people just use it to mean "i like this" or perhaps "i see merit in this"
I think it's useful, or rather, calling someone one of the many subdivisions of art is useful. Saying "this is a poem" forces people to evaluate it as such. That people express their dislike by denying its poemhood is dumb.
what's your definition of a poem?
My definition of a poem is that someone has called it such. My definition of poetry is "the art of language". Calling something a poem tells me there is something interesting or noteworthy happening with language.
Fair definition.
But like, why is it less stupid than any other definition
Why is any word's definition more or less stupid than another?
my point of view is basically utilitiarian
go with the definition that gets you the most useful word; all the rest is just arbitrary
not that I'm saying that the "this shit art can't be art" thing is logically sound or a useful definition of art
I just think getting mildly annoyed by someone's definition is stupid
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
people just use it to mean "i like this" or perhaps "i see merit in this"
I think it's useful, or rather, calling someone one of the many subdivisions of art is useful. Saying "this is a poem" forces people to evaluate it as such. That people express their dislike by denying its poemhood is dumb.
what's your definition of a poem?
My definition of a poem is that someone has called it such. My definition of poetry is "the art of language". Calling something a poem tells me there is something interesting or noteworthy happening with language.
Fair definition.
But like, why is it less stupid than any other definition
It's less stupid because it pushes us to evaluate it on its own terms rather than how well it fits into the preconceived notions of what poetry is.
0
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
people just use it to mean "i like this" or perhaps "i see merit in this"
I think it's useful, or rather, calling someone one of the many subdivisions of art is useful. Saying "this is a poem" forces people to evaluate it as such. That people express their dislike by denying its poemhood is dumb.
what's your definition of a poem?
My definition of a poem is that someone has called it such. My definition of poetry is "the art of language". Calling something a poem tells me there is something interesting or noteworthy happening with language.
Fair definition.
But like, why is it less stupid than any other definition
Why is any word's definition more or less stupid than another?
my point of view is basically utilitiarian
go with the definition that gets you the most useful word; all the rest is just arbitrary
not that I'm saying that the "this shit art can't be art" thing is logically sound or a useful definition of art
I just think getting mildly annoyed by someone's definition is stupid
Going for the purely utilitarian option, and only that, especially with something as complex and interesting as language and all the things we can do with it, is quite an amusing option as well
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
people just use it to mean "i like this" or perhaps "i see merit in this"
I think it's useful, or rather, calling someone one of the many subdivisions of art is useful. Saying "this is a poem" forces people to evaluate it as such. That people express their dislike by denying its poemhood is dumb.
what's your definition of a poem?
My definition of a poem is that someone has called it such. My definition of poetry is "the art of language". Calling something a poem tells me there is something interesting or noteworthy happening with language.
Fair definition.
But like, why is it less stupid than any other definition
Why is any word's definition more or less stupid than another?
my point of view is basically utilitiarian
go with the definition that gets you the most useful word; all the rest is just arbitrary
not that I'm saying that the "this shit art can't be art" thing is logically sound or a useful definition of art
I just think getting mildly annoyed by someone's definition is stupid
More or less the same for me.
I mostly get annoyed when people use language in a solipsistic manner because it requires so much more conversation to convey information.
My time is more valuable to me than someone getting to use their pet definitions.
Art discussion is not a topic that the art world and the populace at large are ready to have in good faith.
The populace at large likes Thomas Kinkade paintings but the art world produces junk like "gray post it notes one is out of place isn't that interesting".
There's a lot of condemnation to go around and no innocents.
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
ITT: Eddy affirms the consequent
SHOTS
FIRED
+2
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Having spent incredibly little brain power thinking about the definition of a poem I will go with a slightly abbreviated version of wikipedia's definition until such a time that I forget about it or find another one I like more
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning
which works for me. I don't see any good argument for calling all language a poem. Pointless word, then.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
ITT: Eddy affirms the consequent
I think a person's response to unconventional artworks can be a pretty decent sign of a black-and-white worldview
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Art discussion is not a topic that the art world and the populace at large are ready to have in good faith.
The populace at large likes Thomas Kinkade paintings but the art world produces junk like "gray post it notes one is out of place isn't that interesting".
There's a lot of condemnation to go around and no innocents.
Having spent incredibly little brain power thinking about the definition of a poem I will go with a slightly abbreviated version of wikipedia's definition until such a time that I forget about it or find another one I like more
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning
which works for me. I don't see any good argument for calling all language a poem. Pointless word, then.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
"Poetry" that doesn't make a substantial effort to compact a larger amount of meaning or emotion into the poem then you could get by simply speaking plainly is probably not poetry. It's more likely bad english that someone is hoping to obfuscate by claiming it's poetry.
