Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
10 comments:
Does anybody care?
I CARE!!! But I don't know why.
TTAARRDD!!
I'm afraid I do not share your enthusiasm of postmodern poetry. While it can be entertaining to create and occasionally read, in general it reminds me of modern art: Of little artistic, or, in this case, literary value. If I can pass three pages of nothing as poetry, something is seriously wrong. Poetry is supposed to have form; while I realize that postmodern aims to do the opposite, I don't know that I can call postmodern 'poetry' true poetry.
Though it may be a good way to earn a living, though contradictory, perhaps, to one's beliefs. Few, on a grand level, would dare to reject it, because in the world of today, if you present your 'artwork' in a serious tone, they'll take you seriously, for they don't want to be 'out of touch.' They're afraid of rejection and realize but won't voice (or not loudly) that a red rectangle on a brown background is not art, that several lines of dashes and half circles is not poetry. You wouldn't want to be close-minded, you wouldn't want to call someone else's opinion wrong, not if you wish to be well liked within today's society.
Though I'd rather be honest with myself and everyone else than be well-liked.
x.x
I agree with Colin on this, if a 'poem' with just blank paper (which was my idea! (but only partly, for I was not a brilliant enough poet to realize that exactly 3 pages of nothing conveys the most profound meaning, as Colin understood)) can be considered poetry, then that doesn't say much about some other examples of postmodern poetry. Like Dr Walker said, it's appreciated because it's new and 'interesting' but the value is practically all in the creativity of the work, not in how well written it is.
Another thing I don't like about this kind of poetry/art/music/other-modern-thing is when people say that only the 'ignorant masses' can't understand their work, which is perhaps why it's still so popular. Of course nobody wants to be an ignorant mass, so many will convince themselves that there is something to see and that they understand it and see its great value. It's like "the emperor's new clothes", seeing what's not there for fear of being inferior. When a poem or a work of modern art needs a description next to it for anyone, even an art critic, to know what it's supposed to mean, that shows that the work itself has no objective value or meaning, it's just a matter of what the person looking at it wants (or expects) to see. Of course there are those who would like this, but can't the same thing, but better (because it's also structured and well written), be found in more traditional poetry and art?
Colin and John bring up interesting points. Entirely false, and products of a lack of cognition, but interesting nonetheless.
Post-modern (and modern) poetry is definitely poetry. For one thing, there is no "real" definitiom of poetry, so for Colin or John to invent their own, which just so happens to exclude modern poetry, and then go about professing this definition as the right one, is absurd.
It is exactly as Dr. Walker (and John) has said. Post-modern poetry is valued for the creativity, and the novelty. Obviously, if a piece of post-modern poetry is duplicated, then the duplication would not be poetry, it would simply be trendy. However, that does not take away from the fact that the original idea is still poetry.
Don't get me wrong, there are still many many more times the number of bad post-modern poems than good ones. But this does not make post-modern poetry bad. I'm sure there were many failings in classic poetry also. You can't tell me you think Shakespeare was the only poet from the 17th century. There were many more who failed, we just don't see the bad ones in text books.
Go and find some post-modern you like, believe me, it's not all bad.
The point isn't that it isn't 'poetry' in any possible definition of the word, I don't care what some people call it, the issue it its literary value. In Shakespeare's day postmodern poetry wouldn't have been considered poetry, I think they were right and all these people today are wrong. I really doubt that hundreds of years from now people will look back on postmodern poetry in the same way we look back on Shakespeare, since postmodernism has no timeless value, it's just whatever's popular and interesting at the moment. There were poets who failed in Shakespeare's day, but they were recognized for what they were, nobody wanted to read bad poetry, there were no bad and successful poets.
The problem is, how do you teach someone to be creative in a certain way, so that they can write good (good meaning whatever the latest fad in the poetry world is) postmodern poetry? Again, like Dr. Walker said, when he writes "interesting" on a paper even he has a hard time defining it and exactly what quality makes it interesting.
And the postmodern poetry I like best happens to be the least postmodernish.
That is not even nearing the problem, John. There should not be an attempt to 'teach' someone to write post-modern poetry. Because in doing so, the teacher would be the true author, not the student.
You just completely agreed with what I said, so I'm not sure where you see the problem...
you can't teach creativity. and i personally don't understand some postmodern poetry, but it is fun to create because you can use fragmented thoughts and make something out of them that probably doesn't make any sense to anyone but you. do you have to understand art to define it as art? do you have to like art to define it as art?
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLY LLLLOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG POOOOOOOSSSSSTTTTTT.
Post a Comment