/lit/ - Literature★

Montale --- Lemons

Listen to me. Proper poets only like to stroll

amid the kinds of plants whose names are rare:

acanthus, privet, box. But I love roads

which lead to grassy ditches where,

from half-dry puddles, boys scoop up

a few emaciated eels:

green lanes which run along the ditches’ edge

and drop between the tufts of giant reeds

down to the orchards, to the lemon trees.

It’s better that the blue should swallow up

and hush the chatter of the birds.

We hear more clearly then the whispering

of friendly branches in the scarcely moving air

and catch a scent we cannot disassociate

from earth: a restless sweetness raining on the heart.

The place performs a miracle of peace

on troubled and distracted minds;

poor we may be, but here we gain

our share of riches, and that is

the smell of lemons.

These are the silences, you see, in which

things give themselves away, seem ready

to betray their final secret.

We may be about to find a flaw of Nature.

We are at the dead point of the world,

the link that will not hold,

the disentangling thread that finally

will take us to the heart of something true.

The eyes search everywhere,

the brain requires an answer… then it yields, disintegrates:

effect of perfume overflowing most

when day most languishes.

These are the silences in which

we glimpse in every fleeting human ghost

a certain disarranged Divinity.

But the illusion fails. Time drags us back

to noisy cities where we see the blue

in patches only, up between the roofs.

The rain is wearying the earth. Now winter’s tedium

weighs on the houses, light turns miserly,

the spirit bitter.

Then, one day,

glimpsed through a half-shut gate,

there in the courtyard trees

the yellows of the lemons are on show.

The chill which gripped our hearts relents

as sunlight’s golden trumpets

pour their songs into our souls.

i'm not a poetry kind of guy, and usually i don't like poems like this, but this one got me. don't ask me why.

>>10262 (OP)

>"Acquainted with the Night"

Okay, but what does it make you FEEEEEEEL?

What makes it so good that you would post it here?

I mean, I read it, I enjoy the patter of it all, but it's hardly mind-bendingly awesome … to me.

>>10275

Are you familiar with Frost?

And I like it because I can relate to that desperate search for an escape from isolation and sadness. I mean, we've all been there at some point, and I remember reading this when I felt like I was a failure and destined for nothing. You sort of just become familiar with "the night"and eventually learn to embrace and learn from it. At least that's how it is for me. I also like how deceptively simple the poem is in its structure and themes. It's not mind blowingly complex, but it is one of my favorites nonetheless. So where's yours, faggot? I'll post another poem in the meantime, but this time from Rainer Maria Rilke. It's translated, and much better in its native language, but whatever.

"The Swan"

This laboring through what is still undone,

as though, legs bound, we hobbled along the way,

is like the awkward walking of the swan.

And dying--- to let go, no longer feel

the solid ground we stand on every day---

is like the anxious letting himself fall

into the water, which receives him gently,

and which, as though with reverence and joy,

draws back past him in streams on either side;

while, infinitely silent and aware,

in his full majesty and ever more

indifferent, he condescends to glide.

Teleology really gets my dick hard, so here's "Hengist wants men, A. D. 449" by Borges

Hengist wants men.

They will rally from the edges of sand which dissolve into broad seas, from huts filled with smoke, from threadbare landscapes, from deep forests haunted by wolves, in whose vague centre Evil lurks.

The ploughmen will abandon the plough and the fishermen their nets.

They will leave their wives and their children, for a man knows that anywhere in the night he can encounter the one and engender the other.

Hengist the mercenary wants men.

He wants them to subdue an island which is not yet called England.

Cowed and vicious, they will follow him.

They know him always to have been the first among men in battle.

They know that once he forgot his vow of vengeance and that they gave him a naked sword and that the sword did its work.

They will try their oars against the seas, with neither compass nor mast.

They will bear swords and bucklers, helmets in the likeness of the boar’s head, spells to make the cornfields multiply, vague cosmogonies, legends of the Huns and the Goths.

They will conquer the ground, but never will they enter the cities which Rome abandoned, for these are things too complicated for their primitive minds.

Hengist wants them for the victory, for the pillaging, for the corruption of the flesh and for oblivion.

Hengist wants them (but he does not know it) for the founding of the greatest of empires, for the singing of Shakespeare and Whitman, for Nelson’s ships to rule the sea, for Adam and Eve to be banished, hand in hand and silent, from the Paradise they have lost.

Hengist wants them (but he cannot know it) so that I may form these letters.

>>10262 (OP)

Anyone can tell me how to understand Western Poetry?

>>10314

>read words

>elaborate meaning of words

of course a poem is not just it's meaning.

form is important, otherwise it wouldn't be poetry.

what gives you problems?

>>10316

Don't call a pleb yet.

Let's see, I like the poems by Edgar Allan Poe such as the Raven and Annabelle Lee, Wordsworth Lucy poems, kipling's If and Oxymandias. But most of the time western poetry is not immersive, confusing, too much use of metaphors and basically look and like a torn limb of a corpse.

The poetry of my language literature revolved around rhythms to make the ideas and event more memorable and more entertaining to read. This also heavily required the mastery of a syntax and the vast number of synonym to make it good and immersive. Which is why I like Poe's Raven: The idea is clear, precise, entertaining, engaging, sound a lot of like an incantation. I am totally immersed in that world.