I would need to do more research to confirm this hypothesis but I think it's a pretty solid starting point.
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
ideological fascism as like... a fascism of ideologies
or like the ideology fascism
anyway my counterpoint here is just gonna be, art is not that important
embracing art as ideological confrontation leads to a loss of support from the petite bourgeoisie. it is this, not ideological fascism, which is the dominant state of affairs, especially under an excess of liberal arts students seeking portfolios. the default state of student politics is vapidity and self-absorption, not incisive insight and solidarity
public art must be mostly normal rockwell if piss christ is to retain its edge, anyway
Having spent incredibly little brain power thinking about the definition of a poem I will go with a slightly abbreviated version of wikipedia's definition until such a time that I forget about it or find another one I like more
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning
which works for me. I don't see any good argument for calling all language a poem. Pointless word, then.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
"Poetry" that doesn't make a substantial effort to compact a larger amount of meaning or emotion into the poem then you could get by simply speaking plainly is probably not poetry. It's more likely bad english that someone is hoping to obfuscate by claiming it's poetry.
I would need to do more research to confirm this hypothesis but I think it's a pretty solid starting point.
I really disagree with this. There is amazing prose poetry out there. Some of it's maximalist too
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
And then in the comments there's the inevitable "oh so if I take a shit that's art then, got it" dbag response, completely ignoring the actual arguments proposed about what art is
lol at these people
who cares if people don't care about art
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
ideological fascism as like... a fascism of ideologies
or like the ideology fascism
anyway my counterpoint here is just gonna be, art is not that important
it's bold strategy, cotton, let's see how it plays out for him
Art discussion is not a topic that the art world and the populace at large are ready to have in good faith.
The populace at large likes Thomas Kinkade paintings but the art world produces junk like "gray post it notes one is out of place isn't that interesting".
There's a lot of condemnation to go around and no innocents.
I find the grey post it notes interesting.
And lots of people think charming cottage with flowers #8,367 is beautiful.
My point is that you're all already dead. Go into the light.
Having spent incredibly little brain power thinking about the definition of a poem I will go with a slightly abbreviated version of wikipedia's definition until such a time that I forget about it or find another one I like more
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning
which works for me. I don't see any good argument for calling all language a poem. Pointless word, then.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
"Poetry" that doesn't make a substantial effort to compact a larger amount of meaning or emotion into the poem then you could get by simply speaking plainly is probably not poetry. It's more likely bad english that someone is hoping to obfuscate by claiming it's poetry.
I would need to do more research to confirm this hypothesis but I think it's a pretty solid starting point.
Nope! Emotion and meaning are not the end-all, be-all purposes of language. Perhaps they are the qualities you need to enjoy poems, but there are poems that not particularly meaningful or emotional that are still performative of the art of language. Also, there are plenty of poems that do speak plainly. WCW Williams is a pretty obvious example.
+2
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Having spent incredibly little brain power thinking about the definition of a poem I will go with a slightly abbreviated version of wikipedia's definition until such a time that I forget about it or find another one I like more
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning
which works for me. I don't see any good argument for calling all language a poem. Pointless word, then.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
"Poetry" that doesn't make a substantial effort to compact a larger amount of meaning or emotion into the poem then you could get by simply speaking plainly is probably not poetry. It's more likely bad english that someone is hoping to obfuscate by claiming it's poetry.
I would need to do more research to confirm this hypothesis but I think it's a pretty solid starting point.
I really disagree with this. There is amazing prose poetry out there. Some of it's maximalist too
I agree that poetry that takes more words to say less is amazing.
Just not the good kind of amazing. I also don't find those 8,000 page fantasy novels with endless descriptions of people's breakfast entertaining.
Having spent incredibly little brain power thinking about the definition of a poem I will go with a slightly abbreviated version of wikipedia's definition until such a time that I forget about it or find another one I like more
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning
which works for me. I don't see any good argument for calling all language a poem. Pointless word, then.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
"Poetry" that doesn't make a substantial effort to compact a larger amount of meaning or emotion into the poem then you could get by simply speaking plainly is probably not poetry. It's more likely bad english that someone is hoping to obfuscate by claiming it's poetry.
I would need to do more research to confirm this hypothesis but I think it's a pretty solid starting point.
I really disagree with this. There is amazing prose poetry out there. Some of it's maximalist too
I agree that poetry that takes more words to say less is amazing.
