leonardcohenforum.com

If there was no 'craft' to be applied, there would be no need to have Poetry classes in universities and such...
"Write down the first thing you think and feel and call it poem"
would be the beginning and end of that tutorial. Besides, that is the definition of a diary entry.

cheers,
Laurie

Alan Alda wrote: Any of this helpful?

yes, very much, ta.

Casey Butler wrote:...the words as you first wrote them?

no. editing happened before first posting too, in fact, more there than between these 2 versions.

editing happened before first posting too, in fact, more there than between these 2 versions.

Manna: It would be interesting to see the first version, if the gist was the same.

Alan Alda: I don't know much about poetry, but I know what I like.

Casey

Which stealing of the phrase "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is meant to convey that I think poetry is art, so the more spontaneous the better. The more craft involved the less art, thus less of the individual creating the poetry is involved, and soon you have cookie cutter lines based on discipline rather than creativity?

That's what I should have said...

Casey

Hi Manna,

I like your prose poem, although I have little experience with prose poetry. Except for the brevity, I might have thought it was a story if you had not named the form.

I like the deer bit alluding to a neighbourhood so benign that even deer consider its occupants harmless.

Similarly, the mention of Gail and Joe and their marriage told me that the area and its residents are familiar to you.

Most of all, I enjoyed the play of tension collapsed by humour; a small secret shared by both people, no other witnesses.

Which stealing of the phrase "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is meant to convey that I think poetry is art, so the more spontaneous the better. The more craft involved the less art, thus less of the individual creating the poetry is involved, and soon you have cookie cutter lines based on discipline rather than creativity?

This is based on flawed theory. You work a poem or a story or a piece of clay or a painting with 'skill' (learned) layered with talent (inherent).

To believe the fluff that 'falls out' is the stuff containing the source of inspiration/creativity and should not be messed with is nonsense. The poems that you read in books, the ones you like and the ones you don't like, most likely came from weeks, months and sometimes years spent on polishing a single poem...and they should come out looking effortless (the good ones) as if they 'fell out.' Maybe that is where you get this notion...because it looks effortless, you assume it was.

Again, you are mostly talking about worshipping a diary entry for its, ummm quickness. Helluva yardstick.

Alan Alda wrote:This is based on flawed theory.

Which one?

To believe the fluff that 'falls out' is the stuff containing the source of inspiration/creativity and should not be messed with is nonsense.

This sounds like it has not far to go in order to jive with Hitler's opinion of spontaneous art and poetry he didn't like, or Franco's.

You work a poem or a story or a piece of clay or a painting with 'skill' (learned) layered with talent (inherent).

I've yet to see the un-edited version of "David", for example. Has it, or any of the critics' views of Michelangelo's first draft survived?

The clay is worked by the artist with the talent who has learned the skill through experience.

Content should remain in control of the artist, or you get blegh. Words are the content of poetry.

"Remove the right pec... it's redundant."

The poems that you read in books, the ones you like and the ones you don't like, most likely came from weeks, months and sometimes years spent on polishing a single poem...

Some examples are?

and they should come out looking effortless (the good ones) as if they 'fell out.' Maybe that is where you get this notion...because it looks effortless, you assume it was.

You are describing a poetic forgery here, not a work of art. Something made to be acceptable to collectors or dealers, rather than to convey the artist's own soul.

There is a flood of original forgeries - or "fakes" - out there, I agree. My opinion is that the artist can choose to create art or fakes at his/her own discretion, because we all can tell the difference if we allow ourselves to - or care to.

But artificial scaffoldings like rigid poetic "form", originated by a real poet then used by critics that attempt to contain and thus direct how another artist expresses his/her point or point of view, are just cheap plaster frames for the mediocre work they tend to contain.

What's your opinion of the two versions of Manna's poem here? Was it improved by a reworking with an eye to form - that self-consciousness enforced by critics in order to destroy all art and replace it with marketable fakes? :-)

[Edited to sound a bit more pompous... ]

Casey

And here I thought real Poetry was the craft of spontaneous combustion.

