the most convincing surrealism is 100% true
well, for the purposes of this post, i'm talking about magical realism here, but that doesn't fit nicely in a subject line.
in an hour i head to lunch was going to head to lunch* with a retired contractor to hear stories of houses that will put my imagination in its place. he's a friend of mine, one of those non-poets, though a writer, who's ( Read more... )
in an hour i head to lunch was going to head to lunch* with a retired contractor to hear stories of houses that will put my imagination in its place. he's a friend of mine, one of those non-poets, though a writer, who's ( Read more... )
Comments 16
As for me, I'm a poet and a bass player & for me there's a lot of crossover because so much depends on rhythm; and I think that might be why sometimes a bass line seems to actually "speak" to me. Sometimes a piece of visual art will inspire the same feelings in me that one of my favorite poems or songs does & it makes the experience richer.
I think cross-genre art appreciation should be pursued and explored more. It'd vastly improve the creative world.
Reply
oh, man, yeah.
you actually make me think of just the opposite, though. work that succeeds exclusively in its own genre, because it is so much a product of its own genre. you know what i mean? like, paintings that can only be paintings. poetry that can only be poetry. music gets off easy on that one.
Reply
I definitely agree about music getting off easy -- music probably is the "slipperiest" of genres in that it can most easily sneak in and borrow from, or lend itself to, other genres.
On a related note, a couple of weeks ago I went to a Roy Lichtenstein exhibit with a couple of friends who are visual artists. While they were busy talking about the different printmaking techniques he used & all the technical stuff, I stared at a piece that -- to me, at least -- looked like music: Modern Head #5.
Reply
and oh god, that piece is totally music.
Reply
poets sometimes forget to see themselves as part of the spectrum (beyond music or other poets) in the arts.
Reply
actually, i'd argue that the rest of the spectrum of the arts forgets that poets are part of it. notice how the term Artist is applied only to visual artists. how it's a bizarre, almost metaphorical stretch to apply it to a poet. how it's far easier to call a bookmaker an Artist than the poet whose work is in the book.
seriously, wtf?
Reply
Reply
Going along with the whole idea that there is something inherently common among all creative work, including academic concepts like abstraction, metaphor and (certain kinds of) symbolism that are limited to the academic study of creative work, yes: we should all share some of the same connotations and names and titles. But there are important differences that everyone recognizes. For exmaple, this separation is what allows people to describe a genius mathematician's proofs as "a kind of poetry" or an athlete as "a kind of dancer" as high compliments that actually ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Do you feel like poets are excluded from "Art"/"artist" more than dancers and musicians? I might be reading you wrong but it sounds like you think poets are being left unfairly out of some generalized club, while my experience is that the art club is visual arts, the dance club is dance, the poets club is poetry, etc.
Reply
poetry, and for that matter, dance, being excluded from the umbrella of Art, i'm saying, results in a privileged/unprivileged relationship (forget what i said an hour ago about hierarchy) in which poetry gets largely left behind in the general conception of Art. poets have only recently begun to climb back into the public's notion of The Arts, and now only as entertainers. not artists. "poet" doesn't imply "artist" in the way that "painter" or "photographer," or even, i'd say, "choreographer" do.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment