The Future of Poetry, and Its Status as "High" Art

[speed]

Please try and absorb what I'm saying razor. Things like interior design and autmotive design do require creativity and talent, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that it is not art. I honestly don't see how you think it is. The only thing I see you doing to justify it as art is claiming that there are courses in these areas of study; but there are courses in biology and chemistry too. My initial statement is not a copout, and I don't see why you think it is. I'm explaining to you that people can still be creative and talented and yet fail to create art. I'm of course focusing on literature in my posts. People need to learn about writing poetry before than can successfully write good poetry. They need to know what has been written before them in order for their work to qualify in the tradition of poetry. Genius on its own cannot create art. Skill and talent is required (as you've suggested above). I know you're not very fond of college students, especially those who presume to be creative but just "regurgitate their knowledge with an air of entitlement." And I admit that I've seen plenty of students who do just that; but university study can produce good results too, razor. Literature and creative writing majors need to study the history of literature in order to practice their hand at literary criticism, fiction and poetry. The same goes for those who choose not to take classes.

I dont think the definition of art is that specific. Maybe great or profound art is what you're trying to get at. Otherwise, razoredge has a point: any attempt at something creative is art. It doesnt mean its very good, or of value. But, almost assuredly it will have been based on some other form of art seen or absorbed, or understood even subconsciously. Now great art almost always requires a depth or interest and knowledge in the field one is creating it; but not always. There are prodigies, people with singular focuses, etc. One doesnt need a college degree or to have seen or paitned a thousand paintings or read a thousand books to create great art.

Besides, you're just arguing semantics anyway, if one is arguing the true definition of art.

Literary criticism has been pretty much a colossal failure and harm since it became theory in the ivory towers. It has made attempts at understanding literature, but I think they've all largely failed. Give me theory-free criticism from a Samuel Johnson or a Edmund White any day!

 

[razoredge]

Jethro Tull is one of the few bands who I would argue create very artistic music. The problem with contemporary progressive music is that, while it's sometimes very creative and often artistic, it is still theatrical. Now I know you probably won't buy into this "high art" crap, razor but theatricality is anathema to art. Michael Fried (a prominent art critic) has written that theatricality will cause the death of true art, because theatricality creates a sense of voyeurism in the audience, thus distancing them from the art. The point of art is for people to connect with the product, to find unity with it. Theatricality destroys this effect, because it causes people to seek art for escapist purposes, which is not what true art should achieve. People look at the characters in the work and are able to separate themselves from them, and they lose the ability to identify with them. Despite all the efforts of most rock musicians, their creative area is extremely theatrical. I don't necessarily think it's their fault, that's just how their artistic medium works. Rock music is inherently theatrical.

So now, maybe we can move to a discussion on theatricality in art. Has anyone ever read Michael Fried? What do others have to say about this idea that theatricality is anathema to true art?

I'd say there has been many modern musicians of artistic merit. Even those with glimmers only when that was their goal.

I suppose Im probably shallow but with theatrical business as you present, I do connect with many presentations and put myself there, even more scarily at times when I totally connect through my own experience of emotions, but hell... ya know Im shallow...

As for high art, I will not except that fine line catagorization (new word...lol) and simply accept the fact that some produce better "art" than others.

None the less, as you know me, I would suggest you investigate your own evaluation and ignore that of "Micheal Fried" or anyone else... including myself... of what moves the spirit and connects with ones soul.

Lastly, tonight my girl and I spent a few hours evaluating our varying interpretations of Fates Warnings - Disconnected... followed by the meaning of life and other mislaid tangents... and I have to say... life in itself... is art

Peace Bro, your alright and my fondest of adversaries. It has been said that the strenght of nations is based on that of their enemies (adversaries) and by that I truely enjoy your presence and shall not wish you anything other than great strenght and success !

 

[Einherjar86]

Although in some instances, I agree with this theory; logically it is not sound. Examples: Shakespeare wrote theatre, hehe; insert classical composer ____; insert renaissance or baroque, or almost any period's artist_____--all were or could be very theatrical; and so on and so forth.

I think a heightened degree of theatricality is often found with lesser artists, as they dont know any better (I think of most poets and singer-songwriters these days), and are instead showing off the form, or art for arts sake, or masking their lack of depth, etc, etc. These are just examples.

