- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 4
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.
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.