Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post

Mozzer


Member

Posted Sat Nov 1st, 2008 12:49am Post subject: The Reason That There Is So Much Shitty Modern Poetry
Egad, but this is a bumptious thread, no?

Just chimed in to aver that, of course, it is impossible for all modern poetry to be rubbish. However, there's no need to get all pedantic and pushy on the subject, Mr Maitland.

I recently re-evaluated my view of Tracey Emin, in re: I used to think what she did wasn't art. I now realise my error - it IS art, but I personally think she's a really shit artist.

Likewise with poetry - we can't dismiss out of hand what is perceived to be poetry by the cognoscenti, the alumnii, or indeed the massed bands of the Blues and Royals.

What we can do is say "I really, really detest that". And not a molecule on the planet has the right to tell us we are wrong. We are all utterly correct in our appreciation of any form of art, whether it be Vaughan Williams, Avril Lavigne, Alf Lord Tennyson or that girl off Balamory.

No blistering screed from Brian Sewell will ever convince me that Mark Rothko is anything more than a housepainter, for all that I go against the trend of opinion. And that's the beauty of poetry. It's a SUBJECTIVE beauty. Paeans beginning "you can't fail to appreciate the beauty of Norman Foster's Terminal Five" or "you'd have to be tone deaf not to enjoy Dire Straits" are fundamentally subjective statements.

Sadly, because we are presented with these OBSERVATIONS by mainstream media as if they are facts, we are led to believe that our own opinions are worthless, which of course they aren't. My own opinion is that Dire Straits is a pub band lifted above the mediocre by Mark Knopfler's individual genius; and that Norman Foster has skated along on his reputation for far longer than he ought. Valid?

I don't give a fuck whether my opinions are valid or not.

One major caveat - technical skill DOES matter. Foster and Knopfler are both clearly skilled practitioners - I just don't like what they do. Likewise Rothko. Emin is questionable in both subjective AND objective arenas - she just seems to know the rules of the art world, and the people therein.

Poetry is the same - there ARE rules, and IMHO the best poetry follows the rules and plays with them. But nobody can tell you that poem A is better than poem B. It's down to what you like.

Back to top

Nitro


Member

Posted Sat Nov 1st, 2008 2:59am Post subject: The Reason That There Is So Much Shitty Modern Poetry




I don't give a fuck whether my opinions are valid or not.

I love how you expressed this sentiment! X-D Kudos!

One major caveat - technical skill DOES matter. Foster and Knopfler are both clearly skilled practitioners - I just don't like what they do. Likewise Rothko. Emin is questionable in both subjective AND objective arenas - she just seems to know the rules of the art world, and the people therein.

Poetry is the same - there ARE rules, and IMHO the best poetry follows the rules and plays with them. But nobody can tell you that poem A is better than poem B. It's down to what you like.

In what context, though, does it 'matter'? And to whom? I wonder if the answer just does not bring us back around to the repeated idea here that, in the end, we either like a thing or do not.

I do understand what you're saying in the sense that you can respect a persons technical skill, but perhaps not the result of how they use it. But there are people, artists if you will, who know the rules or know there are rules and just are not interested in playing by them or having their creative vision bound by them in any way. For my part, i do not think that lessons their credibility nor diminshes their talent or expressions of it.

Really? Wow.

Back to top