atican In reply to madhs [2004-12-21 04:12:22 +0000 UTC]

Don't take the following personally. It is only directed at your poem (or any inspirations thereof).

Simply put, art is not a disguise, but that's what many 'poets' use it for. It provides an opportunity for them to express an inauthentic 'self' from which they derive their nonsensical and self-deceptive poetic inspiration.

Art does not hide meaning. The intention of a poet is not to prevent his audience from achieving a genuine understanding of his poetry. Poetry should not be comprised of a bunch of ambiguous metaphors and random, sporadic references and language that have no coherence with either the poem itself or life generally. It is not your intention to make your poems imbued with as many hidden meanings and as much discordant, impertinent language as humanly possible as though it were a criterion for good poetry.

In terms of your own poem, it incessantly repeats lines that were never given a context, that were never explicated, and that have no pertinence to each other. "Gentle reminder, that all is not lost"--how does this follow from "ink splattered knees." Am I some misinformed, nescient, unartistic fool because I can't recognize that this means something?

It means nothing. You think repeating these little lines in different combinations makes it a novel poetic device. It doesn't. "Color soaked air," "Air, confession soaked." I'm sorry, but it's hard to contain giggling when reading something like that.

You don't know how to employ language as a tool for conveying meaning. This is what poets are for. They mold and manipulate words as though they were tangible objects, and they can make even the most ugly of experiences or ideas beautiful. The mechanism behind poetry, in that sense, is perennial. That is why we still read Thoreau, Emerson, and Poe--true poets without some perverted idea of poetry needing to be hidden, ambiguous, and in your case, turpentine induced. Their poetry is not vain. It does not attempt to be profound, like yours. It simply is.

The ones who give you the nice little comments are victims of their own self-deception. They like to tell themselves they are artists, often tortured ones, who are outcasted from society, but who hold on to some misanthropic artistic grace that permits them an understanding of poetry that is otherwise meaningless to the lot of humanity. Others may just want to give the impression that they understand so that they can appear to be aesthetes with a genuine artistic sense. The more meaningless, the more wonderful comments you'll get. Consider them indications of when to start over.

You probably won't admit it, but all you really care about is how your audience will react to your poetry. That is where you get your gratification--not in the poetry itself. There can be no gratification from writing about such a trivial and unattractive (at least from my perspective) experience. Vanity is your only muse, but it's a maturation process. It's amazing how well you can discern someone's age from their writing.

A definition of 'good' art? I don't believe your poem can qualify as art. Sorry to be so "harsh," as you pointed out, which I am. Perhaps as you mature artistically, you'll take criticism more objectively. That's your entire problem, isn't it? Art is by no means objective, but yours is so utterly subjective it precludes meaning all together. I bear no personal malice towards you. I just want to give you a kick in your complacency--something everyone needs at some point (especially art students). Whether or not you agree now, you'll eventually look back at this poem and smile to yourself. Until then, good luck.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

madhs In reply to atican [2004-12-21 06:43:36 +0000 UTC]

Firstly, Nothing here is turpentine induced. Any person who paints (and most of the people I interact with here on DA do) knows the immediate association of turpentine to color, which is oil paints. The people who read this when it was first posted are more then aware of the entire context of this particular piece. What I find surprising is that you lash out without understanding the context of the piece. Sure, it may seem obscure to you who's just stepped in now, but not to people who've been involved with me and my work for the past one year. You're not a "misinformed, nescient, unartistic fool", but just someone new.

Hmmm...here's another thing. All writing is not obliged to be self explanatory. In fact, there's enough poetry that's driven and drawn from entirely personal experiences, and thus, is an extremely (to the point of being 'obscure') subjective expression. Take a gander through any Beat poetry, or read Sylvia Plath, or even Morrison. Its their personal expression, that the reader chooses to associate with. At no time does the writing itself bear the burden of establishing context...

No-one is posing as a poet. I also write. That's about it, and this, is one such end product. I'm not upset at the 'harshness' of the comment, but just the total unwillingness to explore the context of the piece. I'd imagine, given your obvious intelligence (and I don't mean that sarcastically), that you wouldn't be so black and white about things around you. True, there are a lot of things which strike me as trivial, but I make that distinction extremely clear; that's it's only my opinion and not necessarily the way it actually is.

To assume that my real aim is to get a reaction from the DA audience is ridiculous on your part, because you have no idea about my work. And umh... no, I'm not a angst ridden teenager out for instant gratification kicks. That's two assumptions of yours that I will disregard.

As for a kick in my complacency... what complacency? Again, you have no idea what my work is and what its about... so what are you pretending to have this insight into?

If nothing else, this has been an interesting dialog. And no, I don't bear you any malice either. That's why no comments in this note have been directed against you. Just some of your attitudes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0