The poetry genre is restrained

It is my intention here to start up an interesting conversation.

During my years studying Sociology, I spent a great deal of time studying art in terms of how it both affects and is affected by society. I found that the advent of Modernity, though initially intended as a break from the predetermined values and norms of most artistic pursuits, especially poetry and painting, led directly into the mouth of an obvious paradox. The paradox is thus: the intentional break from the norm meant that so called 'real' art HAD to be broken and fragmented. The landscape was scoffed at, even if it contained deep meaning. The sonnet was swept under the carpet.

In the 1930s, poets who were not of an academic background found it very difficult to publish work that WASN'T of traditional form. In Sylvia Plath's time, it was popular for the structure of poetry to tell more about poetry itself than about the actual poem. Art for the sake of art was born in modernity. Art for the artist alone.

To verify this thesis, I actually did a study on what the average Joe enjoys in poetry. Rhyming was at the top of the list. As a poet, I find that rhyme, if done well, can be a vital part of the rhythm of the piece. Rhythm and rhyme are used to set the mood of the piece. Nowadays most markets will not even consider poetry that rhymes, while other markets won't consider poetry that doesn't. There is a concept among the artistic elite (better described as 'art snobs') that if poetry rhymes it is too typical, and therefore meaningless. This idea falls into exactly what modernity pretended to reject in the first place: a definitive structure behind art. Anyway, most published poetry doesn't rhyme, so surely the rhyming poetry is the atypical.

Personally, not all of my poetry rhymes, but to be honest most of it does. That is just my poetic style. It says nothing else about my poetry what so ever. I refuse to limit myself to any particular artistic mold. As I've said, in my study most appreciators of art enjoyed rhyming poetry. Most connoisseurs did not really care what the format of the poem was, so long as it was good. Most Literature students simply ADORED Sylvia Plath whilst LOATHING Edgar Allan Poe and believing Shakespeare was RATHER GENIUS but not suiteable for the present age. (The pretention in that sentence is fully intentional.) My point is this: does this attitude fit with the desires of most people who would actually read poetry? Does this attitude fit with the appreciation of real art? Of theme and human expression? I put it to you that any such strict regimentation stands directly between the artist and his or her desire for human expression. I put it to you that this attitude alienates people from art. Would poetry sell more if less editors were Literature graduates? Sociology says, sadly, yes. When art is made for the artist to appreciate, and when the greater desires of art are forgotten, we are truly giving humanity itself a poor trial.

Again, I wanted to incite a conversation here. This is what I think. I'd love to hear what all of you think. Please don't just reply by saying that we are actually in the postmodern age. That is a highly contentious argument, and if you want to know why, read Bauman's Intimations of Postmodernity. Both sides of the arguemnt are compelling and inconclusive in equal measures.

This did turn out to be an interesting thread! Maybe it's because we're all artists that we are all on similar pages in how we define poetry. I agree with everyone so far. A great poet can make anything great, regardless of form, method, or even subject matter. One can compare Blake writing about a flower to Whitman writing about lonliness and the emptiness of death (O My Soul is one of my favourite poems, and it doesn't rhyme) to one of the many unnamed poets who described the front lines of a World War and did not live to see their work in print. It is all genius, in my opinion, because each writer was nothing but a mechanism.

I especially liked the comment (I think if was Wordsoup) made about the nature of art. I would argue first that art is universally undefinable, and second that, therefore, everyone is entitled to an opinion about it. My opinion is that art is an enigma. THE enigma. All the artist does is try to capture that enigma. Art is all that we can and will ever percieve. All the beauty from without and from within. The artist catches a piece of it and attempts to turn it into self expression. We create a channel with our craft to, for one glorious moment, stand beside the divine and say: "I can see you." That's just what I think.

Aldous Huxley said that writers and poets practise alchemy in reverse: we touch the gold of experience and attempt, with all our efforts and our craft, to transverse it into lead upon the page.

This is why I don't like to see regimentation anywhere near art. Art is sacred. If one were to ask me to say in a word what I think it is to worship life, each other, God, I would say: art.

I'm having trouble understanding what some people are actually saying. Sorry guys. It's my turn to be thick.