>Here is an example of what I don't understand in Western Poetry

A sudden blow: the great wings beating still

Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed

By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,

He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

How can those terrified vague fingers push

The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?

And how can body, laid in that white rush,

But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

A shudder in the loins engenders there

The broken wall, the burning roof and tower

And Agamemnon dead.

Being so caught up,

So mastered by the brute blood of the air,

Did she put on his knowledge with his power

Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

Overall, I like this poem very much, but it is a torn limb. Unless you knew Greek Mythology and the title, how the point of this poem can get across to the reader. Also, what is the point? The language and imagery were excellent as a poem should be but why Agamemnon and the referencing Troy be there. Did the poet wanted to people to kept guessing at its meaning but it stuck out and distracting. Plus the meaning of this poem, I read somewhere that it is about sexual awakening but how? It could been really about rape and bestiality.

>Another example >>10281

What in god fucks is that suppose to mean?

Why should I care about the swan?

Why those usages of words? It felt shoutijng "LOOK AT ME" for some reason.

Okay, a swan walked. Is there anything I need to know? Please do not tell me some metaphors.

In sum, why metaphors, why the sentences are so torn, why the meaning is too much abstracts and why the flows of words is liked being chopped?

>>10319

>What in god fucks is that suppose to mean? Why should I care about the swan? Why those usages of words? It felt shoutijng "LOOK AT ME" for some reason.

Okay, a swan walked. Is there anything I need to know? Please do not tell me some metaphors.

Jesus Christ. If you can't even into metaphors, you have no business being here. The idea is for the author to convey a feeling or idea in a thought-provoking and supportive (in relation to the concept) manner. The structure, the choice of words, the use of literary devices such as metaphors, are all used to create a poem that is both unique and stimulating to the reader. In the case of "The Swan", Rilke is comparing humanity to the nature of the swan. It is an animal that is graceful, but also clumsy in its movements. He also goes further by suggesting that in death, or suffering, (this is illustrated by the swan falling into the water), we are able to find beauty and liberation. Simple. Then again, there can be many, many interpretations and that's half the charm of reading or discussing poetry.

>>10320

Allow me to be rude for a while.

>Rilke is comparing humanity to the nature of the swan

Did you just pull it out of your arse?

>Then again, there can be many, many interpretations and that's half the charm of reading or discussing poetry.

Or you can just made an idea in your head and made the poem fit that idea.

>If you can't even into metaphors, you have no business being here.

I like metaphors and this is why I rarely understand Western Prophesy. Metaphors are great if you have an understanding of what it try to accomplish. But a lot of these metaphor in Western Poetry is too much, too vague often alluding to other vague and abstract ideas. How am I going to understand what the fuck the poet talked about when the contexts and settings are often never established. Again what the fuck is the burning of Troy helped the poem if a reader never knew that Helen is born from Leda or any thing of Trojan Wars?

>both unique and stimulating to the reader

I get that but it is rarely immersive or impressive. Most of time, it felt stuck out.

>>10319

Not this anon (>>10320) but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

>Unless you knew Greek Mythology and the title, how the point of this poem can get across to the reader.

I'm not sure why that's a problem; every piece of writing is going to require something on the part of the reader, this one just happens to require knowledge of Greek myths. Moreover, I think you can get a lot of what the poem is about without that knowledge.

>why Agamemnon and the referencing Troy be there

Troy and Agamemnon being used to describe the expansion of violence into the larger world. The first 8 lines of the poem describe the rape of Leda, and the next 7 are about the ripples that that causes in the world. Troy is obviously connected, because the Trojan War was caused by Helen, Leda's daughter from her rape by Zeus. Moreover, Agamemnon is being used in two ways: 1st, Agamemnon was a leader at Troy (and arguably the leader of the Greek forces, although that makes it sound more like a real chain of command). 2nd, Agamemnon himself didn't die at Troy. He died on his return home and was killed by his wife Clytemnestra both because she was having an affair and because Agamemnon sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia. The affair reason continues the thematic connection between sex and violence, and the daughter reason returns to (or uses another example of) the use and abuse of female characters in Greek mythology (like Leda and Zeus).

But even without all of that discussion of the allusions, it should be pretty clear from a first reading that the poem is at largely about sex/violence/rape.

>>10329

>I'm not sure why that's a problem

It is like current pop culture references in comedy or movie franchise nowadays. Unlike you have prior knowledge of it, the joke and scenes meant jackshit. Something liked the Simpsons used to do in its early days, scenes filled with references but it helped the story without any prior knowledge of what its referencing. I understand the link of Leda to the Trojan Wars, of course, so that part and themes of the poem can only make sense if the reader read something else. It (that part alone) cannot stand on its own.

And from what you are explaining, that reference is more a commentary/analysis of Greek Literature than the idea of the poem itself.

>it should be pretty clear from a first reading that the poem is at largely about sex/violence/rape

Yes that is why I liked it.

The main question I wanted to ask is how to understand western poetry? Is there a simple guide where I did not have to pay money for a book? I meant, I come at this from a prose and screen point of views. The themes of the art works had to be communicated at at least one level to the audience and needed to be able to stand on its own even if it is metafiction. Western poetry, how? I cannot say that they are bad, because it is just a bunch of words to me.

