What is a poem?

[twelveoone]

To me, it is a story - that of someone feeling isolated and subsequently as though his/her actions have little impact on the outside world, so why bother making any effort?

Traditional stories tend to have beginnings and endings in which the in between is usually comprised of conflicts between opposing forces and events happening which culminate in changes and resolutions - a shift in overall reality.

A story about nothing changing is best told with the begining and ending remaining the same. This one starts out with I and ends with I and throughout there is just existence from start to finish in the form of coping with the absence of "her". No shift. Reality stays the same.

Futher details about "her" or of anything else independent of I would really defeat the story.

The repetative I's also set the reader up for a sense of isolation.

It flows without any interruption in the momentum throughout, almost to the point of monotony:



which reinforces the entire story.

I would rate it 5 ..... which I just did.

we have a different def on story, I'm fine with that, and pleased you responded

poetry requires a greater degree of thinking on both ends than some people think

Thanks for the quote

 

[Senna Jawa]

The greatest artists were the greatest businessmen.

Name one. ZERO. There was not one person who at the same time was both among the GREATEST artists and GREATEST businessmen. There are these days a number of billionaires. Not one of them is among the greatest artists or scientists. ZERO. And the greatest and sharpest living mind, one of the sharpest ten ever, Grigori Perelman, lives in poverty. It is his own choice. Which shows that he is not a successful businessman - ZERO.

Yes, you claimed that: The greatest artists were the greatest businessmen. Let me make it easy on you in two ways.

1. Who among the GREATEST businessmen was a truly good artist, known and successful as artist (even when not necessarily among the greatest)? -- ZERO

2. Who among the GREATEST artists was a truly good businessman, known and successful as a businessman (even when not necessarily among the greatest)? -- ZERO

The nearest would be the sportsmen, and only since Muhammad Ali. He was a force, had imagination, will power, ... Then, for others it was much easier. And still very few sportsmen are outstanding businessman, while none among the greatest. Michael Jordan was a good businessman, Magic Johnson is, ... A Polish ex-tennis player was among the richest Polish people at one time but he never won a single grand slam tournament.

Some mathematicians were very capable business wise, e.g. Shannon. They cared more for mathematics than for businessman hence they never joined any BEST businessmen. If I remember well, mathematician and amateur historian Bell claimed that one of the greatest mathematicians of XIX century, James Joseph Sylvester, was a successful businessman during a lull in his mathematical career. It's not corroborated by any other account; e.g. Sylvester by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson. Actually, Sylvester was in love with... poetry!

You have mentioned that Rembrandt died poor because he went bankrupt. I guess Rembrand changed his product line without attracting new clients and customers. Ok, so here goes down one great artist who was NEVER among the GREATEST businessmen. Then van Gogh was an art insider and came from an affluent family--so here goes down another artist who was never among the GREATEST businessman.

Among this crowd the richest were some of the strong chessplayers of the old days. None of them was a champion or a challenger for the world champion title. Winawer was among the elite chesplayers of his time, and he was a capable bisnessman--just capable, no way among the GREATEST businessman, far from it.

There was famous Thomas Edison but he was more of a con-artist. The true genius, Nikola Tesla, was never a businessman. The English wikipedia says:

He lived for most of his life in a series of New York hotels although the end of his patent income and eventual bankruptcy led him to live in diminished circumstances.​

and

Despite having sold his AC electricity patents, Tesla died impoverished and in debt.​

Finally, but not least, Hewlitt & Packard, Cray, Amdahl were all outstanding engineers and succesful businesman but not quite the greatest one way or the other.

Musicians and painters were not doing well. Sure, Picasso was able to sell his paintings well but that's just work, not business. Poets faired even worse. Felix Mendelssohn was born into a prominent Jewish family but he himself was no businessman.

Now, there are scores upon scores of creative people, especially artists and mathematicians, who were never rich, and many of them died in poverty, sometimes at young age, sometimes older.

To summarize: bogusagain made a garbage claim again.

