User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 96

  1. #31
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clownmaster View Post
    That actually makes heaps of sense. It's fine to analyse art, but a lot of high school English teachers just fish for stuff that isn't there. A good metaphor, a good symbol should be powerful. It should be plain for intellectuals to understand. Like I appreciate the statue of liberty as a metaphor because its delivery is so simple. It's a woman (a historically under-appreciated group) holding a torch (a symbol of power). You can understand why it's called the statue of liberty just from looking at it. Sometimes people over-analyse the wrong parts in a work of art and just make up shit the creator had no intention of conveying, and they hence miss what's really trying to be said.
    Chimera of Filth

    A gruesome beast with dripping flesh
    Clings to me as a sick fixture
    My throbbing heart it gnawed apart
    It stalks and hunts me through mirrors

  2. #32
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Mocking the Virgin Mary

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    I appreciate the statue of liberty as a metaphor because its delivery is so simple. It's a woman (a historically under-appreciated group) holding a torch (a symbol of power). You can understand why it's called the statue of liberty just from looking at it. Sometimes people over-analyse the wrong parts in a work of art and just make up shit the creator had no intention of conveying, and they hence miss what's really trying to be said.
    Oh please! The Statue of Liberty is a copy of a statue of a prostitute enthroned in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris during the French Revolution in order to mock the Virgin Mary.

  3. #33
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Oh please! The Statue of Liberty is a copy of a statue of a prostitute enthroned in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris during the French Revolution in order to mock the Virgin Mary.
    ?
    Chimera of Filth

    A gruesome beast with dripping flesh
    Clings to me as a sick fixture
    My throbbing heart it gnawed apart
    It stalks and hunts me through mirrors

  4. #34
    Symbolic Herald Vasilisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,128

    Exclamation

    *mod note: Off topic discussion moved to its own thread.*
    the formless thing which gives things form!
    Found Forum Haiku Project


    Positive Spin | your feedback welcomed | Darker Criticism

  5. #35
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    That actually makes heaps of sense. It's fine to analyse art, but a lot of high school English teachers just fish for stuff that isn't there. A good metaphor, a good symbol should be powerful. It should be plain for intellectuals to understand. Like I appreciate the statue of liberty as a metaphor because its delivery is so simple. It's a woman (a historically under-appreciated group) holding a torch (a symbol of power). You can understand why it's called the statue of liberty just from looking at it. Sometimes people over-analyse the wrong parts in a work of art and just make up shit the creator had no intention of conveying, and they hence miss what's really trying to be said.
    Yes this is it exactly!

    Modern poetry, for the most part, is a dead art. Modern poets mostly write for other poets. News-flash for poets: if non-poets can't get the poetry then it sucks. Also most people's impression of poetry comes from analyzing the meaning in English class. This completely misses the point.

    Poetry is not meant to be read. It is meant to be heard. It should be spoken out loud with feeling. Poetry is meant to be somewhat like watching a monologue. In depth analysis of a poem = FAIL for most classes. This will not make you appreciate a poem. Analysis is really only for people who want to actually be poets. Appreciation, on the other hand, comes from listening to it out loud. If a non-poet has to do an in-depth analysis to understand the poem then it sucks.

    The beatniks had it right when they were doing poetry readings. That is how poems were meant to be experienced. Langston Hughes, for example, mades some good poetry, because the power of his words hits you as you listen to it out loud. English classes have sucked all the enjoyment out of poetry though the same way they've sucked the life out of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not literature. It's meant to be performed in a play. (Bill Shakespeare didn't even write out coherent scripts. They were just fragments that people compiled later.) Likewise poetry is not meant to be read. It's meant to be heard by someone who is speaking with emotional power.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #36
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vasilisa View Post
    [YOUTUBE="PSf6wmR0AkY"]Negative Capability[/YOUTUBE]
    Such a guilty pleasure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #37
    Lay the coin on my tongue SilkRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Yes this is it exactly!

    Modern poetry, for the most part, is a dead art. Modern poets mostly write for other poets. News-flash for poets: if non-poets can't get the poetry then it sucks. Also most people's impression of poetry comes from analyzing the meaning in English class. This completely misses the point.