>>10327

>Did you just pull it out of your arse?

Not really, no. Read it again, but this time, tell me what you think he's talking about because it sure as hell isn't just a goddamn swan. Rilke was known to be something of a depressing man at times and this is absolutely shown through his writings. I'll post another when I have the chance and maybe that'll help you get a better understanding of his works. Anybody can write a poem based around something that's been explored many times before like emotions, philosophical concepts, history, faith, etc. But it takes a very skilled poet to express those things in a way that is not only unique to the literary world, but that also raises questions and discussion about said topic.

>Or you can just made an idea in your head and made the poem fit that idea.

Or I actually read the poem. It's not all vague and 100% up for interpretation. Pay close attention to the comparisons he makes between the swan and man. I'm not going to analyze the entire thing for you because that defeats the purpose.

>I like metaphors and this is why I rarely understand Western Prophesy. Metaphors are great if you have an understanding of what it try to accomplish.

And you get that understanding from the poem itself. Pay attention to the diction, the structure of each line/stanza, even the title. Poems are not meant to be read quickly and then forgotten with a turn of the page, anon. If you want something that's straight to the point, then look no further than that tumblr-tier poetry that passes for art these days.

>But a lot of these metaphor in Western Poetry is too much, too vague often alluding to other vague and abstract ideas.

This last bit is precisely the point. It's up to the reader to take something from it and delve into the poem. It's usually the sign of a bad poet if everything is left incoherent and vague to the point of annoyance. Try reading poems slowly and with an internet source nearby if you need to do further research. It's pretty rewarding when you learn something new, and even more so when you feel like you have a better understanding of the poem. Besides, you're lumping all western poets into a single group when they all possess their own styles and techniques. For example, Robert Frost is rather blunt compared to Rilke or Tennyson.

>I get that but it is rarely immersive or impressive. Most of time, it felt stuck out.

Maybe you should try reading other poets. Different strokes and all that.

>>10331

The man clearly does not understand English poetry. You're talking to a brick wall.

>>10324

>It's not something I have (a) really been introduced to it, since we were all into self-expression and aren't you a pretty and unique snowflake in English classes at school

I know what you mean. I was in AP English Lit in high school, and while that wasn't an issue there, it was in some of the other English classes I observed as a TA. It usually came down to either jumbled words picked straight from a thesaurus or nothing more than rambling. Both lacked structure or technique, and even worse was that the teacher didn't really seem to mind. It was all about "the kids expressing themselves" or getting them to turn something in. One thing to remember is that poetry is supposed to be unique, but it's also supposed to be composed with the utmost attention and care. This can only be accomplished with studying the works of other renowned poets and most importantly, practice practice practice.

>and (b) ever been able to absorb it, for lack of a better expression.

Why do you think you have troubling absorbing information from poems?

>I know (or at least suspect) I am the poorer for it. But I barely read at the moment, so I'd need to fix that first.

If you're looking to get into poetry, I would recommend beginning with the major American poets like Robert Frost, Walt Whitman, Poe, and others along those lines. Their poems are a little easier to read and flow a bit more smoothly. Then I would suggest tackling the English poets like Tennyson, Blake, T.S. Eliot, and of course, Shakespeare. After that, look around and see what you find. Don't be afraid to look into stuff like haikus as well.

>If only because I admire poets' deft and thoughtful use of language, even if I myself glaze-over when I read their work and miss most of their subtleties.

>even if I myself glaze-over when I read their work and miss most of their subtleties

Like I was saying to the other guy, poetry isn't something you simply read in a few minutes and forget about. Take it slow, relax, and have a few things handy. Use pens/highlighters to mark things that stick out to you and write little annotations. This helps alot with establishing the theme/mood of the piece. Use a dictionary or the internet. Especially if you're unfamiliar with some of the more archaic words and phrases. I tend to jump straight in to get my initial impressions, then I proceed to analyze. Sometimes it takes a few minutes, sometimes hours, sometimes days, but I think it's worth it.

>There are poets amongst song-writers and fuck no I am not talking about fucking tay-tay or any other top 40 bullshit. I mean, I hear the poetry in NIN's work, sometimes I guess it's really the music-as-poetry, and admire it even if I am not a fan of his music.

Absolutely, but I wouldn't call it poetry in the traditional sense. There are a few musicians that I feel come close though. I used to analyze Joy Division songs in the same way I mentioned above. Take this embed related for example. But yeah, it's still art regardless. I think that getting into poetry also helps with looking at things a bit more in depth across various artistic mediums.

>>10330

>It is like current pop culture references in comedy or movie franchise nowadays. Unlike you have prior knowledge of it, the joke and scenes meant jackshit.

>It (that part alone) cannot stand on its own.

I'm aware of what's going on with references, but my question remains, why is this a problem? You've essentially just made an assertion that a poem depending on allusion is bad because it means that the poem is inaccessible to to anyone who doesn't know the reference. It seems to me that that assertion puts far to much emphasis on accessibility and not enough on meaning. You're acting like the poem's job is to say something to you, and not to say something that you might be able to understand. Moreover, from the original post about this poem it sounds like Leda's name appears in the title, which means that anyone who doesn't understand what story the poem is referencing could literally just take a quick trip to google to do some of their own research.