 

[Angeline]

So is this a discussion about poetry, business or just bs arguing? Use the ignore feature on Lit or the one in your mind and write a poem. Writing a poem is always time well spent. But getting personal and telling each other your arguments suck? That just wastes time.

Honestly some days it's like herding cats.

 

[Senna Jawa]

That just wastes time.

That's why I have provided a summary, so that you can save time on what you call bs:

bogusagain made a garbage claim again.​

That's all.

 

[Angeline]

That's why I have provided a summary, so that you can save time on what you call bs:

bogusagain made a garbage claim again.​

That's all.

That's very kind of you my friend though I would have framed it as a disagreement. I also happen to disagree that the best artists were the best businessmen. For starters, it is a very male-centric way to look at things. But mainly I would rather write a poem and let go of ill feelings about stuff that does not matter, like being right on the internet.

Also I know you know what I mean. And look, here is a flower ---->

 

[Magnetron]

we have a different def on story, I'm fine with that, and pleased you responded

poetry requires a greater degree of thinking on both ends than some people think

Thanks for the quote

Absolutely.

As I said earlier, authors of longer fiction are often compulsive in writing out most everything they want the reader to think and it isn't necessary. The reader has a process of association. Use it.

And with poem, a good choice of words and word placement can trigger associations that reinforce and elaborate on what is being read. As it is unfolding. In real time.

 

[bronzeage]

Poetry is telegraphy, the world made binary.
Image reduced to word, sense made sentence.

 

[Senna Jawa]

mainly I would rather write a poem and [...]

What are you waiting for?

 

[Angeline]

What are you waiting for?

What? You don't approve of my borscht belt humor?

 

[Magnetron]

And with poem, a good choice of words and word placement can trigger associations that reinforce and elaborate on what is being read. As it is unfolding. In real time.

To me, that is what makes any writings of any length poetic.

 

[Senna Jawa]

What? You don't approve of my borscht belt humor?

Angeline, I am lost. (If a follow up is needed then let's move the borscht motive to litlog 2014++ to avoid my further disruption of the thread).

 

[bogusagain]

Name one. ZERO.

To summarize: bogusagain made a garbage claim again.

Rembrandt, JWM Turner, Picasso, Dali and hundreds in between. Want to read a book about a businessman writing about his business, read Benovuto Celinni's autobiography.

Shakespeare was good at business and self promotion. Charles Dickens wrote his books in serial form because it was good business. His performances were about business. He even complained about Americans bootlegging his work and the money he was losing because of it.

As for poets, most until post WWII most came from monied and well connected families because if you weren't well connected, you couldn't get published. However, the publisher still needed to make money. Since the decline of poetry's ability to make sales, publishers print less and less poetry books and now publish a couple at a loss, while most rely on public funding or arts grants because no one buys poetry. It is the art for art sake attitude that is killing poetry.

All the best artists before the age of public subsidies were good business people and/or well connected.

The idea of purity of art is sentimental nonsense. When Sibelius became a national treasure with a pension, he never wrote another note.

 

[bogusagain]

Musicians and painters were not doing well.
To summarize: bogusagain made a garbage claim again.

Musicians and painters/artists have always done well, maybe not the ones we appreciate today but that is more about current tastes than tastes current in the time of the artists themselves.

The fact that the painters we consider great today are different from the painters people considered great 100 years ago or considered great when historic painters actuallty lived, has more to do with current tastes, not the reality the artists and musicians actually lived.

And just because there is an over production (always has been) and many wannabe artists/musician can't make a living, that actually goes someway to proving the best or most successful artists are also good at business.

Yes, some found rich patrons but are you saying, only the rich understand good art because that appears to be the logic of your comments.

As I said, this purity of art unaffected by business is sentimental drivel. I have many artist friends (some very successful) and if they couldn't earn a dime from their art, they would have to go back to the nine while five and leave the cultural field to old fashioned bohemians from rich families. No Thanks.

