Page:
Subjectivity
Well, I believe poetry to be a form of art, as well as a form of literature. Art is, by its' very nature, subjective... a single painting can be both beautiful to one and hideous to another. But there is an audience for every sort of painting that exists whether it be a large or small audience. The same can apply to more artistic sorts of movies, and of course to poetry too. Now, some poetry, art, and film can reach across a wide spectrum and appeal to many but for sometimes vastly different reasons. I read someplace recently that a lot of people who only ever saw the old 1970's animated series of Casshan could not even remotely begin to make sense out of the vastly different live action movie based on that series, Casshern. Now me, when I saw it recently it made perfect sense to me, and I've seen both the old series and the new movie. But I approached the movie from the standpoint that it was its' own thing and from there I could see the beauty and fascination of it. It was actually a lot deeper than the rather simple and far lighter themes and tones of the anime, but it has its' own light albeit hidden amidst some heavy dark moments as it was. In that way, it was like comparing the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica to the old 1970's series... ironically a series with a rather similar plot to Casshan. Robots rebelling against human, humans struggling for survival in a post-apocalyptic era of time and space. But I think the re-imagined Galactica and the live action Casshern movie have a huge amount of things in common, such as the theme that not all of the robots (or neo-humans as they were called in Casshern) were evil and many were even sympathetic. Casshern even took the concept one step further by showing all the neo-humans back in their previous incarnations as humans so we could see what their motivations were and how those motivations changed once they became reincarnated as neo-humans. These newer series are a lot different than the stuff from the 70's because of the depth the newer material has compared to the black and white viewpoint of those older series. Then again, I simply love deeper sorts of stories like these, stuff that really makes you think on things. In fact, I myself have written about similar subject matters of trans-humanism, reincarnation, the evolution of species into higher forms as time goes on, and what motivates us as we find ourselves changing in an equally ever-changing universe. Now, obviously not everybody digs that sort of thing but for those that do it is a wealth of thought-provoking material to read over that I present my readers with, the difference being my written works are mostly not fictional (although I have written a few fictional stories just to try out that sort of a genre). But even my fictional works contain heavy philosophical themes, so the same folks who like my other writings will like those just the same, and for similar reasons most likely. So it is truly subjective, and that is a characteristic of art in all its' forms whether profound or trivial in nature.
(I always thought Literature was more books and stories, while poetry was shorter pieces that are not prose.)
I think poetry like all literature and writing can become very subjective if the author is dead or the piece is from a past age and has been translated; the meaning is interpreted and reinterpreted by the later audience. Losing the contemporary connotations and ideas, to be reimagined in a more modern setting. Yet being subjective is not a bad thing, indeed the idea that the words of one person can become so personal and individual to their experiences seems to transcend time and space to convey core emotions and sentiments intrinsic to all people. The subjective stance, or rather way as it is often an unconscious stance and not one of choice or out of purpose, places a more fluid value on poetry, literature and art.
Though because poetry often has assumptions and strictures of style, such as sonnets or haiku, the subjectivity can be limited with a case of feelings being either this or that, for or against. A love poem can often be seen as either an expression of beauty, or a load of mushy lovey-dovey twaddle and nonsense. Poetry is also not objective and non-judgemental because of these styles and methods, falling into habits to present a certain idea or convey a certain feeling, and because often the poet has a subject that they write about. The poetry tries to convey their feelings, and their perception of the world and reality, like many artists through art do.
Having said all that there is still the idea of a 'zeitgeist', of the time, or 'a la mode', of the fashion, sense that pervades the poetry and becomes itself objective. For example a War Poem can be very subjective in its details of the setting and the warring forces, or a Love Poem can be subjective about the beloved, but the ideas and lines can be objective and speak to everyone across time, and convey a feeling or idea felt by many of their contemporaries. So in the War Poem it can be subjective in how it views the specific war or war in general, but objective in how it represents soldiers: not as good or evil heroes or villains but as merely ordinary men and women.
I think poetry like all literature and writing can become very subjective if the author is dead or the piece is from a past age and has been translated; the meaning is interpreted and reinterpreted by the later audience. Losing the contemporary connotations and ideas, to be reimagined in a more modern setting. Yet being subjective is not a bad thing, indeed the idea that the words of one person can become so personal and individual to their experiences seems to transcend time and space to convey core emotions and sentiments intrinsic to all people. The subjective stance, or rather way as it is often an unconscious stance and not one of choice or out of purpose, places a more fluid value on poetry, literature and art.
Though because poetry often has assumptions and strictures of style, such as sonnets or haiku, the subjectivity can be limited with a case of feelings being either this or that, for or against. A love poem can often be seen as either an expression of beauty, or a load of mushy lovey-dovey twaddle and nonsense. Poetry is also not objective and non-judgemental because of these styles and methods, falling into habits to present a certain idea or convey a certain feeling, and because often the poet has a subject that they write about. The poetry tries to convey their feelings, and their perception of the world and reality, like many artists through art do.
Having said all that there is still the idea of a 'zeitgeist', of the time, or 'a la mode', of the fashion, sense that pervades the poetry and becomes itself objective. For example a War Poem can be very subjective in its details of the setting and the warring forces, or a Love Poem can be subjective about the beloved, but the ideas and lines can be objective and speak to everyone across time, and convey a feeling or idea felt by many of their contemporaries. So in the War Poem it can be subjective in how it views the specific war or war in general, but objective in how it represents soldiers: not as good or evil heroes or villains but as merely ordinary men and women.
Wow I love the responses here. I'm curious though, given poetry is largely an unrestrictive and purely up to interpretation given the piece or even the author; how is that certain works are more celebrated? I mean I'm sure there were tens of thousands of writers during Walt Whitman, Dylan Thomas and etc. whom put out works but are just as good or dare I say better; but remain relatively unknown or forgotten? Are these literary masters only seen as such simply because of the product of popularity of their own name? I dwell on how such things become popular due to a name; but yes some where down the origin of such products were highly praised so hence forth a 'name' became synonymous with skill or quality. Even this website is of no exception; more popular writers garner the most attention and notoriety; simply because of a name...
Aside from that, I believe the most amazing feat a writer/artist could ever achieve is to create something that satiates everyone's likes. Of course to deliberate such a piece would require something that is relatable to almost every single person; male, female, colored, rich, poor and so on. Most writers tend to stick to a trinity of typically but not all encompassing to; sex/lust, love, and emotion. Then again I've always been the student of the school of, 'Less is more,'. I've notice great writers whom typically stick to simple words and word-play will convey as much finite and solidified message across to the reader. For instance one work I think of goes like this;
"Candy,
Is Dandy,
But Liquor,
Is quicker."
This piece belonging to Ogden Nash from the early 20th Century. Ogden, didn't typically write in such a manner however he's most notably known for this piece. The piece itself transcends farther than Ogden. The poem is just a small example on how one could possibly transcend into literary history.:Anything longer than four lines would be an act of God.
Aside from that, I believe the most amazing feat a writer/artist could ever achieve is to create something that satiates everyone's likes. Of course to deliberate such a piece would require something that is relatable to almost every single person; male, female, colored, rich, poor and so on. Most writers tend to stick to a trinity of typically but not all encompassing to; sex/lust, love, and emotion. Then again I've always been the student of the school of, 'Less is more,'. I've notice great writers whom typically stick to simple words and word-play will convey as much finite and solidified message across to the reader. For instance one work I think of goes like this;
"Candy,
Is Dandy,
But Liquor,
Is quicker."
This piece belonging to Ogden Nash from the early 20th Century. Ogden, didn't typically write in such a manner however he's most notably known for this piece. The piece itself transcends farther than Ogden. The poem is just a small example on how one could possibly transcend into literary history.:Anything longer than four lines would be an act of God.
This question is an old one, but I am not a good person to answer it. My feelings are that there are both objective and subjective measures of poetry, and that both change with time and cultural changes. I think in many cases a majority of readers would agree whether a poem is good, bad or indifferent. The trick is on the edges - poetry that is over-sentimental, trite, is unoriginal (easier and easier as original metaphors and ways to use them are harder to find) or poetry that is so avant-garde that most people have to get used to a new style, a new image, a new approach. Think about the history of Impressionism - when it first "came out," most people thought the artists were in need of glasses and laughed at it. Now we think of the Impressionists like we think of the classics such as Mozart or Beethoven, and make bathroom wall paper of their paintings.
Poetry and art are certainly extremely personal - I know it's good (like I know it's porn) when I see it - but I disagree that it's purely personal and purely subjective. I'm afraid I can't express why and how, other than to gauge the elements above: originality and effectiveness of thought, of expression, of imagery, in addition to the visceral feeling of how it affected me.
