Which is more constructive?

[shemthepenman]

Damn shem, this is straight inspiration right here for both parties. It makes me want to write as well as write crit. It's basically everything I was trying to say but didnt know how, very dope.

I like what you said about the bottleneck, just cuz it makes so much sense, it could probably be a line in a poem, it sucks tho because i basically feel like im stuck inside that bottleneck, and i cant get out.

But if negative crit helps how you say,
then i should start writing some bad poems.

Ha nah just kidding, thats actually one of my worries about negative crit,

that is allowing your own expectations of yourself to diminish due to the fact youre not worried that it sucks,

which leads me to wonder,

can poetry be taught, or is it supernatural, a gift of sorts,

is there any point to even workshopping at all...?

now im rambling... dont answer that last bit hah

yeah, you raise some interesting questions. i think as long as you're posting here then it is an indication that you are, at least, concerned with the quality of your poetry. some aren't, but they don't last long and inevitably will never really make any progress. however, i am not an advocate of this perpetual workshopping, either. there has to be a point when one says "right, i am a poet now. i can do that", and you actually move into that free conceptual space. you still may write stuff that isn't very good [subjectively], but it will be on your own terms. it is at this point that the negative critiques, themselves, become static and primarily for show. like, for example, i really rate the art critic, Matthew Collings. his explanations of art are an art themselves. but, the works he talks about are already out there. finished. done. his comments are nothing to do with benefitting the artist. which is why i think retrospective critique should always aim to be almost entirely positive. because in this case, the critic is benefitting the audience. for example, i used to really hate conceptual art; then i listened to Matthew Collings talk about some conceptual art in a very inspirational way and it made me look at it differently, positively. this is a benefit to me. i would much rather someone show me the greatness in that which i had previously thought bad, than the flaws in a thing i had previously thought great. but that's another story.
anyway, it all gets a bit complicated after the basics. and even then, someone may very well pick and choose exactly which standards they wish to follow and which ones they want to ignore. and then one has to simply accept they are doing things their own way, and that's pretty much all you can say about it. sometimes you'll get it and like it. . . other times it will be annoying.
in relation to that, there was this fellow who posted a few things here and everyone pointed out that he was writing in cliches. he argued back he didn't mind writing in cliches and cliches were a good thing. and all you can say is, "ok, well done. i respect that. i also won't be reading any more of your poetry."

also, in terms of positive feedback. although this may be of negligible benefit to the poet, it may benefit the critic, themselves, and as this is a public forum, may benefit other poets. again, this is why it must be dualistic.

can poetry be taught? i think so. but like anything, one has to have a natural will to want to do it. can you teach someone to write good poetry? what is good poetry? what is poetry? who decides? is the fellow right that cliche is good? are we right that it isn't? i think these questions are academic. we write.