Derma Kaput - This is all very interesting, and I largely agree with you, especially concerning a poet's expression of the unconsciousness mirroring that of the surrounding culture. I disagree some in terms of poetry being less diluted (or more explicit) than music or film - those two mediums only have more tools to work with, and exceptional poetry can be equally ambiguous without losing the power of its vision or expression. Still, a fascinating subject. Wasn't Kafka actually Bohemian? I think Prague would call him one of their own, despite the shadow of Berlin over that whole era.
Alcuin of York - Ah, so right. I fact-checked that. Apparently, Kafka was born in what is now Czechkoslovakia, but was then part of the Austrian Empire. Live and learn - at least we hope so. When I wrote the thread intro, I was actually thinking of movies. Through the end of the 40's, American film had the bad guy lose, the good guys win, and the hero rode off into the sunset. By the 70's, there was lots of gore, the bad guys often won (i.e., Chinatown), and the reeealy bad guys seemed invincible - Freddy Kruger, et. al. I think this presaged a slow change in the American psyche from optimism to dread. Apparently, today's high schoolers have the attitude that the world sucks and that nothing can be done to stop the ills of society. What a contrast from the 1960's! Thanks for the info. Alcuin
Anstey - I would argue that Film and Music have no more tools than Poetry, only DIFFERENT tools. There are things one can do with poetry that neither film nor music do at all. It's all just different. To each give credit, but always realize they're equal, as a Hammer, a screwdriver, and a saw. All tools, but all different.
- stephan
Anstey - Al,
I really love that point, about the progression of movies -- or really all art, I suspect. Interestingly, I think it's an inversion of the reality. As risks are less, percentages of people living in poverty declining, crime declining... it's fascinating how society becomes more pessimistic.
- stephan
Alcuin of York - So you see the glass as half-full & getting fuller. I do not. Specifically, I do not think movies have been displaying an inversion of reality. Crime was declining (now blipping upward, but perhaps long-term fairly stable), but what is displayed in today’s most popular movies are mass warfare, government conspiracies, and fatalism. The first is exemplified by Troy and 300, and is expectable in a country engaged in war. The question is, why go back 2 or 3 thousand years? Unlike the TV show “24”, it would seem the people have a clash of civilizations in their subconscious. The reality is that most of the world has already accepted much of American culture. Many of those who criticize us most harshly do so for not living up to our ideals.
The second is exemplified by “Citizen X” (if I remember the title correctly), with Will Smith & Gene Hackman, and “Final Cut” with Robin Williams. I think it shows a healthy suspicion of both govt. & big business. We know they have lied in the past, and besides, power does corrupt. They have seen the tobacco companies engage in deliberate disinformation campaigns in the past, and the API and coal companies doing the same now.
Examples of the third type is seen in the “Final Destination” movies. Other movies involving the supernatural have been popular for decades (“Omen” for example). The bothersome part of the FD series is the message: Basically, you’re screwed.
There are reasons people respond to these themes, and I don’t think they are baseless. Most working people today are dissatisfied with their jobs; and American competence seems to be on the wane. Most people do not expect to be able to retire in comfort, and the chances are better than even they’re right. (I base this conclusion on economic data.) Hopefully, I’ll be proven wrong, but in any case, I would not brush off the mass subconscious as breezily as you do.
Alcuin
Tracey - I may not be able to relate to every art form and every artist’s rendering thereof, but I think all arts are absolutely vital. I don’t think of them as a predictor of changes so much as different perspectives of an infinitely beveled mirror reflecting what IS.
The arts provide release, expression, exposure, inspiration, viewpoints, and portrayals and interpretations of all aspects of society, to name just a few. They are a vehicle of communication that may use words or not, one form being no bigger in importance than another. A person may regard them as luxuries, practical tools in a person’s search for meaning in life, thorns in one’s side.
The arts, and poetry in particular, are not typically valued economically, and yet they are intrinsically tied in with economics. Take the largest, most thriving companies and look at their promotional and marketing materials. There is art. There is writing. They are expressed in ways that transcend the ordinary and communicate a mission, a product, a service.
Look at PSAs and documentaries that educate you, pull at your heartstrings or even turn you off. There was an arrangement of sight and sound and word and pace – in total, a form of art – that elicited that response or reaction.
What else is there to say, but, “Viva los artes!”
