Xword causes Yreaction when audience = b and author = a
Note: I’m picking on poetry here because of all forms, it is the most elusive. But my following comments could be applied to art in general.
Maybe because I was looking for a reason to give up on what had already proven to be an unfortunate read, but this section of The Book of Lazarus frothed all the ill-will I had toward (most) poetry:
I have seen that there is no predetermined direction to the birth of a word, that words move across the page like beams of random light moving through immense voids of wandering flares. Poems are built like jewels. (pg 434)
Really?
Explaining what poetry is with poetic language is cyclical and confusing. I do appreciate the meta aspect of doing this (truly, I do. See here). But defining an elusive concept with further metaphor doesn’t help to define anything. Yes, the above example is from a fiction text, so the reader should rightfully assume that the definition is more about developing a character than about providing an accurate definition of poetry. However, it seems this flowery style is exactly what demonizes poetry in the mind of the casual (possibly conservative) reader. The common conception of poetry is that it is easy and anyone can do it. There is an “all is right, nothing is wrong, so be yourself” therapeutic hippy aspect associated with poetry. Which is why I don’t count poetry as one of my favorite forms, despite my above understanding of any possible misconception or untruth; the stink is quite potent.
I’ve reached a point in my writing study where I am tired of intangibles (and I’m not the only one). I want repeatable data. I want the art effect to be measurable. I want to know that word x would elicit reaction y when audience = b and author = a. Can art be scientifically approached? I really want to say yes; we simply haven’t the capacity to do so yet. So, in my dream of measured effect, the above description of poetry elicits one thing well: vomit.
Xword causes Yreaction when audience = b and author = a
The first step in a measured effect would be to assign a value to both b and a. This, I understand, is both the first step and the impossible step (impossible, as we currently understand ourselves as a species). The author does not always understand his intentions, and even more-so, does not always know his audience. In a perfect world, an author will come to a story, poem, anything with years of self-awareness along with an understanding of his audience for that specific work. Perhaps this is why most authors get better the more they write, and why most authors don’t peak until middle-age or after.
Matchbook Lit mag has something good going. They require authors to post critical analyses of their work alongside the work itself. An artist’s statement, so-to-speak. This is important. This is likely necessary to keep writing respected in a world where anyone with an internet connection can post any drivel at any time to potentially hundreds of thousands of readers. In other words: just because someone can type and share words, does not mean he should. The artist’s statement proves that there is at least honest intent behind the writing.
The bottom line is this: relying on interpretation makes for lazy artists. The burden of art should never be hoisted entirely upon the critic. Doing so creates a false formula, where a and/or b is missing. The more therapeutic hippy drivel out there, the less respected writing becomes. Simple.
And for all those university professors and doctors out there, who, I know, wrestle with this dilemma daily, think about this: how much easier would it be to acquire arts funding if we were able to rationalize the dollars with measured results?
I agree with your bottom line. But I resent a. the description of poetry as an “elusive concept”. b. the un-evolved powers of intuition that allow you to read those two sentences you quoted from The Book of Lazarus without any sense of awe or excitement. c. the use of variables to describe intangible concepts like causes and reactions following the statement “I am tired of intangibles”.
I agree that diluting the art of writing with “anything goes” does cheapen it. But I also think that once you boil “arts” down to an algorithm that can predict monetary results you have tangibly cheapened “the craft”. Limiting the self-expression of the author to a specific audience is an odd kind of self-censure. To me, writing off an entire form of literature is just as lazy as relying on interpretation to give meaning to your work.
Thanks for reading, J. And more importantly, thanks for contributing. As for your point a) my description of poetry as elusive is not a condemnation of the form. There is not (that I have read) anything that concretely defines poetry in terms of both its form and its intent, thus making it elusive. All art, to some degree, is elusive. But poetry is, more so than other forms, which is why I use it in my argument.
As for your point b), your comments are a harsh opinion. The Book of Lazarus is not thematically, structurally, conceptually, nor linguistically (as represented by the above-quoted passage) good. I’m not sure what intuition has to do with recognizing the passage as flawed and unconvincing.
As for point c), could you mention specific uses of my intangible concepts?
Giving a monetary value to art doesn’t cheapen art. I’m not going to say that it makes art better, but when dealing with university and public arts funding (as I referenced in my post; the only mention of money), putting the benefit in terms of money is about the only thing that level of decision-makers understand. Anyone who has worked in the education arts field knows this. No amount of hyperbole will convince a board to give money to artists; they have to see exactly what they are getting out of it.
Regarding your comment about “writing off an entire form of literature,” I don’t agree with this at all. I’m not sure where you got this. In summary of my post, poetry’s (art in general) elusiveness connotes a level of non-credibility that could be helped by applying a more scientific method to its understanding and creation. I don’t write poetry off completely, but the way it is represented with the general public brings me close to doing so.
Caleb,
Well, I beg your pardon for going on your turf with my harsh opinions. I have never read The Book of Lazarus, but the passage you quoted actually made me want to read it. I think that description of poetry is brilliant. I’m curious what you mean when you say “it seems this flowery style is exactly what demonizes poetry in the mind of the casual (possibly conservative) reader.” and “I don’t write poetry off completely, but the way it is represented with the general public brings me close to doing so.” Who exactly are the casual readers and the general public? Are you defending these people or feeling sorry for them? I guess I assume,(by your tone) you feel sorry for them?
As for the intangible concepts, I was referring to your formula. You’ve got reaction as part of the formula, which is not exactly something you can quantify or touch for that matter.
If someone was to come up with some kind of mathematical formula to define poetry for the masses…wouldn’t that just pave the way for even more clogging of the airwaves with plebian drivel? Or would we then have poetry rock stars?
“No amount of hyperbole will convince a board to give money to artists; they have to see exactly what they are getting out of it.”
That is as it should be. It doesn’t make sense for anyone to have to invest in something with no value. I believe Poetry can take care of itself. In my opinion, people are going to recognize its value when they see it. It has always been that way, and I don’t think any amount of therapeutic hippy garbage can dilute the reaction people have to something of real artistic value.
I suppose we will just have to disagree on the success of the quoted passage. I stand by my view that, as a description of poetry, it fails.
The demonization of poetry that I am referring to is based on my experience (a wide experience) of general readers who liken poetry to a journal entry or psychiatrist-couch chatter. Of course, in groups of people who already like poetry, this demonization may not be so apparent (which may be your position; I don’t know you, so please don’t take this as anything more than an assumption). Contemporary poetry is often represented as an immensely personal style, where I argue that if it is to gain traction, then it needs to be better understood. It is easy to not care about a personal diary. It is harder to not care about a personal diary that engages an audience due to its use of understood literary concepts. And this understanding is exactly what I argue for.
I see what you mean by intangible concepts now. However, the entire post is about understanding those intangibles to a level that they are no longer intangibles. In the formula Xword causes Yreaction, I am arguing in favor of finding out exactly what these variables are. You say that this is not something that can be quantified. Currently, yes, this is true. The entire post is about understanding and appreciating the written word (and ourselves as writers) to a level that they can be quantified.
“It is harder to not care about a personal diary that engages an audience due to its use of understood literary concepts. And this understanding is exactly what I argue for.”
I agree.
“The entire post is about understanding and appreciating the written word (and ourselves as writers) to a level that they can be quantified.”
Suddenly, I like this post. Good luck finding that quantifiable level of understanding.
Thanks. I need a “good luck” wish for this endeavor. I’m not sure it’s something I’ll ever even come close to understanding, but I’ll try.
[…] the value of a work based on creative/emotional/artistic parameters. I wish we could. I’ve been trying for years. But until then we have sales […]