-
I was reading the thread on "emo" poetry, and I was tempted to reply to some of the comments, but since most of them were old, I refrained. Instead, I figured I'd just pour my thoughts into a new thread.
Emotions are not the base for poetry. Emotion does not make poetry good. You don't need emotion to be a good poet, and being a good poet does not mean that you're emotional. Those of you who've seen me post in similar topics when I was active know my stance. I think that it may be time to have a thread for this specific topic.
Lets look at the origin of art. You know where it started? In the west, it was the church. The goddam church. And you know what? Back then, making art for pleasure was considered a sinful vice. There were three categories of art: heavenly, worshiping, and worldly. Often we consider acts of artisanship to be art, but that was not part of the schema back then.
Heavenly art was God's art. The movement of the planets was music, and the colors were His painting. Worshiping art was art directed towards God. This was art meant to praise God and understand His universe (art theory back then held that by understanding art, you could understand science). Worldly art was vice. It was pornography, and the opinion at the time was that it all was pornography if it did not have a proper purpose.
You may ask why I am bringing this up, since it is clear that opinions have changed. To put it simply, it's to prove that art and emotion are not joined at the hip. In its creation in the western world, emotion was FORBIDDEN in art. Instead, art was supposed to reflect science, and theology, and philosophy. For example, musical intervals were believed at one point to be the same as the intervals between the planets and the earth. Music and astronomy heavily overlapped. If you walked into a musician's home, you would find a starmap.
I do not believe that emotion should be completely separated from art. I will say that emotion is a great source of inspiration. However, I believe that the presence of emotions is not necessary for art, and that other sources of inspiration are just as viable. Many works of art produced at that time are still revered today. This is not because of their emotion, but rather for their craftsmanship, and the thought put into it.
Anyway, that's my two cents, plus a few dimes. Discuss. -
I think that, in modern terms, the "art" does not come from the emotions of the artist, rather from the ability of the artist to evoke an emotional response from those who view/hear/read the artistic expression. I can't say when this switch in focus (from the religious to the secular response to art) occurred, but I know that I have a definite emotional response to Shakespeare, to da Vinci, and to certain pieces of classical music.
I have studied literature, and I can't say that much of what I have read that pre-dates Shakespeare has been very evocative. I have not studied music or visual arts, so I can't possibly remark with any authority (just from my limited personal experience of those particular artforms).
Having said all of that, I don't think that the emotional experience of the artist means anything at all - only insofar as it contributes to the ability to make art that is evocative. -
-
I would broaden the idea of the emotional response from the viewer to simply a response, since I think that evoking an intellectual response is also valid. Otherwise, I think you're spot on.
-
-
It's a dull view of poetry though (and of the world).
Emotion lends some life to writing. Without emotion (or the ability to evoke it) the poet might as well give up poetry and write workshop manuals. -
-
I don't know... "Life to writing" doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a very emotional person to begin with, and I do not respond to art in an emotional manner (I believe you and I have discussed this before, actually). I prefer simply to admire craftsmanship and depth of content. A well written poem about a philosophical observation is more interesting to me than any poem that's meant to make me emotional.
-
-
-
-
We're really concerned here in AP with poetry, but in my own personal vocabulary I think in terms of poetry and verse. Verse I think of as predominantly the manipulation of words to achieve an effect, using structure, rhyme, scansion, and all the minor techniques, such as alliteration, assonance, onomatopoeia and all that jazz. This is the region where wit can prevail. The skills one must develop to achieve good verse can then be exploited in the service of poetry; Wordsworth talked of "emotion recollected in tranquillity", that is to say emotion brought under control. Imagist poets talk of "showing, not telling", not telling you what to feel, but stating a situation in such a way as to cause you to feel it.
That's not easy. In fact, it can be extremely hard. But success becomes a real achievement. -
"Lets look at the origin of art. You know where it started? In the west, it was the church. The goddam church."
cave paintings? stone carvings? I don't think it was the 'kirk', it was people's understanding that they had to 'wait things out' in the winter, so they painted the animals they hoped to catch in the spring (I'm just guessing, btw) -
-
I was referring to art as an institution as opposed to an individual pursuit. That said, if you want to define cave paintings et cetera as art, then I can't disagree with you; it's just a difference in definition. Even then though, it wasn't supposed to be emotional anyway, but rather to transfer information, so my point still stands (not that you seem to be disagreeing with me).
