Ray of light on the obscure

[tectak]

This day has drained me. My response to any challenge that requires thought
(much less movement) is to capitulate, to accept the inevitability of abject
failure, to plead to be granted a quick death.

May the morrow grant me the energy to honour the efforts of your intellect
with a response worthy of your respect.

Ineffably yours,
ray

Hi ray,
This day has drained me. My response to any challenge that requires thought
(much less movement) is to capitulate, to accept the inevitability of abject
failure, to plead to be granted a quick death.

May the morrow grant me the grace to fall beneath your response
with an honorable retreat worthy of your respect.

Ineffably yours,
tectak

---

I think there's room for preference in art. I prefer my poems with a strong image, a surface story and an underlying current that keeps me thinking, with a total of some emotional kick, something that gives me some insight into human perception. Or a minimum of words that feel lovely in my mouth.

When I get nothing off the page after a few reads I move on. If poetry had the advantage that the visual arts have, where a chorus of applause from the people that get it can put it in my face over and over, maybe I'd get there someday. I was close to forty before Peggy Guggenheim's long narrow gallery of Pollocks turned a lightbulb on and over forty before a Mondrian finally hooked me. They moved out of obscurity into clarity for me.

For me, most poetry just doesn't have that time. Is that the fault of the writer or reader?  It only matters if you'd like your poetry to become part of the reader, something that they can't let go of. I think you only have a small window of time to do that and it's best to get a hook in while you can. IMHO


Mondrian


Pollock


Peggy with Calder, just because I stumbled on this great pic

Hi ella,
I think you have said it all. Poetry, like art, once posted is owned by the viewers. That really is why I question both aspiring "obscure" poetry and "abstract" art. It is not be because I devalue such genres, it is because I find it increasingly (as I get older) difficult to find "purpose" in perversity. Frankly I am quite assured, by others of an age, that there is trickery afoot in the persuasion of "authoritative" experts which gives value to the valueless and credence to the cretins...but what's wrong with that, you may reasonably ask? It is Catch 22 for me. If I like what I write and no one understands it, they must  be idiots...if they write gobbledygook and I don't "get" it, they must be inept. Guess which camp I choose to be in...just like everyone else. The only thing in my favour is that under pressure I give in and say I like things just to be liked. So far.
Best,
tectak