Its hard to boil down art to an arbritary theory. Hell, its hard to boil down art! I do think we're experiencing a dearth of great profound art, but not well-done art; I have many theories, which all could easily be refuted.

Shakespeare is a perfect example of what I would use to challenge Fried's theory (it must also be mentioned that Fried was writing about visual art, not literary art; but theatricality still applies). However, despite the theatrical element to Shakespeare's work, consider also how lyrical and literary those works are. While they're meant to be performed, most university literature classes only choose to read them; and look how much can still be extracted! I believe that true masterworks of the stage can merely be read and still be found to exhibit high artistic merit.

I dont think the definition of art is that specific. Maybe great or profound art is what you're trying to get at. Otherwise, razoredge has a point: any attempt at something creative is art. It doesnt mean its very good, or of value. But, almost assuredly it will have been based on some other form of art seen or absorbed, or understood even subconsciously. Now great art almost always requires a depth or interest and knowledge in the field one is creating it; but not always. There are prodigies, people with singular focuses, etc. One doesnt need a college degree or to have seen or paitned a thousand paintings or read a thousand books to create great art.

I simply just disagree. I understand the argument that any creative endeavor is art; but I believe that true art requires a higher degree of understanding and study. Certainly someone setting out to write a novel needs to have read several novels before. One does not write Ulysses without having studied the literary arts of the novel and poetry. Where would Yeats be without Blake, and where would Blake be without Milton? There are connections of influence and reaction throughout the entire tradition of literature, and I believe that you would be hard-pressed to find a single work that is considered "great" that wasn't influenced by something before it. I'll use a Samual Johnson quote:

"As among the works of nature no man can properly call a river deep or a mountain high, without the knowledge of many mountains and many rivers; so in the productions of genius, nothing can be styled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind."

Basically, I believe that art is always responding and reacting to art that has come before it, and thus it should be set against those older works. Art that is created without any knowledge of its tradition cannot be placed within it, because it has no influential ties.

Peace Bro, your alright and my fondest of adversaries. It has been said that the strenght of nations is based on that of their enemies (adversaries) and by that I truely enjoy your presence and shall not wish you anything other than great strenght and success !

You as well. Happy Holidays razor.

 

[speed]

Shakespeare is a perfect example of what I would use to challenge Fried's theory (it must also be mentioned that Fried was writing about visual art, not literary art; but theatricality still applies). However, despite the theatrical element to Shakespeare's work, consider also how lyrical and literary those works are. While they're meant to be performed, most university literature classes only choose to read them; and look how much can still be extracted! I believe that true masterworks of the stage can merely be read and still be found to exhibit high artistic merit.



I simply just disagree. I understand the argument that any creative endeavor is art; but I believe that true art requires a higher degree of understanding and study. Certainly someone setting out to write a novel needs to have read several novels before. One does not write Ulysses without having studied the literary arts of the novel and poetry. Where would Yeats be without Blake, and where would Blake be without Milton? There are connections of influence and reaction throughout the entire tradition of literature, and I believe that you would be hard-pressed to find a single work that is considered "great" that wasn't influenced by something before it. I'll use a Samual Johnson quote:

"As among the works of nature no man can properly call a river deep or a mountain high, without the knowledge of many mountains and many rivers; so in the productions of genius, nothing can be styled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind."

Basically, I believe that art is always responding and reacting to art that has come before it, and thus it should be set against those older works. Art that is created without any knowledge of its tradition cannot be placed within it, because it has no influential ties.



You as well. Happy Holidays razor.

I am merely pointing out your argument with razor was rather pointless, as you were both trying to define art. And your argument was something more than the basic Merriam Webster definition: the conscious use of a skill or creative imagination especially in the produciton of aesthetic objects, works, etc. I dont disagree with you on what makes true art; not just art.

As for theatricality, I am simply not convinced. I find it to be a very interesting idea and generalization, which in some cases is true. A number of commentators have stated that it is odd that the greatest writers (Shakespeare, Euripides, Sophocles, etc) wrote drama; the weakest or clumsiest of all the writing arts. I dont know, I just find that observation interesting with your comments/theory.