Derma Kaput - Interesting how many thoughts can arise out of a statement like this. I like what Tracey points out - how marketing employs an artistic approach to achieve almost remarkable ends, which, to my mind, leads to the very justified cynicism that Alcuin points out. To quote Handel (who was quoting Isaiah) "oh we like sheep have gone astray" - and all these marketing campaigns are some pretty devious, albeit talented, shepherds. What I want to know is if it's even possible for the highly manipulated American public, as a whole, to finally wake up and realize just how much garbage they're being fed. Maybe poetry is important as a means to wake people up. Now if we can only get them to read it. But, alas, watching tv is soooooo much easier, movies are sooooooo much more entertaining, and researching "facts" is soooooooooooooo much work. On the other hand, music is a wonderful way to reach people and, at its best, incorporates the very strengths that poetry offers - an excellent use of language.
Leanne - It is probable that the value of poetry lies in the fact that it IS of little economic value. There is absolutely no ulterior motive for the poet to write except one of altruism (or the almighty ego). A poet can't really be accused of "selling out" (except to Hallmark, and the term "poet" really need not be applied in that domain) because really, you'd have to be flat out stupid to think there's any real remuneration involved.
Being a professional poet is a little like running an op shop. It's much more about love than money. Additionally, you have to weigh what's "cool" against what people are prepared to accept. (And you tend to deal with a lot of smelly people who smoke too much dope).
In the long run, for a poet to be relevant he/she must have a finger on the pulse (hooray for cliches) and cannot be taken in by glossy propaganda. This is why "freedom of the press" is supposed to exist -- that fourth estate that should bind and check all the others. Sadly, rather than being a guardian it has become both hangman and hanged, a tool of whomever will take it up -- because of commerce.
I think that's probably a bit off the track... oh well... blame postmodernism and its refusal to adhere to straight lines.
Derma Kaput - " It is probable that the value of poetry lies in the fact that it IS of little economic value."
I think that's an interesting point to make. It can be pure art, no "selling out" for financial considerations. Of course, a poet might compromise their vision for publication, or acceptance, purposes, but that could be either good or bad. "Good" if it's a matter of sacrificing artifice and affectation in favor of tighter craft and effective expression, "Bad" if it's sacrificing a talented individual voice for poetic fad or convention. But really, poetry is about loving the creative process of writing the stuff. I know people who roll their eyes because I devote so much of myself to poetry, which they don't even understand, because they really aren't exposed to much outside of greeting card verse. That's a real pity. The value of poetry is the same as it is for any art form - art for arts sake, the expression of a creative spirit. The lack of financial value takes nothing away from aesthetic value, except in the eyes of people unable to reckon value apart from remuneration.
Now I need to get back to smoking dope and being smelly.
Alcuin of York - It seems to me that there are differences between art forms. Stephan is correct that they’re different tools, but for the receiver (I hate the word “consumer”) of art, they are clearly accepted differently. Gore Vidal well makes the point that the novel has lost its place as central and foremost in our culture, replaced by movies and TV. Clearly, reading requires I do more work than passive viewing; reading poetry requires even more work.
I guess I’m less concerned about the tools than what the tools do. A hammer is a tool; so is an Uzi. Yes, one can kill with a hammer, but it is used more often to construct. Movies can be quite well made and enlightening; or they can be pornos (you know, the kind I like). Similarly, there are good novels and crap.
My original post was not a criticism of any particular art form, but how the popularity of certain themes within each art form tells us about future trends in the culture. The less popular movies tell us less about where we’re going than the ones that mezmerize the masses. So the question is, "Where are we going?"
Alcuin
Jen -
"My original post was not a criticism of any particular art form, but how the popularity of certain themes within each art form tells us about future trends in the culture. The less popular movies tell us less about where we're going than the ones that mezmerize the masses. So the question is, "Where are we going?""
I think the masses are gluttons, mesmerized by the dollar in a world of train wreaks where no one is willing to help, unless it directly benefits them.
Poetry, like abstract paintings often have hidden meanings and messages which makes a person stop and think about something other and bigger than themselves. I think a lot of people consider poetry a waste of time because they don't want to stop and take the time to think, they want it spoon fed because it's easier.
As far as where we are going? I've never considered poetry trendy but all things in time come full circle. My motto, a little poetry a day holds the gluttons at bay;)
Anstey - I was thinking about this a bit, and then someone else asked me to share a poem of 'rage' with them. I have quite a few as eveyrone knows i'm an innately angry man. But in my search I found this poem, Unpoetry: , which is, by the way, extremely nasty and full of swears. Anyways, the point of it seems somewhat relevant to this particular thread.
I wonder if maybe it's a common thing for a poet, or perhaps any artist really, to think about. Is what i am doing relevant to anyone?
Invite participants
Share at Facebook
Share at Twitter
Share at LinkedIn
Reference this page