But let me try to explain why I think those allusions are valuable. Think about the way that the words are working in the poem: they each refer to something else. The phrase "the great wings" refers to something called wings. Some of these references are more complex; "her loosening thighs" refers to Leda's actual thighs, but clearly it also refers to her vagina (perhaps literally). But when the poem gets to a line like "the broken wall, the burning roof and tower" its no longer just referring to wings or Leda's vagina but to the entire story of the Trojan war. In 8 words this poem summons up a story that Homer spent more than 16,000 lines on (and that's just the Iliad). If we're thinking about the poem as something like an economy of meaning, the allusions to Agamemnon and the Trojan war bring in a ton of meaning that the poem really couldn't get any other way (after all, this short poem doesn't have the time to recap the story of what happens with Leda's children).

>Is there a simple guide where I did not have to pay money for a book?

Nope. Poetry doesn't have a lot of shortcuts. You just have to read more poetry and think about it. Read some analysis if you get stuck.

Sestina: Altaforte by Ezra Pound

Loquitur: En Bertrans de Born.

Dante Alighieri put this man in hell for that he was a stirrer-up of strife.

Eccovi!

Judge ye!

Have I dug him up again?

The scene in at his castle, Altaforte. “Papiols” is his jongleur.

“The Leopard," the device of Richard (Cúur de Lion).

I

Damn it all! all this our South stinks peace.

You whoreson dog, Papiols, come! Let’s to music!

I have no life save when the swords clash.

But ah! when I see the standards gold, vair, purple, opposing

And the broad fields beneath them turn crimson,

Then howl I my heart nigh mad with rejoicing.

II

In hot summer have I great rejoicing

When the tempests kill the earth’s foul peace,

And the lightnings from black heav’n flash crimson,

And the fierce thunders roar me their music

And the winds shriek through the clouds mad, opposing,

And through all the riven skies God’s swords clash.

III

Hell grant soon we hear again the swords clash!

And the shrill neighs of destriers in battle rejoicing,

Spiked breast to spiked breast opposing!

Better one hour’s stour than a year’s peace

With fat boards, bawds, wine and frail music!

Bah! there’s no wine like the blood’s crimson!

(continued below)

(continued from above)

IV

And I love to see the sun rise blood-crimson.

And I watch his spears through the dark clash

And it fills all my heart with rejoicing

And pries wide my mouth with fast music

When I see him so scorn and defy peace,

His lone might ‘gainst all darkness opposing.

V

The man who fears war and squats opposing

My words for stour, hath no blood of crimson

But is fit only to rot in womanish peace

Far from where worth’s won and the swords clash

For the death of such sluts I go rejoicing;

Yea, I fill all the air with my music.

VI

Papiols, Papiols, to the music!

There’s no sound like to swords swords opposing,

No cry like the battle’s rejoicing

When our elbows and swords drip the crimson

And our charges ‘gainst “The Leopard’s” rush clash.

May God damn for ever all who cry “Peace!”

VII

And let the music of the swords make them crimson!

Hell grant soon we hear again the swords clash!

Hell blot black for always the thought “Peace!”

>>10331

>sure as hell isn't just a goddamn swan

Of course, but in the first level of text. it is still a swan.

>Rilke

So to enjoy a poem, I need to research its artist beforehand? Maybe a different perspective, but in most other art forms, people did not need to research the author to understand it. They do so because it gave them much better understanding but "it is the tale not who told it".

>Or I actually read the poem

When I reread the poem and your interpretation: I can say that the poem is about love, death, invention, sickness, baby, food,…etc.

>than that tumblr-tier poetry that passes for art these days

yeah, I can see that. The problem for me is their style is very similar to most contemporary and 20th poems but with a lot of less effort. I knew they sucked but at least the point is better understood

>Besides, you're lumping all western poets into a single group when they all possess their own styles and techniques.

I am not but I am talking Western Poetry in general. Even the poet I liked have these features

>Internet

One thing if I have to act on your advice - thank for that- It only worth any time if the poem is actually good. If it is shit, the experience would be much shittier. I tend to be very analytical in experiencing art but researching for references meaning is kind of time risk venture when in most art, you judging it from what it is than what it might be alluding to.

Thanks your response.

>>10332

It is not just me. Do you ever seen The Girl Who lived Down the Lane in 1976? A postman said to the daughter of a poet apologetically that he did not understand poetry especially if it is not rhythm. The girl smiled and said that her father the poet claimed that "most people who loved poetry only pretending to love it". I spoke to some westerner when one of potential client is an American poet. She sincerely asked me what do I think of the poems? I said I never understood western poetry and she laughed and said the same thing. She is pretty much well-read too.

>>10334

>quick trip to google to do some of their own research.

What if I do not have internet? Again, to understand the poem required research on other works. So, to enjoy the poem of 10 lines I need to read something else that might be 100 pages.

>It seems to me that that assertion puts far to much emphasis on accessibility and not enough on meaning. You're acting like the poem's job is to say something to you, and not to say something that you might be able to understand.

