Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 1:42 pm
Absolutely, Makera ~
If poetry isn't a form of art, I'm wondering where I've been with my perceptions all this time
. Yes, I agree on free expression in art, in all forms, which is why I feel absolutely that a poem, etc. can be written about anything, from any perspective. However, I as a viewer have the right to express my feelings about how it affects me, from any perspective. I felt sad for the writer of Halloween Poem, for what, it appeared, he had witnessed as a child. If I went to an art museum, I wouldn't stand mute/"hold my tongue" if something created a strong reaction, simply because "it's art." The point of that would be what ?
I didn't say Ben shouldn't have written it. I didn't say he shouldn't have posted it here. As I knew the likelihood of Ben and others feeling like I'd somehow "ruined the party," with the "aw c'mon now, don't be a dud," as well as the "psychoanalytical" nature of these responses to me, I did say that I hesitated twice before posting my response here.
I'm well aware of the mirror-perception theory on art . However, this poem is not a catalytic converter for me. I'm not about to undergo great or small self-discovery/catharsis through it . I already know where I'm at with that. Saying that I don't like this kind of exploitation [or exploitation period] doesn't mean I have my personal "issues" with it. It does, in my case, mean I've witnessed it, and didn't like seeing it in real life, any more than I liked seeing it "glorified" in this poem.
I expressed how, as a woman, I felt sad reading about the exploitation it represents, re-enforced by its final lines. Simply a guy going for what he can get, and then laughing about it, making fun of the woman. The end justifies the means, and all that follows. Perhaps my sensitivity to it "mirrors" various fields I've worked in, where exploitation of females has been an issue. Or, the much-larger-scale inequity of women in many societies, in general.
However, taking the liberty to call me Moonbeam Sweetheart, after my comments on the poem, was somewhere between presumptuous, derisive, demeaning, condescending, and dismissive, which for me only added to my original perspective, despite its being a take-off on another poem already in existence, elsewhere. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing the original, to compare. Lest you think I missed the cleverness of his using his "pet name" for both of us, I didn't. Does it serve to undermine/invalidate my reaction to its use with me? Or, does it perhaps suggest that he considers all women, despite their perspectives, Moonbeam Sweethearts? In the meantime, I gave my feedback with respect. I'd expect responses to that to be respectful, as well.
~ Elizabeth
If poetry isn't a form of art, I'm wondering where I've been with my perceptions all this time
. Yes, I agree on free expression in art, in all forms, which is why I feel absolutely that a poem, etc. can be written about anything, from any perspective. However, I as a viewer have the right to express my feelings about how it affects me, from any perspective. I felt sad for the writer of Halloween Poem, for what, it appeared, he had witnessed as a child. If I went to an art museum, I wouldn't stand mute/"hold my tongue" if something created a strong reaction, simply because "it's art." The point of that would be what ? I didn't say Ben shouldn't have written it. I didn't say he shouldn't have posted it here. As I knew the likelihood of Ben and others feeling like I'd somehow "ruined the party," with the "aw c'mon now, don't be a dud," as well as the "psychoanalytical"
nature of these responses to me, I did say that I hesitated twice before posting my response here.I'm well aware of the mirror-perception theory on art
. However, this poem is not a catalytic converter for me. I'm not about to undergo great or small self-discovery/catharsis through it . I already know where I'm at with that. Saying that I don't like this kind of exploitation [or exploitation period] doesn't mean I have my personal "issues" with it. It does, in my case, mean I've witnessed it, and didn't like seeing it in real life, any more than I liked seeing it "glorified" in this poem. I expressed how, as a woman, I felt sad reading about the exploitation it represents, re-enforced by its final lines. Simply a guy going for what he can get, and then laughing about it, making fun of the woman. The end justifies the means, and all that follows. Perhaps my sensitivity to it "mirrors" various fields I've worked in, where exploitation of females has been an issue. Or, the much-larger-scale inequity of women in many societies, in general.
However, taking the liberty to call me Moonbeam Sweetheart, after my comments on the poem, was somewhere between presumptuous, derisive, demeaning, condescending, and dismissive, which for me only added to my original perspective, despite its being a take-off on another poem already in existence, elsewhere. In fact, I'd be interested in seeing the original, to compare. Lest you think I missed the cleverness of his using his "pet name" for both of us, I didn't. Does it serve to undermine/invalidate my reaction to its use with me? Or, does it perhaps suggest that he considers all women, despite their perspectives, Moonbeam Sweethearts? In the meantime, I gave my feedback with respect. I'd expect responses to that to be respectful, as well.
~ Elizabeth
Your allusion to my 'what?' on the "Halloween Prank" is not quite in context though - if assuming, still, that I was reacting to 'content' instead of the leg-pulling 'claims' of authorship/authenticity, as I've clearly stated. 
face." A simple rereading of both his and my posts to each other should reveal the contrast.