    Poetry is not meant to be read. It is meant to be heard. It should be spoken out loud with feeling. Poetry is meant to be somewhat like watching a monologue. In depth analysis of a poem = FAIL for most classes. This will not make you appreciate a poem. Analysis is really only for people who want to actually be poets. Appreciation, on the other hand, comes from listening to it out loud. If a non-poet has to do an in-depth analysis to understand the poem then it sucks.

    The beatniks had it right when they were doing poetry readings. That is how poems were meant to be experienced. Langston Hughes, for example, mades some good poetry, because the power of his words hits you as you listen to it out loud. English classes have sucked all the enjoyment out of poetry though the same way they've sucked the life out of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not literature. It's meant to be performed in a play. (Bill Shakespeare didn't even write out coherent scripts. They were just fragments that people compiled later.) Likewise poetry is not meant to be read. It's meant to be heard by someone who is speaking with emotional power.
    But this is not an entire perspective. It's fine if that is your way of appreciating poetry, but you should realise that there are many of us who come at it from different directions. I love hearing poetry spoken well out loud and there are poems which are best appreciated that way. (I am working on an anthology currently of poems which speak well, for examinations in reciting poetry aloud.) There are equally (or even more) marvellous poems which are best read silently to oneself. It's different approaches, different styles. I can't see how you can make a blanket statement like "poetry is not meant to be read." Some of us appreciate it most by a combination of analysis and enthusiasm. It works well for me. The best poetry touches me both emotionally and intellectually. It is a complex experience which is also totally intuitive and instinctive. That's what makes it so great.

    There are so many poems which I've appreciated a bit when I've read them quickly on a surface level - then when I've spent some more time unpacking, looking at it from different directions, etc I appreciate it far, far more.

    Plus - are you saying that Shakespeare didn't come up with plots/characters for his plays and other people put them together from little bits and pieces he'd written?
    Female
    INFJ
    Enneagram 6w5 sp/sx


    I DOORSLAMMING

  8. #38
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkRoad View Post
    But this is not an entire perspective. It's fine if that is your way of appreciating poetry, but you should realise that there are many of us who come at it from different directions. I love hearing poetry spoken well out loud and there are poems which are best appreciated that way. (I am working on an anthology currently of poems which speak well, for examinations in reciting poetry aloud.) There are equally (or even more) marvellous poems which are best read silently to oneself. It's different approaches, different styles. I can't see how you can make a blanket statement like "poetry is not meant to be read." Some of us appreciate it most by a combination of analysis and enthusiasm. It works well for me. The best poetry touches me both emotionally and intellectually. It is a complex experience which is also totally intuitive and instinctive. That's what makes it so great.
    I agree that everyone will have their own preferences and modes of appreciation re. any sort of artform; that what speaks to one person will not speak to another, and that people will interpret in different ways, will access in different ways, will be impacted in different ways. However, for myself, poetry will never be how you or others in this thread describe it can be or is 'intended' to be. I can attempt to intellectually appreciate it, and can be..almost envious? , although that's not the right word (curious/intrigued, certainly), of those who it DOES speak to, because I wonder what that must be like - but it doesn't actually reach me on any other level and I am quite happy once I am done 'having' to be exposed to it.

    I don't intend for this to be a judgment against it, because it's not; it's simply a fact that I don't care for it and it's never spoken to me on any level, really. No amount of classwork or exposure to it will cause me to spontaneously start wanting to access it. There are just many other avenues - other written mediums, music, other artforms, the world itself - that speaks to me much more powerfully and really draws me in. So yeah, to each their own - all of us are going to have different perspectives on it.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  9. #39
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    I dislike the way people dismiss poetry offhand, and say: herpa derp, there's no way the author sat down and wrote all that obscure stuff on purpose, this is just another useless lesson. Dem teachers made me use my brain fer nuthin'!

    Of course they didn't sit down and write all that weird stuff on purpose. If the purpose of all poetry was to express yourself as directly as possible, Beckett would have just said: "Damn, I'm lonely. And so is everyone else." Wordsworth would have said: "Trees are pretty. They make me happy." And Joyce would have said: "Look at me! I'm the best author ever! Everyone come read about how great I am!" And so, and so on.

