Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[rayheinrich]

If everyone made their own Bologna then it, too, would be birthed
in a universe of one, like art, and enjoy the experience of being
entirely objective.

Radiographic image of art's only known objective criterion.

The time interval between its discovery and the creation of over 4 quadrillion
egocentric religious cults each claiming this objective criterion as the basis
for their one true bible of objective criteria (and that all others where
utterly subjective, without merit, and the spawn of satan) was 17 femtoseconds.

[newsclippings]

That looks edible. I'll have one.

[Truerenigma]

If everyone made their own Bologna then it, too, would be birthed
in a universe of one, like art, and enjoy the experience of being
entirely objective.

Radiographic image of art's only known objective criterion.

The time interval between its discovery and the creation of over 4 quadrillion
egocentric religious cults each claiming this objective criterion as the basis
for their one true bible of objective criteria (and that all others where
utterly subjective, without merit, and the spawn of satan) was 17 femtoseconds.

I've had about enough of Schrodinger's cat.

[milo]

If everyone made their own Bologna then it, too, would be birthed
in a universe of one, like art, and enjoy the experience of being
entirely objective.

Radiographic image of art's only known objective criterion.

The time interval between its discovery and the creation of over 4 quadrillion
egocentric religious cults each claiming this objective criterion as the basis
for their one true bible of objective criteria (and that all others where
utterly subjective, without merit, and the spawn of satan) was 17 femtoseconds.

I've had about enough of Schrodinger's cat.

Yah, seems like after you eat it you're hungry again in no time.

[rayheinrich]

Radiographic image of art's only known objective criterion.

The time interval between its discovery and the creation of over 4 quadrillion
egocentric religious cults each claiming this objective criterion as the basis
for their one true bible of objective criteria (and that all others where
utterly subjective, without merit, and the spawn of satan) was 17 femtoseconds.

I've had about enough of Schrodinger's cat.

You're not just fed up, you're fed down as well.
You and the cat, you see, were quantumly entangled;
when you ate the cat, you ate yourself.

Better pray to that objective god of yours
that no one opens the box.

Yah, seems like after you eat it you're hungry again in no time.

A frequent result of eating oneself (subjectively, objectively, and metaphorically).

[milo]

This polemic is largely bullshit. Judgments about the aesthetic quality of an art object cannot be had without judgments about its meaning. In the case of poetry, it is easy to see how this is true. The form a poem takes, or even a line within a given poem, can have profound consequences for what the poem means. Within the context of this forum, line-by-line critique, IMO, seems to serve as an excuse to not dwell with a poem, to let it enter into one's heart and mind. And to be honest, I suspect that there are not all that many readers on here who care enough to sit and dwell with a poem, particularly those written by people who they don't know or who are new to writing poetry. Beyond that, it seems to me, the anonymizing function of an online message board doesn't help us to offer each other credence. To read and offer an insightful reading takes time, patience, meditation, all of these qualities that interaction on the internet is't conducive towards.

This is all the more reason why it is important to offer such careful readings of each other's work. Hesse has a wonderful line that I think is relevant: "The creations of the poets are more real than the poets themselves." Every poem is an effort, no matter how dullwitted, sloppy, improper, technically ugly, etc., on the part of its writer to get beyond him or herself. If we can keep that in mind when reading each other's work, we will be able to see wonders in the most unlikely places. To be concerned merely with technique, on the other hand, is inhumane, as much as a particularly obnoxious form of pretense and posturing.

Did you even bother to read the 6 pages of discussion?

[Leanne]

This polemic is largely bullshit. Judgments about the aesthetic quality of an art object cannot be had without judgments about its meaning. In the case of poetry, it is easy to see how this is true. The form a poem takes, or even a line within a given poem, can have profound consequences for what the poem means. Within the context of this forum, line-by-line critique, IMO, seems to serve as an excuse to not dwell with a poem, to let it enter into one's heart and mind. And to be honest, I suspect that there are not all that many readers on here who care enough to sit and dwell with a poem, particularly those written by people who they don't know or who are new to writing poetry. Beyond that, it seems to me, the anonymizing function of an online message board doesn't help us to offer each other credence. To read and offer an insightful reading takes time, patience, meditation, all of these qualities that interaction on the internet is't conducive towards.

This is all the more reason why it is important to offer such careful readings of each other's work. Hesse has a wonderful line that I think is relevant: "The creations of the poets are more real than the poets themselves." Every poem is an effort, no matter how dullwitted, sloppy, improper, technically ugly, etc., on the part of its writer to get beyond him or herself. If we can keep that in mind when reading each other's work, we will be able to see wonders in the most unlikely places. To be concerned merely with technique, on the other hand, is inhumane, as much as a particularly obnoxious form of pretense and posturing.

Attention to technique and detail produces clearer communication of meaning and engages the reader without forcing him/her to stumble through inaccuracies and obscurities; thus, technique and meaning are hardly mutually exclusive. Nobody here has suggested -- at least to my understanding -- that meaning is irrelevant. Similarly, nobody who posts worthwhile critique here does so without ample consideration of all aspects of the poem. That is precisely why we insist that all posters contribute with meaningful feedback that proves they have read and at least tried to appreciate the poem -- without offering feedback it is not possible to fully appreciate the time and effort it takes to do so, which leads to extreme ingratitude on the part of posters who join simply to be read. The implication that, simply because a critique focusses on technical aspects, the reader has not considered the poem from several angles is extremely insulting to anyone who does put in several hours of their own time and draw on several years of their own experience in the attempt to assist poets to improve their poetry.

I, too, suggest that you read and dwell upon the various arguments offered in this and several other threads. Incidentally, we are not anonymous. We have names, personalities, interactions and relationships that are absolutely as real as those in our physical domains -- the fact that we do not meet in a coffee house has no bearing on the relevance of our existence or our work here.