11-29-2013, 06:21 PM
There has been some great comments, many of which i have read and thought -Yep I can see that is valid and true; but then I still have a thorn that irks me about the content of some of the poems after they have been editied. My basic problem is that i like to read poems than mean something or convey an image that I can access and on some level relate to.
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly of the opinion that any art, poetry included, should represent the best skills and be ...well clever! This concept is easier to describe connected to painting. I like to dabble with waterclours - the results are mostly crap (but i get pleasure from it so this is ok) But basically my rule of thumb for a painting being any good or not is "Could I have painted this?" Generally if the answer is yes then it is not art! To craft a fine poem is an art, art takes time to hone and practice. So here we all are practicing our skills.
I am struggling to find a way to express this... and in part this is a problem. (I'm just letting some thoughts rattle around here). Everyone is very good at nitpicking at individual words to make sure they are the best balanced word, with just the right sonics etc. etc...but what has actually been said? Here is my thing. Smetimes when I go through some older posts and lokk at the final edit, I don't get it. Yes it is beutifully in meter and rhymes and well just pretty on the ear. Fantastic, it might also have some great images and twists on cliches, but sadly I have no idea what the hell it is trying to convey. Yet when I go down the page and get to the original I can read the story or the base image shines though and it all makes sense. Then i can go back to the final edit and perhaps see it. But it will be as through a glass - distorted and fuzzy.
I think in our (collective) endevours to make the poem the best it can be, we sometimes loose that moment of sharp focus that True spoke of or the idea that resonated with me from Todd:- I'm into capturing true observations and conveying some level of emotional experience.
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly of the opinion that any art, poetry included, should represent the best skills and be ...well clever! This concept is easier to describe connected to painting. I like to dabble with waterclours - the results are mostly crap (but i get pleasure from it so this is ok) But basically my rule of thumb for a painting being any good or not is "Could I have painted this?" Generally if the answer is yes then it is not art! To craft a fine poem is an art, art takes time to hone and practice. So here we all are practicing our skills.
I am struggling to find a way to express this... and in part this is a problem. (I'm just letting some thoughts rattle around here). Everyone is very good at nitpicking at individual words to make sure they are the best balanced word, with just the right sonics etc. etc...but what has actually been said? Here is my thing. Smetimes when I go through some older posts and lokk at the final edit, I don't get it. Yes it is beutifully in meter and rhymes and well just pretty on the ear. Fantastic, it might also have some great images and twists on cliches, but sadly I have no idea what the hell it is trying to convey. Yet when I go down the page and get to the original I can read the story or the base image shines though and it all makes sense. Then i can go back to the final edit and perhaps see it. But it will be as through a glass - distorted and fuzzy.
I think in our (collective) endevours to make the poem the best it can be, we sometimes loose that moment of sharp focus that True spoke of or the idea that resonated with me from Todd:- I'm into capturing true observations and conveying some level of emotional experience.