Literature and art is all about communicating something even if we did not understand that thing well. Meaning has to be be communicate somewhat in order for the reader to find more. Do you like pop culture reference? Trouble with them is they often useless when the culture had moved on and the art works that do the referencing have deadwood. Poetry have not been popular for the last 60 years, I doubt that was all because of vid related.

>>10343

> She sincerely asked me what do I think of the poems? I said I never understood western poetry and she laughed and said the same thing

I take it both of you are not native to English? It would be like if I knew a little German and joked that I don't understand Kafka. I can read it ( I can't), but if I don't really know German, it can lose meaning. I mean people that do speak English as their native language can't understand poems, it be even harder if you didn't know it well.

>>10345

Note that I said Western Poetry not English Poetry. She is Colombia/Australian. You are right on the last part. I loved many excellent proses that English novels provided such as lolita and wuthering Height but when it came to Poetry, I just could not could see the quality most of the time.

>>10343

>So to enjoy a poem, I need to research its artist beforehand? Maybe a different perspective, but in most other art forms, people did not need to research the author to understand it. They do so because it gave them much better understanding but "it is the tale not who told it".

Of course you don't have to research the author of every poem you read, but I was just providing you with a little background of Rilke that may help with understanding his perspective when he writes about things like loss, longing, and despair.

>When I reread the poem and your interpretation: I can say that the poem is about love, death, invention, sickness, baby, food,…etc.

I'm going to have to ask how you got invention, baby, and food from that.

>One thing if I have to act on your advice - thank for that- It only worth any time if the poem is actually good. If it is shit, the experience would be much shittier. I tend to be very analytical in experiencing art but researching for references meaning is kind of time risk venture when in most art, you judging it from what it is than what it might be alluding to.

Again, you don't have to look into the author or some of the more specific details every time you read a poem. There's a reason why poetry has survived as an art form for centuries, and the scholars of the past certainly did not have things like the internet. Read up on history, critical essays on various writers, basic poetical composition. It's not the responsibility of the poem to hold your hand. You aren't going to connect with a great poem right away, you have to put in the effort to understand it and that can only happen with repeated readings and some serious analysis.

>>10343

>Literature and art is all about communicating something even if we did not understand that thing well. Meaning has to be be communicate somewhat in order for the reader to find more.

I don't often say this, but what an absolutely pleb-tier opinion to have. But before I get into why that's a shitty opinion to hold about art, I'm going to explain why even if the poem's job is to communicate meaning, that still doesn't explain why using allusions would be bad.

If we're going to rate art on the basis of communicated meaning, then their ought to be two principal components: the ability to communicate that meaning, and the meaning itself. Now in an ideal world those two components would be entirely separate, but as we both know generally a more complex/valuable meaning is more difficult to communicate. This means that with an allusion, we have to look at whether or not the difficulty of getting the meaning across outweighs the meaning brought into the poem. Now, I could see the case that quoting 10 or 12 lines of Dante in Italian in the middle of an English poem is severely damaging the ability to communicate the meaning, but in this case the allusions are to one of the most famous stories in the western tradition (I'd argue that only the Gospels are more famous/foundational than the Trojan war). And like I mentioned earlier, the Leda poem is hardly hiding the nature of the allusion, considering that apparently Leda is in the title. Finally, from the perspective of art as simply a vehicle for communication, the meaning that an allusion can bring to an artwork, allusions like this one ought to be celebrated. With a line and a half the poem brings in thousands of pages and thousands of years of meaning. From the perspective of efficient communication, that line and a half allusion is probably the best part of the poem. And I could see the argument that that allusion isn't communication if its impossible to access, but like I said before, tapping into that massive amount of meaning only takes a quick trip to google, and only for people who don't know the story of the Trojan war. To use another example, not everyone is going to know the meaning of a word like 'heresiarch' or 'eschatological.' That doesn't mean that any poem that uses either of those words is failing; it just means that anyone who doesn't know what they mean can go check a dictionary. And in fact I'd make the case that by forcing the reader to define those words the poem has broadened their understanding of art and the world in a way that saying 'chief heretic' or 'concerning the Apocalypse' wouldn't have.

(1/2)

>>10343

>>10350

But back to the statement about art being all about communicating. I'm going to start by namedropping a bunch of philosophers and explaining how they think something very different about art. So without further ado:

Plato essentially makes the case that art in the material world is a shadow of the unrealizable perfect form of the real world. In this view art's quality comes from the degree to which it realizes that unrealizable form through the intervention of the muse. Or at least that's the view presented in Ion, although other dialogues (like Republic) are more concerned with how we ought to interact with art than what it actually is.

Aristotle, being a materialist, takes a fairly different view, but in his Poetics he makes the case that art is defined by the emotions that it stirs up in the viewers. For Aristotle tragedy is defined by its capacity to inspire fear and pity. In this view one could write a play that is complete gibberish, and if it inspired fear and pity, it would still be tragedy (even though Aristotle would prefer that it had a great man and take place in real time and be called Oedipus Rex).

Horace, inspired by Aristotelian philosophy, makes the case that poetry is all about decorum, and that poetry is great when each element is in harmony with each other element and with the whole. This view gain a great deal of popularity during the enlightenment (Alexander Pope has a great translation of Horace's poem on the subject).

And if we're willing to follow those Enlightenment poets and skip ahead, Kant holds that what is most important about art is beauty, because being able to recognize and attune with beauty is what allows us to take part in rational experience.

Hegel argues that ever since classical art (or rather, ever since classical art and the art that apes it), art has to be about its own incapacity to communicate and be meaningful (which was why he thought that poetry was the finest form of post-classical art).

Finally, Heidegger argues that poetry is defined by the way that language calls things into being and the interplay of being/nonbeing and presence/absence that this creates. As a result, the best poetry is poetry which possesses this 'stillness' that is the result of this interplay, and poetry is weakened when it tries to control or solidify being/nonbeing or presence/absence.

There are a lot of important thinkers that I skipped, and there are even a few that come after Heidegger. However, the purpose of this list is twofold: First, these are a whole lot of remarkable thinkers with intelligent and well-argued views about what art ought to be, none of whom agree with your or each other about what art should be. Second, if there is a connecting element in all of those philosophies of art, its the principle that art is somehow doing something more important or more special or more transcendent than just communicating. Even the mundane materialists like Aristotle make the case that art is doing something more primal than other forms of communication. And to go back to that poem about Leda, notice that the poet didn't write "Rape is bad" or "Zeus raped Leda thereby engendering a cycle of violence that extends through the Trojan war" or even "Women in Greek myths generally have pretty shitty lives." All of those are something like the themes expressed in the poem, but none of them are operating in the same way as the poem itself (and not just because this is prose). Understanding that is the basis of understanding art in general, and poetry in particular.

2/2

>>10351

>>10350

Wow, such a long piece about a misunderstanding of what I meant. I should have said an essential part of art is communication but whatever. All of literature and art need to communicate something. If you wanted the reader to be unsure and leave in a state of continued perplexity, then you must be able to communicate/transfer that state of mind to your reader. If that communication/transference failed, it is usually that either the reader is plebeian or the writing is shit. "If a branch fall off a tree with no one to hear, will it made a sound?" Likewise, a terrible abstract art generally tried to steer its audience (communicating) toward generating an idea whether or not there is an actual idea in the art itself.

>none of whom agree with your or each other about what art should be.

>Hegel argues that ever since classical art (or rather, ever since classical art and the art that apes it), art has to be about its own incapacity to communicate and be meaningful (which was why he thought that poetry was the finest form of post-classical art).

>emotions that it stirs up in the viewers. Aristotle. (Transferring those emotions). Yeah this guy sounded like a pleb. I never like him for some reason, every quotes of him I came across, I disagreed with.

>Second, if there is a connecting element in all of those philosophies of art, its the principle that art is somehow doing something more important or more special or more transcendent than just communicating

But without an attempt at communication,"If a branch fall off a tree with no one to hear, will it made a sound?" . Importance , specialty and transcendent, is nice but if no one understand those things other than the writer. It meant that the writing failed. Finnegan Wakes which people in this board and many esteem writers like Nabokov hated, and I could not read was still able to communicated many ideas, sounds to Joyce specialists and other academic and that is why it is not a failure.

All in all, communication is an essential part of art and literature. "Art and Literature is all about communication" is misleading.

>>10349

All right, so basically both of you are saying that I needed to study a poem to like a poem. Thank for the advice, but I already study films, novels, non-fictions, comics, video games, fine arts, photography, commercial arts, abstract arts. Practically nearly all form of narrations and visual arts I could get my hand on, so I leave western poetry alongside music and fashion where I could not care as much. Thank you. My understand about this is like what Roger Ebert said when someone asked him to play a video game before he continue to lambast the art form.

One last thing, my philosophy about what made the art lasted is explain at the end of the video. Any philosopher you knew of think the same thing?

>>10356

SORRY, WRONG VID. The statement is made at the middle of this vid.

Any philosopher ever said the same thing as this guy?

>>10356

>Wow, such a long piece about a misunderstanding of what I meant.

See, you say that, and then you return to the same putrid absolutely subjectivist argument that you had before with essentially no additions or changes barring a slight concession for the possibility that there is something transcendental going on after or above the foundation of communication. I suspect it might be you who's misunderstanding what I meant. Furthermore you return with no rebuttal to my case that even on the basis of judging by communicability allusion can be extremely powerful and can make for excellent art. But ignoring that, let's get back to why your conception of art is the most plebian thing I've heard in a while.

Your argument about allusion essentially came down to "I might not know the allusion, and it might be a lot of work to understand it, therefore its bad," with a few interspersed bits of "the poem can't stand on its own." That, in many ways, sums up the problems with your conception of art. I used the term "absolutely subjective" earlier because it is an evaluation of art entirely built on the audience's response to the intended message of the artist. Leaving aside the gap between the artist's intended message and the meanings (potential or actual of the work), this perspective suggests that art ought to be judged by applause meters on game shows. Communication requires a recipient in order to be successful. Imagine a poem read by two readers, one of whom successfully receives the communication and one of whom does not. In this view, the value of the poem is reduced because it could not perform for one of the readers, and yet the poem is not the decisive factor that controlled whether or not the communication was successful (after all, the only difference between the two readings is the reader). In other words, the evaluation of the poem has no relationship to the poem itself but is instead based on the reader and their response. A good response means a good poem, and a bad response means a bad poem. This view is the basis of every teenager that says "Reading YA is just as valuable as reading classics because I get something out of it" and every misinformed teenager who believes that because opinions differ on art their opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's. It's a view of art that makes no attempt to justify quality by anything more than "I judge it so." To root the value of art in the meaning that the audience receives is to grant the final evaluation purely to the audience response and to turn all judgements into "I like it/I get it" or "I don't like it/I don't get it." Finally, this is exactly the basis for the problem of flattery that the video in >>10357 describes. Because judgements are not based on possessing beauty, or degree of realizing the unrealizable forms, or the quality of stillness, flattery becomes the best way to ensure that audience responses will be positive, meaning that flattering art is treated as good art.