Just not the good kind of amazing. I also don't find those 8,000 page fantasy novels with endless descriptions of people's breakfast entertaining.
I'm probably just being picky.
every time GRRM orgasms over capons and juices dribbling down chins like waterfalls, I spend seven years finding myself in tibet
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Posts
my point of view is basically utilitiarian
go with the definition that gets you the most useful word; all the rest is just arbitrary
not that I'm saying that the "this shit art can't be art" thing is logically sound or a useful definition of art
I just think getting mildly annoyed by someone's definition is stupid
On a general level, people denying categorical attributes because they don't adhere to some assigned values of that category is a tactic used to dismiss countercultural, heterodox, or otherwise novel modes of thinking. Deliberately restricting what is or what is not X does nothing but further traditional views, and I personally think traditional views in (and of) art are oppressive and restrictive, as media (that is, things that act as a medium between a speaker and an audience) tends to be
On an even broader level, concepts and values held by the layperson are on some level important. 'Culture' must constantly be under maintenance, which is why 'stagnant' societies are considered bad - without the constant reiteration and active pursuit of such, the backslide into painful ignorance, ideological fascism, etc is inevitable. Saying, 'alright, this is art, and that's that' allows for a completely black-and-white picture of the world, and that is what I fear most
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
It's less stupid because it pushes us to evaluate it on its own terms rather than how well it fits into the preconceived notions of what poetry is.
:so_raven:
ITT: Eddy affirms the consequent
(_o_)
Lol!
(this journal publishes 3-4 articles a month)
Going for the purely utilitarian option, and only that, especially with something as complex and interesting as language and all the things we can do with it, is quite an amusing option as well
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
oh, yeah, good point, "meanings" is kinda restrictive unless you want to do some gymnastics about that word
hm...
Poetry is a form of literature that uses qualities of language for purposes in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning?
it's not an ironclad definition but then again, no wiki opening sentence is supposed to be, either
More or less the same for me.
I mostly get annoyed when people use language in a solipsistic manner because it requires so much more conversation to convey information.
My time is more valuable to me than someone getting to use their pet definitions.
I believe your article will change the field as we know it. Straight to the front of the queue!
The populace at large likes Thomas Kinkade paintings but the art world produces junk like "gray post it notes one is out of place isn't that interesting".
There's a lot of condemnation to go around and no innocents.
SHOTS
FIRED
I think it's absolutely fair to say that all language could potentially be a poem. Again, its all about the framing of it.
I think a person's response to unconventional artworks can be a pretty decent sign of a black-and-white worldview
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I find the grey post it notes interesting.
or drink something
or just have a few liters of water and finish off the pizza from last night
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
"Poetry" that doesn't make a substantial effort to compact a larger amount of meaning or emotion into the poem then you could get by simply speaking plainly is probably not poetry. It's more likely bad english that someone is hoping to obfuscate by claiming it's poetry.
I would need to do more research to confirm this hypothesis but I think it's a pretty solid starting point.
ideological fascism as like... a fascism of ideologies
or like the ideology fascism
anyway my counterpoint here is just gonna be, art is not that important
public art must be mostly normal rockwell if piss christ is to retain its edge, anyway
I really disagree with this. There is amazing prose poetry out there. Some of it's maximalist too
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
bitch please I haven't even finished my first pint
it's bold strategy, cotton, let's see how it plays out for him
And lots of people think charming cottage with flowers #8,367 is beautiful.
My point is that you're all already dead. Go into the light.
have you tried showing him pictures of boats and ice
I'm really confused as to why he does that, along with posting tumblr art stuff too
it's really not that important
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Nope! Emotion and meaning are not the end-all, be-all purposes of language. Perhaps they are the qualities you need to enjoy poems, but there are poems that not particularly meaningful or emotional that are still performative of the art of language. Also, there are plenty of poems that do speak plainly. WCW Williams is a pretty obvious example.
You'll see from my CV that I have several publications in the prestigious "Southwest Nowhere and Salad Bar Journal of Not Very Good Philosophy"
I agree that poetry that takes more words to say less is amazing.
Just not the good kind of amazing. I also don't find those 8,000 page fantasy novels with endless descriptions of people's breakfast entertaining.
I'm probably just being picky.
has anyone ever wrote anything as deep as that shit?
IT'S THE STATE-MINT
OF THE GREAT-MINT
IN DOUBLE-MINT GUM! :whistle:
every time GRRM orgasms over capons and juices dribbling down chins like waterfalls, I spend seven years finding myself in tibet
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin