Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Lecture 3: The Form of Poetry (the Laws of the Art—Auden & Olson)



We assume that a writer has something to say—does he or she? We assume that there is a content, message, or meaning to a poem, to poetry, and to poetic endeavor—what is meaning? what is poetic endeavor? what is a poem? But while engaging the question of meaning and intention in relation to the art of poetry, we will assume that there is motivation on the part of the individual poet to write, and hence we are going to focus on writing as such, as an art.

We begin with the premise that poetry is first of all an art which uses language as its medium—that is, that poetry is not a thing for ornamenting thoughts, feelings, or sentiment. Hence we’ll be looking into the laws of the art and the techniques of poetry. The emphasis of this lecture, then, is going to be on craft, but not on the traditional sense—this will not be about verse forms (prosody) and poetic language, poetic “images,” or the poetic turn of phrase, but rather about ideas of poetic form and, as Charles Olson wrote,

“FORM IS NEVER MORE THAN AN EXTENSION OF CONTENT.”

13 comments:

javierjwoo said...

If the form is just an extension of the content, hence, words are the real substance of the poem. Nevertheles, this poetic matter is the same we use in everyday communication. May we suspect that context and intention are responsibles of turning everyday words into a poem?

garrett said...

There are many orders of context. And many orders of intention.

Firstly, the remark that "FORM IS NEVER MORE THAN AN EXTENSION OF CONTENT" ought to be read in the context of the essay, "Projective Verse," in which it appears.

Though it will begin to give away some of the substance of my next lecture, "form is never more than an extension of content" should then also be interpreted to mean that content is what appears by virtue of form. In this way, content is not "subject matter," content is not "what the poem is about."

We'll be taking these issues up in the lecture.

As for context - we can speak of the totality of poetry as context, or the poetry of a particular time as context, of a culture, or of worldview and the state of the world at a particular time as context. Or of the poet, or the poet's practice, as context. All of these play a part in "turning everyday words into a poem."

A piece of writing, no matter how great it is, will not be a poem if its context is a garbage pail or a commercial jingle. If a piece of text appears in the context of a poetry, then we have to engage the text as poetry. But that's not saying too much either - is the text a trivial rhyme, or a pretentious bit of self-indulgence? The most meaningful context in which everyday words become poems is the context of poetry as an art, poetry as poetry, and all of its reasons, arguments, techniques, and practices.

As for intention - we can speak about the intention of a poet in writing a particular poem, or of a poet writing generally, or of the intention of a particular poem (as apart from the psychological intention of the writer), and we can speak of the intention of poetry as a whole. All of these also play a part.

It stands to reason that poets intend to make poems. Thus anything anyone intends in writing as a poem is a poem. But that's not saying much either. What I hope to be talking about in this coming lecture is the intentionality inherent in form, in the context of the poetry as art and the particular poet's art.

javierjwoo said...

Thank you very much for this enlightenment.

The last words of your paragraph made clear that intention nor context by themselves explain this mysterious use of language that we name poetry, a different dimension in the way we perceive the world around us.

garrett said...

I'd say that this "mysterious" is an essential part of poetry, and perhaps in its origins had to do with preserving a hieratic and hierarchical culture, but now is a liberating aspect of the art, freeing us from the domination of a destructive rationality and conformity. I don't mean to say that rationality in itself is destructive, but that the uses to which rationality are put are often to the same hieratic and hierarchical ends that the old priests used magic, or the sacred word, or authority, or received wisdom.

szalvador said...

You guys are two true antisemantics

szalvador said...

(Another beautifull image
by the way)

szalvador said...

(I mean the bird scheme)

szalvador said...

sorry: sketch...

javierjwoo said...

Philosophical statements have always been declared in the "apofantic" aspect of the language, that in which you are supposed to find a "true" or "false" value, base of the logical construction. It seems interesting that, at the same time of this genesis of the philosophical phrase, the oracles emitted by priests and sibyls where more esteemed by the leaders than the advises of philosophers.
The interpreters of the oracles noticed early this advantage and all the mystery of the oracle became just another tool to hold the power. I think.

szalvador said...

You think well, they founded churches, and then governments like ours.

szalvador said...

We missed you and Zazil and Burruchaga yesterday man...

szalvador said...

You think well, they founded churches, and then governments like ours.

szalvador said...

I mean funded..