BTW Very few artists/musicians become famous after they have died. If someone isn't famous in their life, there is little chance of them ever becoming well known. That sort of suggests if there is a lot of "art for art sake" artists that shun the business side, they wasted their talents.

 

[Tsotha]

And just because there is an over production (always has been) and many wannabe artists/musician can't make a living, that actually proves the best artists are also good at business.

What is the purpose of art (and poetry)? EDIT: Why do people buy it? Is art meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it?

 

[twelveoone]

One shouldn't get sentimental about these guys, they were hard nosed business people. Well, van Gogh wasn't, he relied on his brother. It was then his sister in law's business and PR acumen which we have to thank for us knowing his name and art. That said, people seem to think van Gogh was an art outsider, he wasn't, he was a 100% insider who understood the fashions and styles of his day.

Let's split this in two
He was an outsider. His theory of colour predated hippie posters by about 100 years, oh green makes the red redder.
All artists understood the fashions and styles of their day, otherwise they wouldn't be artists would they? Heightened sensitivity.
While your points are well taken, as are Senna's, we know the 'greats' because of PR and we don't much know of the people who possibly could have been, there is a difference between artists and apes. The apes are fully aware of the fashions and styles of the times but have no sense of difference (rebellion), no sense of forward direction (change). As an example, the so-called British Invasion of the 60's, by the 80's only two where left that anyone cared about, one pushed change the other one at least kept up. You cannot settle in to stasis, nor can you rely on PR alone.

 

[twelveoone]

Poetry is telegraphy, the world made binary.
Image reduced to word, sense made sentence.

Writer; writer side - where the reader?

 

[bogusagain]

What is the purpose of art (and poetry)? EDIT: Why do people buy it? Is art meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it?

There are as many meanings as you want to put upon it. I collect certain types of art because it enhances my life. I'll buy a book to read because it enhances my life. I also exchange pieces of my art for other artists work because it enhances my life.

The fact that poetry sales has plummeted over the last hundred years should make people who write and love poetry stop and ask the question why! Why don't people think poetry will enhance their life, its not as though a poetry book is expensive. Why don't people see anything relative in my work, why is my work not relative to people out there in the big wide world?

I was in a bar the other night talking to a Belgian poet who has had several volumes of poetry printed and she said she was giving up on poetry because no one read it. I just said, perhaps you just aren't writing poetry that is relevant to people. There is a vast cultural market out there, no one has a right to a place in it.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Rembrandt, JWM Turner, Picasso, Dali and hundreds in between. [...]

Now you started to make some sense. Let's move this to "Poets' Hangout".

 

[bogusagain]

Let's split this in two
He was an outsider. His theory of colour predated hippie posters by about 100 years, oh green makes the red redder.
All artists understood the fashions and styles of their day, otherwise they wouldn't be artists would they? Heightened sensitivity.
While your points are well taken, as are Senna's, we know the 'greats' because of PR and we don't much know of the people who possibly could have been, there is a difference between artists and apes. The apes are fully aware of the fashions and styles of the times but have no sense of difference (rebellion), no sense of forward direction (change). As an example, the so-called British Invasion of the 60's, by the 80's only two where left that anyone cared about, one pushed change the other one at least kept up. You cannot settle in to stasis, nor can you rely on PR alone.

van Gogh's theories of colour didn't appear out of his head, they were widely talked about at the time in the cafes he frequented. There are recorded conversations where such ideas werediscussed. I suspect there were a lot of artists with the same theory which never became well known.

The British invasion had the main couple and an army of copycats but some of what are regarded as the best British groups never made it in the US, one assumes for cultural reasons. Then there are some of the contintal European stars which were brilliant but just wouldn't make it in an English speaking country. There are many reasons why people become well known, not all is down to talent, often a lot is down to good business or good fortune. Without their manager Brian Epstein and his business acumen, I doubt the Beatles would have made it. In fact the Beatles said as much.

 

[twelveoone]

There are as many meanings as you want to put upon it. I collect certain types of art because it enhances my life. I'll buy a book to read because it enhances my life. I also exchange pieces of my art for other artists work because it enhances my life.