    You're not experiencing the subtlety of each message that a direct explanation could accomplish. You can't replicate some of the most complex feelings and ideas of human experience by just saying your message outright. The poem need to be ambiguous enough that people can put themselves into it, but not so ambiguous that it loses all shape or meaning. So to approach the creative process in such a self-conscious, direct way would sterilize its potency.

    There's poetic nonsense, and then there's nonsense nonsense. The contents of our unconscious psyche seemed nonsensical, but I think our buddy Jung (among others) have managed to convince us that it is not the case. Even if the meaning isn't always apparent to the conscious mind, it doesn't mean it is meaningless.

    Reading poetry like watching clouds, and saying what they look like. Except these clouds can reduce you to tears, make you laugh, or fundamentally alter the way you perceive the world.

    You bring as much to the text as the author does. There's something to be said for "creative reading". Even if the poet himself says it's supposed to be about something in particular, it doesn't mean your interpretation is bad. It's like a repurposed invention: Play-doh was originally supposed to be some sort of wall cleaner, China was using gun powder for fireworks, and the internet, intended as some sort of information network is now a convenient source of free porn. Maybe your repurposed meaning adds something to a reading of the poem. Maybe it's kind of stupid. Or maybe it's even better than the original.

    Poetry isn't some fucking nutshell you can just force open to obtain its contents. But trust me, there is something worthwhile inside of it. Do you REALLY think after all these years and after all these poems that everyone is just pretending that poetry matters to them?

  10. #40
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkRoad View Post
    But this is not an entire perspective. It's fine if that is your way of appreciating poetry, but you should realise that there are many of us who come at it from different directions. I love hearing poetry spoken well out loud and there are poems which are best appreciated that way. (I am working on an anthology currently of poems which speak well, for examinations in reciting poetry aloud.) There are equally (or even more) marvellous poems which are best read silently to oneself. It's different approaches, different styles. I can't see how you can make a blanket statement like "poetry is not meant to be read." Some of us appreciate it most by a combination of analysis and enthusiasm. It works well for me. The best poetry touches me both emotionally and intellectually. It is a complex experience which is also totally intuitive and instinctive. That's what makes it so great.

    There are so many poems which I've appreciated a bit when I've read them quickly on a surface level - then when I've spent some more time unpacking, looking at it from different directions, etc I appreciate it far, far more.
    Hey it's great that you enjoy poetry that way. However the vast majority of people do not enjoy poetry at all. Furthermore I am saying it doesn't have to be that way. Poetry was not always a dead art form, but that is what it is today. That is because poetry is only written to be enjoyed by other poets. I have the same criticism of painting as an art. Modern paintings are only meant to be enjoyed by other artists. If a non-poet enjoys poetry or a non-painter enjoys a modern painting it is something of an accident.

    I could contrast this with music or film which are art forms that are still very alive. A person does not have to a musician or filmmaker in order to enjoy these media.

    Plus - are you saying that Shakespeare didn't come up with plots/characters for his plays and other people put them together from little bits and pieces he'd written?
    The exact methodology is not known. Most likely he had a good idea of how the play should go. Then he gave each actor their lines only (plus the line of the actor speaking just before). This is different from today where an actor will get a complete copy of the script. In Shakespeare's day there was no complete copy of the script. There were only the fragments that each actor had.

    Many years later people started writing coherent scripts and they tried putting Shakespeare's scripts together from the old fragments. It can sometimes be difficult to put the play together just from these script fragments. There are at least 3 different versions of Hamlet out there each with a different length and sometimes putting scenes in entirely different places. I personally find it ironic that this is the sort of thing that is being studied as literature.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-06-2016, 07:37 AM
  2. Poetry of the Depressed and Existentially Challenged
    By Anja in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-11-2014, 05:47 AM
  3. random question because it's thursday and I'm curious
    By prplchknz in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-04-2011, 01:44 AM
  4. So unpopular it becomes popular and other political quirks
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-14-2010, 06:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO