Punctuation Or Not

[Truerenigma]

Without rules art, especially, is shit. Here, read this "ruleless" poem:

Iuawrciubiug-+@/2487/3487/@3487/348aisudciubefckjbaefbjhbaerkjbrtviuhsriu@248:778/34-8/1#3487/#34+7/34:+-/+-3%/+7/#$4+7/34+-/kuasrcuibweriubservhjubervku


What do you think? Is it brilliant? Did it speak to your soul?

Touche; the question, then, is what is art? I'm simply not a person comfortable with putting parameters on that question. It's like the Supreme Court said about porn, "We'll know it when we see it." I'll know art when I see it. Until then, adhering to strict guidelines is unnecessary.

Art is quite clearly subjective. If some like it with rhyming schemes, punctuation and other mechanics, then that's great and there are great examples of those poems. However, likewise, there are perfectly valid and great examples of poetry that wouldn't fall under any of that.

I, however, believe that art can be objective.

[BigRed]

Without rules art, especially, is shit. Here, read this "ruleless" poem:

Iuawrciubiug-+@/2487/3487/@3487/348aisudciubefckjbaefbjhbaerkjbrtviuhsriu@248:778/34-8/1#3487/#34+7/34:+-/+-3%/+7/#$4+7/34+-/kuasrcuibweriubservhjubervku


What do you think? Is it brilliant? Did it speak to your soul?

Touche; the question, then, is what is art? I'm simply not a person comfortable with putting parameters on that question. It's like the Supreme Court said about porn, "We'll know it when we see it." I'll know art when I see it. Until then, adhering to strict guidelines is unnecessary.

Art is quite clearly subjective. If some like it with rhyming schemes, punctuation and other mechanics, then that's great and there are great examples of those poems. However, likewise, there are perfectly valid and great examples of poetry that wouldn't fall under any of that.

I, however, believe that art can be objective.

I'm open to the suggestion.

[milo]

Without rules art, especially, is shit. Here, read this "ruleless" poem:

Iuawrciubiug-+@/2487/3487/@3487/348aisudciubefckjbaefbjhbaerkjbrtviuhsriu@248:778/34-8/1#3487/#34+7/34:+-/+-3%/+7/#$4+7/34+-/kuasrcuibweriubservhjubervku


What do you think? Is it brilliant? Did it speak to your soul?

Touche; the question, then, is what is art? I'm simply not a person comfortable with putting parameters on that question. It's like the Supreme Court said about porn, "We'll know it when we see it." I'll know art when I see it. Until then, adhering to strict guidelines is unnecessary.

Art is quite clearly subjective. If some like it with rhyming schemes, punctuation and other mechanics, then that's great and there are great examples of those poems. However, likewise, there are perfectly valid and great examples of poetry that wouldn't fall under any of that.

A poet needs to have every tool in his toolbox. Some poems will call for punctuation, some for meter, some for rhyme, etc. It is foolish /as a writer/ to neglect the tool due to personal preference, preference is for readers.

[BigRed]

Without rules art, especially, is shit. Here, read this "ruleless" poem:

Iuawrciubiug-+@/2487/3487/@3487/348aisudciubefckjbaefbjhbaerkjbrtviuhsriu@248:778/34-8/1#3487/#34+7/34:+-/+-3%/+7/#$4+7/34+-/kuasrcuibweriubservhjubervku


What do you think? Is it brilliant? Did it speak to your soul?

Touche; the question, then, is what is art? I'm simply not a person comfortable with putting parameters on that question. It's like the Supreme Court said about porn, "We'll know it when we see it." I'll know art when I see it. Until then, adhering to strict guidelines is unnecessary.

Art is quite clearly subjective. If some like it with rhyming schemes, punctuation and other mechanics, then that's great and there are great examples of those poems. However, likewise, there are perfectly valid and great examples of poetry that wouldn't fall under any of that.

A poet needs to have every tool in his toolbox. Some poems will call for punctuation, some for meter, some for rhyme, etc. It is foolish /as a writer/ to neglect the tool due to personal preference, preference is for readers.

Oh, I don't disagree. The toolbox is valuable and know-how therein is necessary, but I don't think it's all that there is or should be when conceiving poetry (other writing) and/or criticizing poetry (other writing).

[milo]

Touche; the question, then, is what is art? I'm simply not a person comfortable with putting parameters on that question. It's like the Supreme Court said about porn, "We'll know it when we see it." I'll know art when I see it. Until then, adhering to strict guidelines is unnecessary.

Art is quite clearly subjective. If some like it with rhyming schemes, punctuation and other mechanics, then that's great and there are great examples of those poems. However, likewise, there are perfectly valid and great examples of poetry that wouldn't fall under any of that.

A poet needs to have every tool in his toolbox. Some poems will call for punctuation, some for meter, some for rhyme, etc. It is foolish /as a writer/ to neglect the tool due to personal preference, preference is for readers.

Oh, I don't disagree. The toolbox is valuable and know-how therein is necessary, but I don't think it's all that there is or should be when conceiving poetry (other writing) and/or criticizing poetry (other writing).

A tool box should be all there is because everything needs to be in it.

Until you find something new. Then that goes in it too.

As for art being subjective (must we speak in cliches?) yes, for consumers of art it is subjective. It is a luxury producers cannot have.

[Truerenigma]

A poet needs to have every tool in his toolbox. Some poems will call for punctuation, some for meter, some for rhyme, etc. It is foolish /as a writer/ to neglect the tool due to personal preference, preference is for readers.

Oh, I don't disagree. The toolbox is valuable and know-how therein is necessary, but I don't think it's all that there is or should be when conceiving poetry (other writing) and/or criticizing poetry (other writing).

A tool box should be all there is because everything needs to be in it.

Until you find something new. Then that goes in it too.

As for art being subjective (must we speak in cliches?) yes, for consumers of art it is subjective. It is a luxury producers cannot have.

What's a documentary?

Subjective poetry is destroying the art. That is, "poetry" that is subjective to and based on the "poets" emotions. "I didn't use punctuation because I wasn't in the mood for it!"

[BigRed]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

---

Oh, I don't disagree. The toolbox is valuable and know-how therein is necessary, but I don't think it's all that there is or should be when conceiving poetry (other writing) and/or criticizing poetry (other writing).

A tool box should be all there is because everything needs to be in it.

Until you find something new. Then that goes in it too.

As for art being subjective (must we speak in cliches?) yes, for consumers of art it is subjective. It is a luxury producers cannot have.

What's a documentary?

Subjective poetry is destroying the art. That is, "poetry" that is subjective to and based on the "poets" emotions. "I didn't use punctuation because I wasn't in the mood for it!"

I think you're simplifying/overlooking the poet's intent.

[Truerenigma]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

Leanne has a poem here without punc. (aside from commas). It's in Serious. I'm sure milo would consider it literary art (because it is).

[milo]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

I think I already said you must be able to use punctuation /and/ to not use punctuation. To limit yourself to either is to create a poverty of your writing. The same is true of every other tool in the kit. If you become subjective as a writer, the writing suffers for it.

[BigRed]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

I think I already said you must be able to use punctuation /and/ to not use punctuation. To limit yourself to either is to create a poverty of your writing. The same is true of every other tool in the kit. If you become subjective as a writer, the writing suffers for it.

Ah, I think I need to clarify my point then. I'm not arguing that one ought to never use proper rules of grammar, punctuation and mechanics. I was merely arguing that it's okay not to, if that's what the piece calls for.

Perhaps we're on more common ground than first thought...

[milo]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

Leanne has a poem here without punc. (aside from commas). It's in Serious. I'm sure milo would consider it literary art (because it is).

well, I wrote that poem with only periods (and lots of them) and no capitals though I don't know if I would consider it art or not. I recall you complaining about it.