Poetry and art are certainly extremely personal - I know it's good (like I know it's porn) when I see it - but I disagree that it's purely personal and purely subjective. I'm afraid I can't express why and how, other than to gauge the elements above: originality and effectiveness of thought, of expression, of imagery, in addition to the visceral feeling of how it affected me.
I think certain works are more celebrated because of chance and almost herd mentality; that it was the right words in the right place to become renowned and popular, with the popularity and celebration rising because people agree that it should be celebrated as more and more of them become aware of it. There is something just wrong with being a nay-sayer and enemy of a poem or of art, simply because it is something you could do and be. No one is truly capable of such unthinking blind hate. Yet everyone is capable of artistic judgement and appreciation; the art and poems are celebrated because it speaks to that primal and natural liking part.
It seems to be part of the human condition that with popularity or a rising star or a manifest destiny it gets to a point where it becomes inevitable and near unstoppable. That after a certain point it can only get bigger, or through only a massive and important setback can it be destroyed and fail, and that it can now level out an sustain itself by the attention of others rather than have to grasp for glory and power. In other words, if you are big enough then you cannot fail; even haters cannot hate!
I think the satiating everyone is a hit or miss thing, either it happens or does not and often is only because a part or a vague idea of the whole. As in how people can like football clubs or celebrities or star trek or lord of the rings, not because of everything single part but because of highlights or an overall idea of it that they like for reasons. The satiating all can be accomplished by some part that speaks to the fundamental essence of existence or human life, that is the noble and good version.
The bad version that all media, poetry, art, literature, social media, anything really, should avoid is that of lowest common denominator in the easiest way: sex drugs and violence as just sex drugs and violence. - The more noble version can be sex drugs and violence but with some extra message or metaphor, not just literally sex drugs and violence for the reason as it is what people apparently want.
The thing is, that if everyone likes it, it does not necessarily mean it is brilliant or deep or profound or even something they really value or would even die for. Such as how people like the everyday and commonplace but do not build great shrines to them or scream about them to the heavens. People like moving and breathing but they do not necessarily make good poetry. Any good poetry on such things probably has a different context than the everyday, some event or change to highlight their value.
For all the accomplishments, advancements and changes in the human brain and mind, we still like things which are simple: the facts and truth stated plainly not with bullshit and trappings to be fancy and excruciatingly complex. - Such as how we like gravity described as a force or radiation as waves or cars as basically an engine and four wheels, without having to go in lengthy detail about what exactly all those things are and the definitions and names in all languages under the sun with latin labels as well.
(Wow, can I write a lengthy lot of bollocks when it does not matter.)
It seems to be part of the human condition that with popularity or a rising star or a manifest destiny it gets to a point where it becomes inevitable and near unstoppable. That after a certain point it can only get bigger, or through only a massive and important setback can it be destroyed and fail, and that it can now level out an sustain itself by the attention of others rather than have to grasp for glory and power. In other words, if you are big enough then you cannot fail; even haters cannot hate!
I think the satiating everyone is a hit or miss thing, either it happens or does not and often is only because a part or a vague idea of the whole. As in how people can like football clubs or celebrities or star trek or lord of the rings, not because of everything single part but because of highlights or an overall idea of it that they like for reasons. The satiating all can be accomplished by some part that speaks to the fundamental essence of existence or human life, that is the noble and good version.
The bad version that all media, poetry, art, literature, social media, anything really, should avoid is that of lowest common denominator in the easiest way: sex drugs and violence as just sex drugs and violence. - The more noble version can be sex drugs and violence but with some extra message or metaphor, not just literally sex drugs and violence for the reason as it is what people apparently want.
The thing is, that if everyone likes it, it does not necessarily mean it is brilliant or deep or profound or even something they really value or would even die for. Such as how people like the everyday and commonplace but do not build great shrines to them or scream about them to the heavens. People like moving and breathing but they do not necessarily make good poetry. Any good poetry on such things probably has a different context than the everyday, some event or change to highlight their value.
For all the accomplishments, advancements and changes in the human brain and mind, we still like things which are simple: the facts and truth stated plainly not with bullshit and trappings to be fancy and excruciatingly complex. - Such as how we like gravity described as a force or radiation as waves or cars as basically an engine and four wheels, without having to go in lengthy detail about what exactly all those things are and the definitions and names in all languages under the sun with latin labels as well.