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, Zaahk and Maxreif are both saying that rhyming poetry is often heavy handed and disjointed. I think you're both also saying that so long as a poem has emotional depth, it is a good poem. Poems, like stories, should speak for themselves. I actually think that about all art. I don't like paintings that need to be explained either. It should convey a message on an intuitive, even subconcious level. That's just my personal preference though. I do understand that many people enjoy art that is convoluted to the point that one has to really analyse it to comprehend its meaning. I think all art can be great so long as it actually expresses something, whatever form.

Going back to songs, one of my favourite songwriters is actually Zack DeLaRocha from Rage Against the Machine, a Native American rap group. A little quote goes:
'A mass of hands press on the market window.
Ghosts of progress, dressed in slow death,
Feeding on hunger are glaring through the promise,
Upon the food that rots slowly in the aisle.
A mass of nameless, at the oasis,
Where hide the graves beneath the master's hill,
Are buried for drinking the river's water
While shackled to the line at the empty well.'

This I think can be read and appreciated without the music. In fact, if you don't like heavy metal and/or rap, you wouldn't appreciate it WITH the music. (I should say that I'm a Dylan fan too. I just love music.) This poem doesn't rhyme, but then when Robert E. Howard starts writing in A Song Out of Midian:

'Galleys shall break the crimson seas seeking delights for you;
With silks and silvery fountain gleams I will weave a world that glows and seems
A shimmering mist of rainbow dreams, scarlet and white and blue.

Or is it glory you wish, Astair, the clash and the battle-flame?
The winds shall break on the warship's sail and Death ride free at my horse's tail,
Till all the tribes of the Earth shall wail at the terror of your name.'

This, to me, is an example of seamless, perfect rhyme which serves to convey both the theme, the mood, and the frustration of the speaker. The poem is about a King trying to make a girl fall in love with him, and I think it's genius. I honestly don't think such a rhythmic, pulsating and frustrated effect could have been gained without rhyme in this particular poem. At the same time, I think that often rhyme creates too clear-cut a rhythm for a piece. It's all a matter of style, and the nature of the poem. That's just my opinion though. I should say, also, that Robert E. Howard wrote 'by ear', taking virtually no time in proof reading any of his work, from poetry to prose. Some writers can do this. It's just a matter of style.

I love both of these snippets because they make ME feel something. They are about things that I care about. As far as the stylistic question goes, though, I don't think such contentions are really relevant. The thing is, great art makes people feel, and their preferences can be kept aside of that which they respect AS great art. I, for instance, do not appreciate Silvia Plath. I don't like her style, I don't resonate with most of her themes. However, that doesn't stop me from recognising her work as brilliant. If it were not brilliant, I wouldn't be in such a small minority with my lack of appreciation for her. I should add that I don't dislike her, I just won't go out of my way to read her work, even though I can sort of see what all the fuss is about.

I think stylistically it doesn't really matter how people convey their meaning. I will admit that I enjoy reading some styles more than others, but that does not conflict with my respect for any well made piece of art. I find most of Picasso's work ugly to look at, but I still have his Don Quixote right above my computer, and I look at it every time I write. What I think is a shame is when people who are highly 'educated' about art (as if you can be educated about art with anything other than appreciating and labouring over a craft), get very opinionated about what TYPE of art is 'good'. I once had an English professor scoff at me for saying that I liked rap. I told him that if he simply disregards a literary art form without exploring its virtues, he has utterly failed in his charge as a professor. That didn't go over well, I can tell you. I exaggerated when I spoke to him because I was angry, but I still stand by my point to an extent.

To me, art is life, the universe, and all meaning to be found. Therefore it is impossible to pigeon hole it stylistically. What is happening in the present age is nothing but a fad that will melt away with time. "Fashion is something so ugly it has to be changed every fifteen minutes," there's another rap quote for you, from Sensor, a British group. I would be very interested to see how many poems that fit the stylistic mold of the present age perfectly will be remembered in fifty years time. Whitman will, Howard will, Poe will. I doubt many poets who conform to the style of their time will be remembered in years to come. None of the ones who are still famous now did.

btw- Thanks for all the replies! This has been a really interesting conversation!