The fact that poetry sales has plummeted over the last hundred years should make people who write and love poetry stop and ask the question why! Why don't people think poetry will enhance their life, its not as though a poetry book is expensive. Why don't people see anything relative in my work, why is my work not relative to people out there in the big wide world?

I was in a bar the other night talking to a Belgian poet who has had several volumes of poetry printed and she said she was giving up on poetry because no one read it. I just said, perhaps you just aren't writing poetry that is relevant to people. There is a vast cultural market out there, no one has a right to a place in it.

Poetry as life enhancement tool, I'll buy it.

Let me see, remember reading Rod McKuen outsold three of the top dead white guys ( I forget which)

And then there is Maya Angelou...

One of the last popular poets I remember was Bukowski who wasn't so much of a poet as a comedian with PR about his lifestyle.

1. your audience must be stoned
2. Oprah says...
3. Vicarious thrills about drunken adventures

perhaps, I oversimplify

 

[bronzeage]

Writer; writer side - where the reader?

Writerside is a crime which is punishable by loss of poetic license.

I had a few more lines in mind, but posted what I had. The reader/listener would have been mentioned.

 

[bronzeage]

What is the purpose of art (and poetry)? EDIT: Why do people buy it? Is art meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it?

That would remove the meaning from 99% of all art.

The art which survives the ages is the pieces which payment was made in advance.

 

[bogusagain]

One of the last popular poets I remember was Bukowski who wasn't so much of a poet as a comedian with PR about his lifestyle.

1. your audience must be stoned
2. Oprah says...
3. Vicarious thrills about drunken adventures

perhaps, I oversimplify

Or you can buy your poetry from an expensive wholemeal poetry store, if you can find one.

But what is the point of half a dozen eminent professors claiming you are the best poet in the world if you are not relevant and no one reads you? Now I'm not one for Maya Angelou, who is as fake as they come for me, I'm not one for Rod McKuen who I think is shit. As for Bukowski, I find him entertaining. However, at the end of the day, it ain't going to be me or other people alive today who will have the last word on who'll end up being seen as the great poets of our time. Shakespeare was a populist and a crowd pleaser, who changed his content to please.

I suspect if poets considered their audience, rather than luxuriating in the warm bath of their shrinking esoteric world, smug in the knowledge that what they write is so much better than what the great unwashed like to read, the best wordsmiths would dominate the sales. 12, your point reminds me of a British poet Don Paterson (I think) who seemed to suggest if your poetry sales hit double figures, you must be selling out to the dumb masses. It is as though if you want to be considered a good poet, no one but the inner sanctum of academia and a few intellectual groupies must want to read you.

Now I'm not saying these are the greatest poets that ever lived but people used to queue up around the block for Byron to Tennyson and a host in between.

BTW Keats 's poetry was not well received by critics. If contemporary academics and critics chose who the best poets were, Keats would have had his poetry binned.

 

[bogusagain]

Is art meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it?

No but what people are prepared to pay for is some measurement of what is relevant to them. It doesn't mean what is relevant to them is any good, it might be a s bad for them as too much drink and cigarettes but they choose it.

Some writers/artists are happy just to write and make art and couldn't give a fig about other people seeing/ reading it or having an opinion about it. In fact it can be quite comforting to a lot of writers/artists that the wider public won't see their work and so can't pass judgement on it.

A gallery owner I once knew said an artist is only an artist when s/he is prepared to allow the public to piss on his/her work. I'd go along with that. You don't need to sell one work at all to allow the public to piss on it but you do have to have the backbone to allow the public to pass judgement on it.

Then you can keep your art/poetry private, safe in the knowledge no one will see it and pass judgement and you can wallow in the narcissitic belief you are the greatest artist/poet never to be discovered.

 

[twelveoone]

BTW Keats 's poetry was not well received by critics. If contemporary academics and critics chose who the best poets were, Keats would have had his poetry binned.

Fuckin A!
most don't seem to know that he was a rebel