-
-
I'm not familiar with art as an institution. Can you show me which institutes ever produced art, as opposed to individual artists?
-
-
Some artists should be in institutions (as should a lot of poets) perhaps Fluffers is refering to that?
-
That's not what I meant. >:| I didn't mean "institution" as in "organization" (although there are plenty of organizations, such as orchestras, that create art as a group and not an individual).
Rather, I meant as a notable human field of interest. Science is an institution. Religion is an institution. Philosophy is an institution. War/martial arts is an institution. Et cetera.
Science can be done by a single person, but it's not really science if he's the only person in the world who cares. Some institutions, such as war, are nonexistent without multiple parties.
In the same way, I would say that art is an institution rather than an individual pursuit because all art falls under some jurisdiction of some sort. Poetry, for example, is a literary art form defined by certain linguistic, stylistic, and presentation devices. When we read poetry, we recognize it as poetry because we as a group understand that something that has these devices is poetry. If someone were completely alone in the universe, he or she would never be capable of art, because only groups can create these sorts of constructs. -
-
You speak through a hole in your head.
'We' don't, and can't, read poetry. I can and do. You can and maybe do. But 'we' can't and don't.
-
-
Actually, "we" is perfectly capable. "We" is in fact necessary. An individual could never invent the construct of poetry alone, because poetry is lingual in nature, and language can only exist between people. Without "we", poetry would not exist.
-
-
You're changing your words now. You stated
When we read poetry, we recognize it as poetry because we as a group understand that something that has these devices is poetry.
I stated you were incorrect, that 'we' cannot read, and 'we' cannot understand as a group. You haven't shown me that I was wrong. You've shown me that you do not use your words with care.
Fluffy logic. -
-
I'm not changing my words, I'm clarifying what I mean.
Besides, you're the one who started the argument. You haven't shown that I'm wrong either, so it's not as if my side of the discussion is weaker than yours.
But since you requested a defense, I shall deliver.
Individuals create art, and individuals observe art. However, we define art as a society. Poetry is not poetry because it is innately poetry. "Poetry" is just a word. Words are just a sequences of letters. Letters are just sounds. "Poetry" only exists because we as a group call this thing that is empirically just a sequence of sounds "poetry". Therefore, poetry only exists because we as a group agree that it is poetry. Unless a group can understand that something is poetry, it cannot be considered poetry. -
-
That is purely your opinion.
-
-
I hope you understand that your comment is as profound as yelling "Whatever!" and running out the door.
Yes, it's my opinion. But I didn't just wake up one morning and think, "Hey, maybe I should have these opinions." I came to my conclusions through the logical processes of induction and deduction. I took axioms and used that to form an argument.
In fact, nothing should be brushed off just because it's an opinion. "Lying is bad" is an opinion. It's not a fact. But I can argue that it is indeed bad. Someone can disagree, and give reasons why. This is what we're doing here; taking differing opinions and comparing our arguments to see which is better. Am I mistaken?
In fact, the statement "That is purely your opinion" is strong evidence for me that you don't understand the idea of creating, defending, and attacking arguments in a debate format. Of course it's my opinion! Your arguments are all opinions too! But why do you think that your opinion is more correct than mine? That's the question here. If you're not willing bother approaching my arguments critically, then why care so much about them? -
-
I'm horrified to see such a closed mind-set in one so young. I tried to shock you into an awareness that there is a lot you don't yet know, have not yet experienced, and at the age of 18 to state as fact your opinions is very short-sighted and quite arrogant.
But hey, that's my opinion. -
-
When did I say that my opinions are fact? I said several times that my opinions are not fact. I'm simply saying that I have come to my opinions by no accidental means, and that your opinions are also opinions, and therefore you mentioning that what I'm saying is an opinion is pointless.
People have called me arrogant before, but I think that's a terrible assumption. I'm just defending the arguments I've made so far, and a part of that is refuting arguments that conflict with my own. I fail to see how that makes me arrogant.
What do you want me to do? Say that I accept that we're both right? That would be silly and illogical, since our arguments are contradictory. I'm just debating with you. I'm not saying that you're wrong and that I'm right because I think I'm better than you, I'm saying that because I believe that is the case. If you don't like it, then why did you disagree with me in the first case?
-
-
The proble, I think, is that you state your opinions minus one critical phrase: "I think" (or "I believe").
