Every day
The same routine-
Wake up, get dressed, put on some makeup
Then head off to school
Where every second of every day
Is scheduled and planned out already.
They tell us to think differently-
“Outside of the box”, they say-
To be creative,
Yet they stick us in the same desk
And force us to learn the same things
Every day.
Structure and conformity.
How can we be creative when these
Two adversaries to art,
These opposers to originality,
Rivals to revelation,
Are forced upon us
Every day?
“This is a poem”
They say
And present an “example”
All formulated and calculated
Like some math problem.
Poetry is supposed to be real
From the heart
A group of words
Thrown together
(S p l
a t t
e
r
ed
across the page
Like paint on a canvas)
Creating a picture,
An attempt
To convey thought
When nothing else will suffice.
Not some structured, formulated
Process to be judged and analyzed.
It does not need
Rhythm or rhyme
To be beautiful.
It just is.
Why can’t they accept that?
Why continue to look for a correlation
When there is none?
Why waste your time?
It is poetry.
It is beautiful.
It just
Is.
|
Propounding the anarchic ?
Written by patterjack (1429 comments posted) 28th January 2008 | There is always room for revolt against conformity , but that very revolt must have its own structure.
As for the last lines -- among many others on the same tack , MacLeish has said it , and has said it rather better.
patterjack |
Written by stevetroster (1599 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | Learning an art form.
Writing a piece of music: It’s impossible to write an improvisation if you don’t know the original tune.
To create a piece of artwork (Dada - Abstract - Surreal - Cubist) you first need to learn how to paint.
This is not a criticism of your poem, it just my opinion that all education has to have some form of structure in order for people to learn. You can’t have thirty kids stuck in a classroom all trying to learn a different subject at the same time.
Although it can’t help very much if your teacher insists on sticking you IN a desk.
All the best,
Steve.
| Interesting Idea
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | What I think appeals to me about this (in response to patterjack, above) is NOT that you are treading ground already covered by other people, but that you have had the thought of doing so in your own interesting, readable and quite appealing style.
Steve is also correct, though, because unless you 'conform' to a pattern, so to speak, then there is a risk of it becoming a jumble.
I don't think it's within the bounds of possibility that you are going to form a new style of verse; but the idea that it SHOULD be possible so to do is a worthwhile cause.
What IS clear is that you have the ability to build a structure in clear English, even if it has no structure! If such a thing makes sense.
Enjoyed it.
Don't stop.
PTV |
Written by Fledermaus (3470 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | Hm. I think it's only an opinion on what poetry should be. How you look upon your own work I don't know, but it does have a certain style of its own, complete with rhythm.
The thing though is that people can write poetry that doesn't come from the heart (indeed like a mathematical problem), while not everything that comes from the heart is poetry. Some people just write a flow of thoughts, put in line breaks at unexpected places and call it a "poem". That's cheap I think, and not art. Just as I don't think that tossing a bucket of paint against canvas is art.
Art doesn't have to be beautiful, nor does it have to be conform to rules, but I do expect the artist to show skill and craftsmanship or else, at least talent... But then, perhaps I am old fashioned.
I did like this poem, and you showed originality and a skill in playing with language, but I think the message is too simplistic. | I agree with Steve
Written by fellpony (1700 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | (hold the man up or he'll faint): "It’s impossible to write an improvisation if you don’t know the original tune. All education has to have some form of structure in order for people to learn."
Once you have learnt the structures and forms, and know how they work, then you can start to break them and see what happens. Sometimes a newcomer to poetry can produce something elegant in a free form, but to have done some mental exercises in rhyme, metre or the various structured forms gives your free form poetry a better chance to be graceful - or to be ungraceful by choice. For me, "a group of words" thrown together, or displayed in a disjointed manner, is not necessarily poetry: you may claim that "It does not need Rhythm or rhyme To be beautiful." this is true, but in the absence of either it takes a devil of a lot of brilliance not to be prose. |
Written by gutterkitty (362 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | I can relate to what you're saying here, after spending many a painful GCSE English class wishing I were elsewhere. I just don't think you've expressed it very well. This piece is an explanation of a view, and could easily be prose. But for me, poetry is a form of writing which is used to express something which cannot be expressed as well in another form. So if a poem can be turned into prose and be just as effective, then I don't think it's a particularly good poem.
