02-15-2012, 11:53 AM
I think Goodman is misrepresenting the history of poetry, just as I think what Tectac said is being mis-characterized, as I think he meant it was senseless to purposefully write in an obscure way.
Of course such things as Beowulf, kenning, or even Lord Randall, will, from a contemporary perspective seem obscure, but I can assure you they were not for the people of that age. Instead of being obscure, they were reflective of that ages way of communicating. It is also erroneous to compare visual art to poetry. Art is non-verbal and acts on the visual sense, so it imparts its communication in a different way than does poetry. Poetry uses written communication as it mode, and written communication has certain rules that are generally agreed upon in order that we understand what the person is saying. Because of it's mode of communication, writing falls under certain constraints that are not germane to visual art. Visual art does not need one's understanding to have an effect. However visual art does fall under one constraint, it has to be able to be seen.
For poetry, the corollary of being unseen, is to be unclear. To write in such a way as to make what is written unintelligible, is to make poetry invisible to the reader. Unfortunately people have been conditioned, not to mentioned cowed into accepting that obscurity, or inscrutability is equivalent to profundity. Still, we see the effects of this type of self devouring in other areas of art, such as Jazz. At one point Jazz had become so technical and intellectual that it was in danger of becoming a dead art form. Fortunately the Basso Nova, or California Cool movement breathed new life into it by allowing it to reconnect to its audience. What almost happened to Jazz should serve as an object lesson to poets. To move into an idiom that the reader cannot comprehend will lead to poetry becoming a dead art form, which seem the direction it is already heading.
Dale
Of course such things as Beowulf, kenning, or even Lord Randall, will, from a contemporary perspective seem obscure, but I can assure you they were not for the people of that age. Instead of being obscure, they were reflective of that ages way of communicating. It is also erroneous to compare visual art to poetry. Art is non-verbal and acts on the visual sense, so it imparts its communication in a different way than does poetry. Poetry uses written communication as it mode, and written communication has certain rules that are generally agreed upon in order that we understand what the person is saying. Because of it's mode of communication, writing falls under certain constraints that are not germane to visual art. Visual art does not need one's understanding to have an effect. However visual art does fall under one constraint, it has to be able to be seen.
For poetry, the corollary of being unseen, is to be unclear. To write in such a way as to make what is written unintelligible, is to make poetry invisible to the reader. Unfortunately people have been conditioned, not to mentioned cowed into accepting that obscurity, or inscrutability is equivalent to profundity. Still, we see the effects of this type of self devouring in other areas of art, such as Jazz. At one point Jazz had become so technical and intellectual that it was in danger of becoming a dead art form. Fortunately the Basso Nova, or California Cool movement breathed new life into it by allowing it to reconnect to its audience. What almost happened to Jazz should serve as an object lesson to poets. To move into an idiom that the reader cannot comprehend will lead to poetry becoming a dead art form, which seem the direction it is already heading.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.