This makes what you say sound as though you are stating it as fact or as an absolute, in my opinion, and it makes it seem quite shallow. -
-
Good point!
We do take that for granted!
But shallow? Stating things accurately to
the nth degree can be pedantic. -
That's a good point. You're probably right.
However, I can't help but think that saying "I think" or "I believe" is unnecessary. Of course I believe what I'm saying.
It's rare for opinionated essays to have those phrases, simply because they're unnecessary. The writer wants you to agree with him/her, so the writer will simply lay out the argument, without the distraction of reminding the reader that it's an opinion. I can't recall watching a debate of any kind and hearing either side mention that their arguments lead to opinions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I have such a head too--and a number of holes, actually.
I do not understand why not. Each individual in the group reads, granted. Assuming they all do, why can we not say the group, does?
-
-
The group doesn't read, the individuals do. You said it yourself.
You can say the group reads, but it doesn't, and can't. Saying it doesn't make it so. The group does not have eyes, the individuals do. ditto for comprehension.
Why do we not say the group does? Because words have meanings, and we try not to confuse them. As we try not to confuse opinions with facts. -
-
Choral reading
is done aloud in unison as a group.
Even when the group is silently involved with reading, the group reads.
Have fun with that. -
I think that ultimately you've misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying that art has an arbitrary definition, and that definition is a construct, and that constructs can only exist in groups of people, not individuals. It's just a logical progression. "We" didn't mean a certain number of people, "we" meant all of us as a society. We agree that certain things are poetry, and therefore those things are poetry. However, if we instead called them blarfnarm, they would no longer be poetry, but blarfnarm.
-
-
Again, you are making statements without qualifying this is your opinion.
I don't wish to be included in your 'we' and chose not to be. We don't agree. Therefore your argument is wrong. Incorrect. Flawed by the word choice.
I find it difficult to understand that you are a student of philosophy, when you are having such problems seeing that your definitions do not exist for 'all' and in fact are specific only to your limited understanding. -
-
I don't need to start off anything with phrases like "I think" or "I believe". They're obviously my opinions. Why would I bother telling you something you already know? I've never read any serious opinionated writing that used phrases like that other than Descartes' meditations, but those were epistemological essays, so that's a whole other ball game.
You are a part of "us" whether you want to be or not. I didn't say that all members of "us" needed to agree. I didn't say that "we" was a cohesive group that all came to the same conclusions. "We" should not even be thought of as a group of people, it should be thought of as a superorganism. "We" acknowledges that poetry exists. "We" agree that certain things are poetry, and certain things are not. If these things can be accepted, than my argument holds.
I cannot create a doodle and call it poetry, because "we" disagrees. That's what my argument is about. -
-
'We' don't agree, obviously. I've read what you post as poetry. Your ideas and mine are diametrically opposed.
These things are not accepted, and your argument doesn't hold.
That's all -
-
-
"We" in this case is not you and I. "We" is the superorganism. I believe I mentioned this at least twice.
-
Now that I reread your post, I see that you've misunderstood my argument at a deeper level.
You do not believe that what I post as poetry is poetry. Let me repeat:
"I didn't say that all members of "us" needed to agree... "We" acknowledges that poetry exists. "We" agree that certain things are poetry, and certain things are not. If these things can be accepted, than my argument holds."
You believe that certain things are poetry, and I believe that certain things are poetry. Therefore, "we" exists. Our definitions do not need to be the same, so long as we are defining the construct called "poetry".
PS-If you were referring to "John Doe," I will never claim that it is poetry. It's prose. On that topic, if you were referring to anything else I've posted, I fail to see why any of it is not poetry, but that's another topic for another thread.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
define art, then
-
-
Art is the arranging of elements for aesthetic purposes. This is the super-construct that we as a society have determined. Therefore, art is an institution.
In that sense, a history book is not art, as its intent is not aesthetic, but informational (however, if it also has aesthetic purposes, it could be art, but it would most likely interfere with the information delivery). Even though a novel may be similar in form and how the object is interpreted, the goal of a novel is aesthetic, making it art.
Art may be a vessel for other things, and may carry other purposes, such as philosophical investigation, but the aesthetic purposes must be present for it to be art. Cave paintings may be art, but evidence suggests that their primary purposes was communication and ceremony, as most paintings are not in caves that were inhabited.