Not trying to start a debate here (these are just my views, and will probably change over time)- or pile up criticism- just wanted to give you my take on things. | Please !!
Written by patterjack (1429 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | Have you , PTF , misread what I was saying ?
Or are you being obfuscatory ?
Of course people can say what they want in their own form -- that is implicit in my first sentence .
But having said it , they come up for comparison with other people's voiced opinion , and that is what my last sentence says
It is a question of comparison -- MacLeish said what the last lines of the poem say -- but he did say it much better
patterjack |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3556 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | Freedom is choosing your own captivity. Total freedom is chaos and total artistic freedom is usually unreadable, un watchable, unenjoyable crap.
I'm afraid art is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration.
You seem to want to be an artistic genius without putting in the hard work.
You can either write for yourself and so write what you like or write for others and if you do it must communicate and so must have a structure, that's it.
If you are going to rebel at least have a cause
There wasn't an original thought in there its been said before and better. Someone had to say this
| The To & Fro Of Ideas
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | How interesting that what is - probably - not poetry at all has produced such a dichotomy of response.
Patterjack & Bottleblondesurfer believe there is NOTHING new here worthy of comment, other than comment that it's not worthy of comment!
Fledermaus & myself - who have had our own differences, largely because I lead with my fingers first and my brain afterwards - seem to have common ground; or certainly in his first sentence; and then he re-opens the age old, unanswerable question - what is art/poetry etc., as had Steve.
Gutterkitty gets to the nub - "poetry is a form of writing which cannot be expressed as well in another form". And so PJ & BBS are correct! And Fellpony adds to this view - "but in the absence of either (rhythm or rhyme) it takes a devil of a lot of brilliance not to be prose."
And so, 'dressed in poetry', the general opinion is that you are on the wrong tack in thinking this is poetry.
But that is not to say that it's not interesting; and it is certainly well written; even if some amongst us think it's not in any way original.
You should be please at having engineered such a good debate!
PTV
BBS - 'freedom is choosing your own captivity'; a wonderful phrase; and if original, all the more so.
But what are the truths, if any, behind it? |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3556 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | The quote was by Satre and as for the truths; it's self evident surely?
I don't claim to know a thing about poetry. I was talking about communication which is why we write [unless you write a diary] and if you write to communicate it must understandable and engage the reader. It must come from the head as well as the heart. It must be craft as well as art and it needs to be learnt and studied and worked at, and that doesn't kill creativity it refines it.
I don't claim to speak with any authoritity,it's just my reaction, I'm afraid if you want to be understood you have to conform to some extent.
I losing patience with this I don't know why I'm wasting my time when there's a jaffa cake downstairs with my name on it | Again ...
Written by patterjack (1429 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | Patterjack & Bottleblondesurfer believe there is NOTHING new here worthy of comment, other than comment that it's not worthy of comment!
This is NOT what I said.
For the record , I do not , in fact think that this work is good poetry --nor is the technique of writing hardly new. I have for years been cognisant of many such attempts -- all of them having a better structure relevant to the content, thus producing better form as a result
That the content of the poem is not new hardly matters to me either -- I have read this sort of stuff since I edited student magazines over many years ,but again for the record , I believe that the writer is entitled to express his/her opinion as content , new or old , fresh or cliche
But once it is out there , comparisons are inevitable , and I stand by my statement that MacLeish for one expressed the last idea so much better .
patterjack |
Written by DressedInPoetry (23 comments posted) 29th January 2008 | Actually, part of the reason I posted this up here is for the debate, so I'm loving this right now. I actually do that a lot: put out writing that I don't particularly believe is strong just to see the response.
I actually wrote this in a free-write with the boundaries being "Write what comes to your mind. You have 5 minutes." I changed nothing from what I originally wrote, so for it being something that only took me 5 minutes, I am rather proud, because normally I would try to use a little more imagery and higher vocabulary.
Anyway, my point is basically that I see what everyone is saying. I may not completely agree (or disagree) with all of you, but I love the arguments. Since that is what I wanted, I thank you all. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