[Truerenigma]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

Leanne has a poem here without punc. (aside from commas). It's in Serious. I'm sure milo would consider it literary art (because it is).

well, I wrote that poem with only periods (and lots of them) and no capitals though I don't know if I would consider it art or not. I recall you complaining about it.

Lol, yeah. That was a bit odd.

[milo]

Leanne has a poem here without punc. (aside from commas). It's in Serious. I'm sure milo would consider it literary art (because it is).

well, I wrote that poem with only periods (and lots of them) and no capitals though I don't know if I would consider it art or not. I recall you complaining about it.

Lol, yeah. That was a bit odd.

I thought odd was good.

[Truerenigma]

well, I wrote that poem with only periods (and lots of them) and no capitals though I don't know if I would consider it art or not. I recall you complaining about it.

Lol, yeah. That was a bit odd.

I thought odd was good.

Oh. Odd is in now?! Jezzus, I can't keep up!

[billy]

Just to draw on an example that's come to mind (to avoid going in circles here). Would you classify The Road as an example of literary art or reject it for not using proper punctuation?

I think I already said you must be able to use punctuation /and/ to not use punctuation. To limit yourself to either is to create a poverty of your writing. The same is true of every other tool in the kit. If you become subjective as a writer, the writing suffers for it.

Ah, I think I need to clarify my point then. I'm not arguing that one ought to never use proper rules of grammar, punctuation and mechanics. I was merely arguing that it's okay not to, if that's what the piece calls for.

Perhaps we're on more common ground than first thought...

and how would a poet know if it's the right time if they don't know the rules.

some on here are still learning the basics (i hope) would you tell them the same thing?

[BigRed]

I think I already said you must be able to use punctuation /and/ to not use punctuation. To limit yourself to either is to create a poverty of your writing. The same is true of every other tool in the kit. If you become subjective as a writer, the writing suffers for it.

Ah, I think I need to clarify my point then. I'm not arguing that one ought to never use proper rules of grammar, punctuation and mechanics. I was merely arguing that it's okay not to, if that's what the piece calls for.

Perhaps we're on more common ground than first thought...

and how would a poet know if it's the right time if they don't know the rules.

some on here are still learning the basics (i hope) would you tell them the same thing?

I would never steer someone away from learning the rules and fundamentals. That's just basic and should occur. My only contention is that I think it should not always be strictly followed thereafter.

In other words, I think the only way someone can artistically curtail conventional rules of poetry is by knowing them. If you're curtailing them out of not knowing them, then that's just incompetence.

[rayheinrich]

I disagree that poetry is an extension of ourselves. Being everything else you said was dependent on that premise it all just disappeared.

Duh, milo. Poems are just fancy diary entries. How could you not know that!?

A much less incorrect statement would be: "fanciful diary entry".

"Poetry is an extension of ourselves" reminds me of robotic hands.

"Rules" (as well as art) are subjective. One word: "Lawyers".

[newsclippings]

[billy]

Ah, I think I need to clarify my point then. I'm not arguing that one ought to never use proper rules of grammar, punctuation and mechanics. I was merely arguing that it's okay not to, if that's what the piece calls for.

Perhaps we're on more common ground than first thought...

and how would a poet know if it's the right time if they don't know the rules.

some on here are still learning the basics (i hope) would you tell them the same thing?

I would never steer someone away from learning the rules and fundamentals. That's just basic and should occur. My only contention is that I think it should not always be strictly followed thereafter.

In other words, I think the only way someone can artistically curtail conventional rules of poetry is by knowing them. If you're curtailing them out of not knowing them, then that's just incompetence.

most half decent poets will say "think out of the box and change some of the rules" as long as you know what rules you're dicking about with.

so it seem we think alike then

---

that's hypnotizing me

[rayheinrich]

"A painting is a physical object, it is not art.
Art is the effect the painting has on a person when
they see it. Art is subjective because it is a
product of perception and perception is subjective.

- William Sanders