 

[razoredge]

Drama is an outlet of human emotion and thought, no surprise that some art is expressed through these channels. Music is very dramatic as can be heard in classical pieces. My qoute from Milton expresses a dramatic point in ones life, other examples could be endless. I say... "big deal, one should not sweat the little things".

"Real art", I say bah humbug and simply accept varying levels of creativity

This is art... that is not... is like saying rock or metal is not music. A letter sent to a relative is not writing. Following the words of an instruction manual is not reading.

The only threat to poetry is the presumption that those of depth and expressive, creative ability yet are "unschooled" cant write poetry... cant find inspiration from life and experience itself. This idea may have held water in the old days of simplicity and isolation, much like the easy belief in supreme beings but not in todays world. Best way to keep people down is telling them they can not do something... just because

 

[MURAI]

I know little about poetry but this discussion on art is interesting.

I am a firm believer in the idea of objectively "good" and "bad" poetry. I maintain that art can be classified as good and bad, and that while it may seem difficult to do so and impossible to prove, we still today judge art as good and bad. I adhere to T.S. Eliot's belief that a work of art cannot be sufficient in and of itself. It must set itself against all the works that have come before it. It must react to and respond to its tradition. The gradually increasing number of creative writing majors and programs challenges this idea of poetry as a "high" art, and threatens (I believe) to create an almost "socialistic" school of literary study, in which all works are deemed equally good regardless of meaning or study. I, for one, cannot accept this transformation. I have to believe that art must be achieved; that it is not simply inherent within a person. I believe that genius is inherent; but skill and knowledge of an artistic form's tradition must be present in order for a work to qualify as "high" art.

I maintain that there is good and bad art but one should not worry if it is "high" or "low" art. One should just attempt at aiming at creating good work. That classification often comes from just for its format, medium, subject matter and the class that produced it. You take the elitist view in art, poetry in this case, because you believe only some have the capacity to do it well. I agree to this to a degree. If "everyone is welcome" without any standards set in place, then on a whole the works will be mediocre. This is because firstly, some will not be as serious in art creation but their works will be considered when they should not be. Secondly, if everything is accepted as being equally good, then it will lower the incentive to create work seriously. But I disagree with the notion that it must "respond and react" to traditions to be good. It is possible to achieve good work with little historical knowlege if one is competent and has a sense of direction.

This leads us to another issue. In this contemporary scholarly world that has seen such an increase in the desire to write (and not to read), it is not possible that all the "poetry" produced is being, or can be, read. So, we are faced with a question: does poetry that is read by no one have meaning? Can art serve a purely self-legitimizing purpose, or should art serve something higher? Despite the intensity of personal poetry, much of it has been studied and many further meanings and interpretations have been offered, especially on writers such as Robert Lowell and Elizabeth Bishop. However, both of these poets were not illiterate writers. They read a great deal of poetry and literature, and studied the tradition which they chose to identify with.

The question that "poetry read by no one has any meaning" is an interesting one. Yes, it has meaning for the creator if they executed with some success.

It is my belief that purely personal poetry, birthed from the mind of someone who reads no poetry or literature, cannot be considered art. It has no place within its tradition because it is not responding to anything within its tradition. It has no understanding of its own presence and purpose, except from a completely personal perspective. I do not believe this qualifies as art. Perhaps it serves as therapeutic in some sense; but as art, I believe that it fails.

No, if that person have some talent for language and poetry and could execute it by creating their own system for execution, it can be considered art.

I know that it is especially now, it is difficult to measure art with the countless styles that have come up. It is difficult to pass a judgement because often art deals with problems that are by nature vague, indirect, and ambiguous than something in which we can come up with concrete answers. For example, in fields of math and science, it is more structured and success can be measured concretely. But boiling down to it, there is good and bad art. It should be from a genuine impulse to get at questions about meaning and beauty. Good art has a depth of meaning that even the creator may not be exactly consciously aware of. It should have direction and "hit a mark".

Freud and Jung have wrote some interesting essays on poetry and aesthetics which I recommend to anybody interested. Freud's "The Poet and Day-dreaming" and Jung's "Psychology and Literature" are worth a read.