know as much about art as you possibly can, all forms - for me, it's the history and development and symbolism that appeals. i like to see the extraordinary in the ordinary take shape. then i choose for myself that which elevates and awakens me. brings it all into being. whatever that is; i like to listen to informed opinions, then form my own. i say, think for yourself: view or listen closely to what you see on a canvas or a page or in a piece of music. know that expression. know all that came before, and what may follow. susan |
|
Reply
| | From: _susan_ | Sent: 11/9/2003 11:38 PM |
finally, does it touch you. |
|
Reply
| | From: mailman | Sent: 11/10/2003 2:39 AM |
Yes, in the ribs when I laugh, in the gut when I cry and in the seat of my pants when I wonder. I don't think this has been about classification or in the case of Helen's thread, about definition. To quote, out of context, from the Prof's original piece: "...we were entirely out of boundaries and there I found a world so empty..." It is the naming of things we so feverishly attend. The identification of boundaries, fences, processes are the grist of the development of any work.You quite rightly direct that we need to think for ourselves and I submit that that is what happens as we name a thing like meter or prose or rhyme for a day, for the moment. I am pretty sure that yesterday, what I was able to read or see was defined by yesterday's ability to understand, yesterday's ability to apply the tools of comprehension I possesed at the time. Through exposure to other's opinion and criticism, I expect to read and see differently tomorrow. We are never alone in the bleachers and are enevitably enfluenced by those in front, to our right or left. Today I can read Lowell with a limited but often surprising sense of having "gotten" something: Sounds twisting an emotion, a jamming of words that suddenly are so apt, I could not have imagined it described in any other way. This is today. Four years ago I would turn a page and not a damn thing would happen, not even a hmmm. So what changed? The work is the same, nothing about its classification has changed, no new rules disecting prose from poetry have come to light. The author is dead, so he hasn't been meddling with it. What changed is what we bring to the reading, what we have learned of the fences, of the lights, the sounds and the boundaries. Often we even explore what is not said. Willie Mays was once asked how he was able to catch all those seemingly impossible balls flying into the outfields. He answered that the fence made it easy. It created a reference that helped him judge where the ball was going. I think attempts to name, define, rearrange and even momentarily glorify, help explore and uncover new ways to hear, to see, to think. I never learned anything by reading something with which I agreed. Or at least it seems that way today. larry |
|
Reply
| | From: _susan_ | Sent: 11/10/2003 5:17 AM |
yes, larry. we do bring something. experience. that changes daily. and what is meaningful at one point in our lives, may not be so in a different light: on a different day. or in a different place. that timeline of living - has an infinite number of points. but it is a curved line, bell-shaped -- not linearstraight. nomenclature helps us recognize what we see on a page. humans have this habit. we like to name things. we build words. we love words. that does not make it art. Yes, in the ribs when I laugh, in the gut when I cry and in the seat of my pants when I wonder. then, perhaps what you read, hear, see is more fully language...& at the same time is no longer language.... what changed in four years? you did, larry.. but so did the world. |
|
Reply
| |
So, again, with the Tale Of The Pear Tree... So long since it first bore fruit, and so long since, so few times in the telling, no sense, like leaves drifting down on a body with nothing between God and the Nude, but the sun... Leaves from that pear tree as it took up root and went its way on up... You know the tale entails a dear, dear friend, and at some points, just a random unknown... |
|
Reply
| | From: _susan_ | Sent: 7/3/2006 11:23 PM |
just out of curiosity - which Pear Tree tale are you referring to? enquiring minds want to know. |
|
|
|