(Wow, can I write a lengthy lot of bollocks when it does not matter.)
some days ago a 17 year old walked into a much publicized art exibition. found himself under-impressed by the art on display. so he put a pair of glasses in the floor, then put a baseball cap near a corner.
both recieved as much attention as the rest of the actual exibition. people stood around them and tried to figure out what the artist was trying to tell them
maybe the same would be true of poetry. though I think it may be a bit of a slur
both recieved as much attention as the rest of the actual exibition. people stood around them and tried to figure out what the artist was trying to tell them
maybe the same would be true of poetry. though I think it may be a bit of a slur
lepperochan said:some days ago a 17 year old walked into a much publicized art exibition. found himself under-impressed by the art on display. so he put a pair of glasses in the floor, then put a baseball cap near a corner.
both recieved as much attention as the rest of the actual exibition. people stood around them and tried to figure out what the artist was trying to tell them
I saw heard and saw pictures of it and his baseball cap on 'Have I Got News For You'. And I have much to say, spoiler alert words incoming.
Such an 'art' piece could be another one of those blasted 'readymades' as Duchamp's 'Fountain' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp). Pieces that stick up two fingers to art and its ponciness, by showing the stupidity of the concept that something is art if you call it art and have enough fools look at it. The banal, mundane and un-artsy that become 'art' simply by being called art and in an artistic location. 'Readymades' while lazy in their actual construction (the artist did not actually design or create the original piece) highlight the arrogance some art can have: that by simply taking time and effort and thought does not mean it is actually any good. - A mountain of shit made over 100 years is still a mountain of shit regardless of any other meaning, purpose or label you attach to it.
- Such 'readymades' in my opinion also miss the optimistic trick of saying something, anything now made is art, and does not need an art gallery to become art. Personally I do not wear nike trainers, and have hardly worn baseball caps in my life so far, but I can admire their aesthetic and functional qualities, I just would not pay £40 or $50 or 50 euros or any amount that puts them on par with expensive formal shoes.
Though these 'readymades' highlight the almost arbitrary amount and value we attach to things because of their name or popularity or setting. For instance on a sinking ship a liferaft or lifering is invaluable to preserve life while a diamond ring is worthless and has very little function or value as a flotation device. If you are starving or dehydrated and near death, a mountain of jewels and gold have no worth in that setting but you would be inclined to pay that mountain of jewels and gold for a drink and food.
The message of the glasses and baseball cap, may be saying something horrific about how human society values items and material goods. So that for all the ancestry, wars and fighting, we are now a society that has a lot of things and stuff but bugger all when it comes to matters of heart and soul. All the confounded bits you could demand, but no honour in competition or piety in thanking a higher spirit. That we think ourselves gods because we have things that are godlike to the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAeVE3Lsr2I&index=46&list=PL_78ikLvNObWM9BV5mPsQcZEaFKMPfzPv. Yet just like those gods we pettily horde and squander our resources and followers for no clear apparent reason other than keeping it. Hermes was the Winged Messenger of the Greek Pantheon, with the internet and twitter we are now all winged messengers, though our words are not always heaven worthy. (The necessarily like asking where someone is or asking how they are is reasonable given the technology, but retweeting something seems a bit excessive: it is no longer personal and just handed on because reasons!)
The glasses cap etc, also satirising how utterly stupid we have become in our common discovery: more prone to trying to figure out the sense and reason and message in every little poxy thing rather than getting on with shit or working out the age-old questions about life and its reasons for existence. That we focus more on appearance and look and the impacts of such a look and appearance, such as how a celebrity looks, rather than thinking about something deep instead. - We think deeply about the shallow things, and are shallow about the deep things because we seem to think we already have them figured out. That we purposefully distract ourselves with what cynics and conspiracy theories say are holding us back, as our lives are now so comfortable, dull and ultimately lacking in what they could be.
Anyone who points out how I blather on about things for ages and ages and calls me a hypocrite, I either weep or rage at them. I never want people or humanity to be like me, I want it to be better. Do not do as I say and follow: go beyond and move ahead.
This whole business, my words and thoughts have left my soul rather sour and empty. Just another daft thing in the world, and not the happy funny daft but despair bringing daft.
Most likely the guy's thoughts were along the lines of 'I don't think much of these art bits, I could do better art, my cap is more art than these'.
both recieved as much attention as the rest of the actual exibition. people stood around them and tried to figure out what the artist was trying to tell them
I saw heard and saw pictures of it and his baseball cap on 'Have I Got News For You'. And I have much to say, spoiler alert words incoming.
