#1
So I've been thinking that alot of poetry is just that, poetry for the sake of poetry. I understand people want to be unique and artistic and all those things but at what point does it just become nonsense? Maybe I am missing something but to me a picture is better if I can relate to it or get a sense of where the Painter is trying to take me, and it pretty much the same way for writing with me. So please someone help me understand when does poetry become.....bullshit? I know alot of people will say I am uncultured or whatever but anyone can scribble on the canvas and call it a masterpeice.
#2
I've been thinking about this too, on and off. I think poetry (and the arts in general) are guided by expression of thoughts and feelings. In my opinion, good poetry presents ideas in a technically proficient manner - and that's where things get complicated.

The use of different techniques to do the same thing (communicate ideas) brings about styles and genres, each of which have their own definition of what 'good technique' means; this means 'good technique' is subjective.

I have a thing for examples -

Valuing a painting such as this at that price is, from an artistic standpoint, absurd. One can say Rothko's work is masterful because it hearkens back to the 'primitive juvenile subconscious' and exhibits 'strong tone' and whatnot. But in the end, anyone who plays with a couple of tubes of paint can recreate wobbly blocks of color, and any person can interpret something as 'genius' by being pretentious/scholarly/artsy/loud enough regardless of whether or not the piece entails any amount of skill or dedication. As much as the art community would deny it, they can hop on the bandwagon with the best of them.

This painting, on the other hand, isn't especially technically advanced, but I find it expresses certain moods and ideas well - it's only a caricature of an old man with a guitar, but it stimulates a thoughts and feelings (why is he sitting on the ground? with no shoes? playing a guitar with no strings?, et cetera).

But my thoughts on both of these paintings are subjective. Other people come to other conclusions... but anyone who pays that much for that painting has more money than sense (again, subjective thought).

I think it works the same way with poetry. John Keats' When I Have Fears That I May Cease To Be (archaic language warning, lol) is a masterpiece because of both technical prowess and the idea expressed with that

This, I find awful. I'm sure someone out there thinks it's magnificent (I have to admit it's hilarious, if anything). But I wouldn't call it art... just writing.

Then there's the Decadence (essentially "art for art's sake"), which sort of stomps on my whole argument, because I usually like their stuff.

I dunno. For this entire wall of text, I guess all I can say for sure is that the interpretation of art is a subjective experience, and trying to be objective about it will end in someone being lynched.

EDIT: Also, the following is objectively awesome, no question about it. Note the symbolism...


Quote by JustRooster
That's a shamanic incantation of truth if I ever heard one.
Last edited by Aeolian Harmony at Jun 19, 2010,
#4
Oh ya forgot that Rothko is horrible who ever paid that much for it should loan me some money if they are just going to throw it out the window. I can do some finger painting for them if they would like.