my dick

is hard

they call me

the bard

>>10358

Another long response about nothing. That is probably you are looking for a rebuttal and all I can say is that there is nothing I care to rebutt with. The point still stand: All art required an ability to Communicate or Transference of idea. And Hegel agreed with me which you say no great thinker do.

But if you insist.

>judging by communicability allusion can be extremely powerful and can make for excellent art.

I disagree with this statement. While it is true on a few occasions. The only allusions that is deep or worthy with is what already existed in human nature.

1) Example, when in lolita, there is several allusions to fairy tales, the genre had aspects of human nature such child-like innocence, enchantment, danger, journey. Alluding to those feelings found in fairytales is a great ways the story is structured and had a central theme. That is one of the many thing that novel get right. On the other hand, the princedom by the sea aspect is a clever nod to Edgar Allan Poe, yet in most reviews and analysis, it is not much of a concern to those critics because while it is excellent on its own. There is nothing much you can get (enjoyment) from this, unless you are familiar with poe.

2) Second, many great works of art refer to human nature. By referring those arts, all it do is like being tertiary source. The work itself is not enough and thus only able to succeed by the audience understanding of secondary sources.

> Absolute Subjectivity

The point I tried to make is this. I do not understand Western Poetry, therefore I never tried to judge it. So I decided to question why I cannot understand it as the majority of people do not as well. The answers being metaphors for metaphors sake, a bunch of crying adults, words that did not flow, and settings that are not clear. Not to lambast it further, I no longer care to try. What you are saying in the second paragraph is an overstatement of my belief.

>"I might not know the allusion, and it might be a lot of work to understand it, therefore its bad,"

> In other words, the evaluation of the poem has no relationship to the poem itself but is instead based on the reader and their response. A good response means a good poem, and a bad response means a bad poem.

If the reader reads something and think that is good, great or bad, then he had the right to say that no matter if other people think he is right or not. If he do not understand it, then he only can say why he cannot understand it. I never said that the poem is bad, I just stated my response to it

>To root the value of art in the meaning that the audience receives is to grant the final evaluation purely to the audience response and to turn all judgements into "I like it/I get it" or "I don't like it/I don't get it."

Isn't this what is said by Aristotle?

Those audience are plebs, yet if a well-read person can only give judgements from scholars consent, then he is too a pleb.I never believe that ALL judgement is based on those criteria but without a recipient, it could usually meant either the reader failed or the writer failed. All in all, that communication failed. I do not think that there is a final evaluation.

My belief is not absolutely subjective but I hold neither great trust on other people opinion nor too much on my own. I can only trust myself to give honest opinion about an art work, so I tried improving the analytical skills as much as I possibly can (often by reading other analytical opinions).

>Flattery

What it meant is not just YA plebs who failed for these flattery, it is everyone and every art. A great work of art can flatter whole generations or centuries people despite the vast majority of them do not understand or even read the works itself. All arts struggled with this problems. People used it to distinguished, conform or ennoble themselves. Judgements of course, should have been something else. All I ask for, if you knew any philosopher who stated the same thing about art, because I am not well-versed in philosophy, and I like a quote and a name attached to it, in case I need to use it.

>>10360

>The point still stand: All art required an ability to Communicate or Transference of idea.

Once again, this is just an assertion with no justification. It's like you're not even trying to put together a cohesive argument beyond "I believe this, therefore its right."

>And Hegel agreed with me which you say no great thinker do.

Actually, if you remember:

>Hegel argues that ever since classical art (or rather, ever since classical art and the art that apes it), art has to be about its own incapacity to communicate and be meaningful (which was why he thought that poetry was the finest form of post-classical art).

In other words, all art has the be about its own inability to be meaningful/communicate, while at the same time not being meaningful/not communicating (because if the art was meaningful about its meaninglessness it wouldn't be meaningless). Hegel is saying that great art is essentially defined by its incommunicability, almost exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.

>I disagree with this statement. While it is true on a few occasions. The only allusions that is deep or worthy with is what already existed in human nature.

Again, this is just an assertion, in this case backed up by an anecdote about Lolita and another assertion. Moreover your 2), the 2nd assertion, still makes no consideration of the relative difficulty of understanding the allusion. To state what I said above another way, words essentially work like allusions. Consider the sentence "The tree is green." That sentence doesn't define "tree" or "green" or "is." That sentence is operating, as you described it, like a "tertiary source" of the language itself. The difference is that you already know what "tree" and "green" and "is" refer to. And if you can't follow the implication of those statements, let me spell it out for you: Because language operates by referring to things, and therefore requires things to refer to, stating that art is worthless if it cannot stand on its own is to say that all language is worthless. This is why some consideration needs to be made for the difficulty of understanding the reference.