Such an 'art' piece could be another one of those blasted 'readymades' as Duchamp's 'Fountain' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp). Pieces that stick up two fingers to art and its ponciness, by showing the stupidity of the concept that something is art if you call it art and have enough fools look at it. The banal, mundane and un-artsy that become 'art' simply by being called art and in an artistic location. 'Readymades' while lazy in their actual construction (the artist did not actually design or create the original piece) highlight the arrogance some art can have: that by simply taking time and effort and thought does not mean it is actually any good. - A mountain of shit made over 100 years is still a mountain of shit regardless of any other meaning, purpose or label you attach to it.
- Such 'readymades' in my opinion also miss the optimistic trick of saying something, anything now made is art, and does not need an art gallery to become art. Personally I do not wear nike trainers, and have hardly worn baseball caps in my life so far, but I can admire their aesthetic and functional qualities, I just would not pay £40 or $50 or 50 euros or any amount that puts them on par with expensive formal shoes.
Though these 'readymades' highlight the almost arbitrary amount and value we attach to things because of their name or popularity or setting. For instance on a sinking ship a liferaft or lifering is invaluable to preserve life while a diamond ring is worthless and has very little function or value as a flotation device. If you are starving or dehydrated and near death, a mountain of jewels and gold have no worth in that setting but you would be inclined to pay that mountain of jewels and gold for a drink and food.
The message of the glasses and baseball cap, may be saying something horrific about how human society values items and material goods. So that for all the ancestry, wars and fighting, we are now a society that has a lot of things and stuff but bugger all when it comes to matters of heart and soul. All the confounded bits you could demand, but no honour in competition or piety in thanking a higher spirit. That we think ourselves gods because we have things that are godlike to the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAeVE3Lsr2I&index=46&list=PL_78ikLvNObWM9BV5mPsQcZEaFKMPfzPv. Yet just like those gods we pettily horde and squander our resources and followers for no clear apparent reason other than keeping it. Hermes was the Winged Messenger of the Greek Pantheon, with the internet and twitter we are now all winged messengers, though our words are not always heaven worthy. (The necessarily like asking where someone is or asking how they are is reasonable given the technology, but retweeting something seems a bit excessive: it is no longer personal and just handed on because reasons!)
The glasses cap etc, also satirising how utterly stupid we have become in our common discovery: more prone to trying to figure out the sense and reason and message in every little poxy thing rather than getting on with shit or working out the age-old questions about life and its reasons for existence. That we focus more on appearance and look and the impacts of such a look and appearance, such as how a celebrity looks, rather than thinking about something deep instead. - We think deeply about the shallow things, and are shallow about the deep things because we seem to think we already have them figured out. That we purposefully distract ourselves with what cynics and conspiracy theories say are holding us back, as our lives are now so comfortable, dull and ultimately lacking in what they could be.
Anyone who points out how I blather on about things for ages and ages and calls me a hypocrite, I either weep or rage at them. I never want people or humanity to be like me, I want it to be better. Do not do as I say and follow: go beyond and move ahead.
This whole business, my words and thoughts have left my soul rather sour and empty. Just another daft thing in the world, and not the happy funny daft but despair bringing daft.
Most likely the guy's thoughts were along the lines of 'I don't think much of these art bits, I could do better art, my cap is more art than these'.
I'm aware that such a feat is probably impossible; given the individuality of people themselves. I personally have always found it to be fascinating if such a task could be possible. It's funny I was thinking exactly of the, 'avant-garde' era of painting and visual art. I can't quite recall the man's name; the one whom coined the phrase was unable to be please after a particular work of art was made. Each new style and method just wasn't enough for the man despite the popularity they would receive. I think that perfectly shows individuality of people; while some may see and cherish a piece others may simply mutter, "I don't get it?" Then again and sorry to say I think critics are utterly stupid for an employment option in my opinion.
Lepperochan's, posts makes me think of a particular situation in a English class during college; where we were analyzing John Denver song lyrics. People would say this meant that and whatever. Don't get me wrong I like to interpret writings and such however, I always think maybe they just threw that together cause it sounded fucking good? The only reason why I think that is simply because I've done it to when writing. I've also have found that side of writing to be interesting; what exactly is the author fucking talking about?...lol
Lepperochan's, posts makes me think of a particular situation in a English class during college; where we were analyzing John Denver song lyrics. People would say this meant that and whatever. Don't get me wrong I like to interpret writings and such however, I always think maybe they just threw that together cause it sounded fucking good? The only reason why I think that is simply because I've done it to when writing. I've also have found that side of writing to be interesting; what exactly is the author fucking talking about?...lol