As such, viewing cave painting as art from the perspective of a cave-dwelling era human, you would not be understanding art as an institution, but you would be using your own definition.
-
-
-
-
I think people get confused with 'emotion' in poetry; because emotion is felt through a good poem - that's the artist's skill in evoking emotion, not emotion invoking the artist
-
Too much emotion can lead to bad, sloppy art but I don't believe that some degree of emotion is necessariy a bad thing. I am rather an emotional person and an emotional writer and I have found that emotional situations lead me to the making of poetry. The crafting of the poetry helps me in my emotions; grief is a major one. Yet, I often feel that the poetry is good poetry and not just therapy. But I tend to be subjective in those feelings, which perhaps is overly emotional.
-
Inasmuch as over the years so much of my poetry--if we dare call it that-- has dealt with philosophical and scientific topics, it precludes the overt use of emotion. The content on the other hand may evoke emotion in the reader: sudden end of connection, for instance!
-
The way I deal with emotional subjects can be quite dispassionate at times. I don't suppose I could write the reasonably good poetry I do if I were all soppy and unable to string two words together. At the same time, subjects like grief and sadness are the inspiration of much of my work so I can hardly avoid some level of emotion. The work does help me to work through this subjects too. In fact, that's what I base a lot of my work on. But I am definitely not an emo!!! I am more original than that.
The Old Poets have written about emotional subjects as well, e.g. Tennyson - In Memoriam about a friend of his who died. I haven't actually read it. -
I just remembered what they used to call it in Literature classess -- catharsis. I believe it means that the experience of the second-hand sorrow elicits a feeling of sorrow that is a relief. I am having a problem explaining this. Reading about someone dying is a sort of a relief of that inevitable experience you know you will someday have.
Still haven't really explained it. Maybe someone else will have a go. Terry? -
-
I hear you calling me
I had not given it much thought.
Empty words remain somewhat empty for an inexperienced reader, even with the use of metaphor and all manner of poetic devices. It remains abstract until experience makes it real. There is room to argue, for what is imagination for? Everyone has known how a burn feels, or a wound. That is already experience. But Death, how can it be the sense of nothingness? Bright in my dad's case.
A large part of it depends on the involvement in personal experience, having held a parent's hand as his breathing grew shallow and the sense of peace showed in his half-smile. Four days he had lasted after the stroke. That would be my choice.
Having known his acceptance and total lack of fear was an experience that forever altered my own perception of death. The sorrow and pain were not his but for my own grief.
How different the perception of death where the mangled bodies in a car crash are found! Or in hospital where the amount of oxygen simply cannot be increased anymore and the desperate patient fights beyond fighting. Would that be dark, as in "lights out"?
The effect on the bystander remains to colour the concept of death in ways no mere words can. There are so many ways to die.
Was that what you had in mind?
Terry
-
-
Message of the day
"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things." T. S. Eliot
Forums /
Poetry and Inspiration Discussion /
Emotions
|
|
Forums
Sign up for FREEA free account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?About AllpoetryWhere friends share poetry - get feedback & publish free today.
→ Learn more
Online: 1146Moderators - add ticket Greeters - ask question Gold members
↓
Allegra Marks
Archangel Knight Aussie Gypsy BabyBadge Bjarne blackfang4318 BlindMindScene Bosiarbooger bronjones2003 Callisto Athena Chad Cooper Comic Book Romance CopperColoredCorner Corey Harvard darlee77 Dragonlily etnies397 Evenstar Eyes Wide Shut February Moon findingurself.less Foreverfallenangel Green Manalishi heavenbird Howard Manser Inlove82809 islekine jazzcat Jbird999 KnightOfTheRose Lilith Malkav marandah MelKat Michael P Mr Majenta nous. OnEhOuRoFdAyLiTe ontheroof Paloszoo penman poet1 -nc rainbows. rbruce requiempoet Rose Angel SEA angel selina-mwah sxylolypop-aka dj tara wilson taylorndncar ten thousand cicadas Venugopal Vera Rich wallflower09 615 visitors → Show all onlinePlease Support AllpoetryUpgrade today from 5.95/month!
|
|
Notify a moderator
Ask a question
Random
Chat
Terms of Use
Rules
Our sites: Stories, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Quotes, Philosophy, Journals, Role-playing. © Social Design Poem History:
| |
Adding your reply:
macfluffers
Nov 1 10:39 PM
Reply