>The point I tried to make is this. I do not understand Western Poetry, therefore I never tried to judge it. So I decided to question why I cannot understand it as the majority of people do not as well. The answers being metaphors for metaphors sake, a bunch of crying adults, words that did not flow, and settings that are not clear. Not to lambast it further, I no longer care to try. What you are saying in the second paragraph is an overstatement of my belief.

Ironically, this exactly my point with:

>Leaving aside the gap between the artist's intended message and the meanings (potential or actual of the work)

First, your model of art has a serious and glaring hole because it leaves no room for something to be present in the art which was not part of the intended communication on the part of the artist. Second, even by the standards of your own flawed model, your earlier comments are seriously flawed, because (assuming that what you said here is exactly what you meant), what you meant here is very different from what you said earlier, meaning that the author was unable to effectively communicate their meaning.

>If he do not understand it, then he only can say why he cannot understand it. I never said that the poem is bad, I just stated my response to it.

And yet we can use your own response in >>10319 to show that that's actually not the case. Despite clearly not understanding the Rilke poem (for instance, not putting together the metaphor connecting the swan entering the water and humans facing/experiencing death), you make clear value judgments about it. Your response to the Leda poem works the same way; you're asking about what it is that the poem means while making a value judgement about allusions. Finally, the progression of your comments shows the same thing. You start with things like "How do I understand western poetry" (clearly implying that you don't currently understand it) and then turn around to say things like "western poetry is not immersive, confusing, too much use of metaphors and basically look and like a torn limb of a corpse" (all value judgments about art that you don't understand). So by your own example it is possible to make value judgments without understanding art. Also:

>why I cannot understand it as the majority of people do not as well. The answers being metaphors for metaphors sake, a bunch of crying adults, words that did not flow, and settings that are not clear.

In other words, "I can't understand it because of a whole bunch of things that, in my philosophy of art, are self-evidently negative," once again combining lack of understanding with judgment.

(1/2)

>>10360

>>10364

>Isn't this what is said by Aristotle?

So first off, you might not want to defend yourself with Aristotle after:

>Aristotle. (Transferring those emotions). Yeah this guy sounded like a pleb. I never like him for some reason, every quotes of him I came across, I disagreed with.

First, this is just really funny. Second, this is exactly what I meant by the fact that your view of art is missing any consideration of meaning that a part of what has been said without being a part of what the author meant. I'm sure you didn't mean to juxtapose those two statements about Aristotle, but you did and the result is hilarious. Third, and I apologize for the weaknesses of my summary, for Aristotle what defines things is their formal cause, not their final cause. Tragedy's final cause is the invoked fear and pity, but tragedy's formal cause is the potential fear and pity which it could invoke in an audience based on how it is constructed. In other words, while Aristotle is thinking about audience response in the abstract, what he is actually concerned with is specifically how the tragedy is constructed so as to create fear and pity.

>All in all, that communication failed.

Which, once again, is only a problem because it does not fulfill the specific philosophy of art that you have asserted without justifying. For instance, Kant would say that if the art is beautiful, then it doesn't matter whether or not the art communicated, because what matters in art is possessing beauty. And best of all, anyone who sees that art which does not communicate but is beautiful who is thinking in the Kantian way will evaluate that art as good, and because your philosophy of art is entirely based on audience opinion you will have to either A) accept that viewer's response because after all, they have the same right to judgement of the art, thereby undermining the evaluation of the art based on its communicability, or B) throw out their opinion because it does not come from the same philosophy of art, thereby betraying the basic subjective principles of your philosophy of art.

(2/2)

>>10364

>>10365

It seem I never get through to you. Well have a good day. Also, stop namedropping, use your original thought more please. As for philosophy of art without justifying, man, I tried. From what you have been posting, I do not think that poetry is ever going to reach its height again in this busy world. I misread the Hegel quote.

There is no absolute final answer or judgement on art. Most of what you asserted as my philosophy are not my belief. Except of course that communication is an essential part of art. Beauty, ugliness, intelligence, stupidity, escapism, realism, all of these need to be communicated to a certain amount somehow. Whether the the audience is able to produce a value judgement is another matter. Whether the art is good or bad, deep or shallow is another matter. Communication must be there. If the communication failed, then neither the artist nor audience can gain or lose anything other than time. But I do not believe that one person or one group or multiple groups can have any final say on the quality.

>>10366

>Complains about not being able to get through in a thread where all he can do is assert and restate his points with no justification or defense of them.

>Complains about lack of original thought while expressing babby's first philosophy of art.

>Complains about namedropping after literally asking for a philosopher to namedrop. "All I ask for, if you knew any philosopher who stated the same thing about art, because I am not well-versed in philosophy, and I like a quote and a name attached to it, in case I need to use it."

>Still makes a grand pronouncement about the quality of poetry ("I do not think that poetry is ever going to reach its height again in this busy world") after talking about how he doesn't understand poetry and making the case that one can't make judgements when one doesn't understand poetry.

>Ends with a series of largely meaningless platitudes and restatements of his earlier unjustified assertions.

Man, I really should have listened to >>10332 because he was right on the money.