Very Zen, (as they say) Casey. And I would have to agree with you. At least for the initiating phrase or line.

Maybe there are many ways to be a poet.
I tend to stumble on a "line" .
It then saunters into a poem
sometimes very satisfying
sometimes not so satisfying
but always worth the effort
the journey
the saunter
the moment

of being...alive and wondering

I love to stumble
and saunter

But there you go
It is more important for me to amplify an idea
and see where it goes
than to write great poetry

and no doubt
many would say
"That is obvious Mat"

I don't know. I was wondering the same thing.

I wonder If your ride is routine and this guy was "waiting" for you?
Also, I found the little comment about the town being uphill, so to speak, interesting and original.
It (your "poem") is an enjoyable piece for me.

Regards, Matj

I liked the side story about the couple, it added warmth the poem.
It was kinda a gossipy tid bit that you find in smaller communities.
I also had a feeling of ‘oh, yeah – I know that couple’.

I also liked the fact that the road stretches from Burns road to their house, shows me how familiar you are with everything there and makes an unknown man stand out all the more.

Cate

edited to remove suggestion that wasn't so good.

The idea that you throw something down and it's a finished, high-quality poem (or painting or sculpture...) seems insulting to the artist to me. And it's reflective of societal mores. Art is where your experience of the rest of the world comes together - the more you know, the better the product will be. If your idea of art is that it's haphazard, I have some things to tell you.

It is not delving into your soul, finding that little ball of light, and extracting it to show others, with or without all of the guts and throbbing tentacles that come with it. That may be part of it, but you can't vomit and call it a poem.

I say it's reflective of societal mores because art programs are one of the first things that get cut among the sempiternal funding cuts for education. And the arts get cut, even though they are some of the most valuable education. Art requires the synthesis of knowledge, one of the highest levels of learning. But folks have this idea that puke are art are brothers of spirit, and how valuable is puke? (Well, I just looooove those chunks!)

You've all given me some much appreciated feedback.
xxoo

The idea that you throw something down and it's a finished, high-quality poem (or painting or sculpture...) seems insulting to the artist to me.

There are Rembrandts and there are Jackson Pollocks, there are Renoirs and Picassos, and Vincents in between.

And it's all of the highest quality.

That's why it's cut first by the boards. :-)

Casey

manna wrote:

The idea that you throw something down and it's a finished, high-quality poem (or painting or sculpture...) seems insulting to the artist to me.

When scanning through the comments this morning the first word that came to me is:
Retarded.
"Insulting" is very good, too.

fork tender. button popped. I'm done.

Alan Alda wrote:manna wrote:

The idea that you throw something down and it's a finished, high-quality poem (or painting or sculpture...) seems insulting to the artist to me.

When scanning through the comments this morning the first word that came to me is:
Retarded.
"Insulting" is very good, too.

fork tender. button popped. I'm done.

Retarded - interesting chose of words for someone with such a diverse lexicon.

I've yet to see the un-edited version of "David", for example.

it probably wasn't published. If you make a mistake on a rock, you don't get to ctrl-Z, there's no delete button.

Has it, or any of the critics' views of Michelangelo's first draft survived?

How long do you think it took Mich to work that rock?
Do you think that after spending years as a plumber that he got an idea one day to carve a youth? Maybe he stopped by the quarry one night on his way home from work, tossed that rock into his pick-up, stopped by the hardware store for a chisel or two, and that night in his basement... Legs go here, arms go there, head on top. tap tap tap.

Do you think he drew various versions, poses, facial expressions?
(I have to admit my favourite thing about David is his face.)
Maybe he drew them on the rock itself, modifying each region
until it approached his satisfaction.
Maybe he drew on multiple sides of the rock.
Maybe he sketched the rock on a piece of paper, and drafted on that.
Think he got intimate with his stone?
matched the variegations in the rock to the countours of the body?
Do you think he used a model? took measurements?
Do you think he planned it? Thought it out?