05-31-2016, 12:52 AM
Even forgeries of masterpieces are themselves masterpieces ----- masterpieces of forgery, that is. But really, isn't masterpiece a term that is wholly, even in the eyes of some Great Structuralist Critic, dependent on context? What was Louise Gluck's masterpiece when she wrote The House on Marshland was surely not what was her masterpiece when she wrote The Wild Iris, then eventually Faithful and Virtuous Night (which if anyone has a digital copy.....) ----- and even when an artist is dead, there are masterpieces of that artist in relation to his nation, to his craft, even to himself, which with enough bullshit (and really, will there ever be too little?) becomes valid........ That is to say, at least for me, even "What is Art" is less fluid than "What is a Masterpiece".
But back to the poem: I read it a bunch of times, and only on the last few did I catch the last line. I think it's more insightful (or perhaps just more ambiguous; but surely, funnier) without it.
But back to the poem: I read it a bunch of times, and only on the last few did I catch the last line. I think it's more insightful (or perhaps just more ambiguous; but surely, funnier) without it.