Overall I feel I’ve learned a lot about poetry, mainly the actual use and application of Poetry. I used to think Poetry was either some sort of metaphor exercise, or a pretentious form of short narrative. In the end, I learned Poetry was really a very flexible medium, and I think the purpose boils down to appealing to an individual’s emotions and empathy, in order to translate an often personal or unique perspective, or complex mix of feelings.
I think the only poems that really fail at this are the List Poems, because they sort of make everything way too objective (at least in my opinion); the concrete poems (because they tend to be focused much more about filling an image/character than giving this emotional viewpoint; and visual poems (because they’re really just the annoying, overused excuse of being a debate on what “art” or in this case “poetry” is or isn’t. I think all three still have their merits in their own way, and visual poems can be extremely appealing visually, but I think they really lack what really makes a poem a poem.
The poems that caught me the most were the mythological poems, because of the strong use of metaphor, mythology (both existing and created), and emotional depth they have. I was also really surprised that Neil Gaiman was not only a mythological poet, but one of the premier poets in mythology because I’m actually a fan of his book series American Gods. I definitely plan on getting into his poetry as well as Yeats this summer.
I especially think there’s something really powerful in how some poems can carry so much emotional weight in so few words, like 13 Blackbirds. It’s all different things I and any artist could really utilize in improving our art, both as a screenwriter as well as expressing the emotional concepts visually through composition and juxtaposition.
In terms of the role of the artist and poet in today’s society, I already had some of my own personal views though I think this has only expanded on that. I’ve always felt that Art really can’t just be an abstract concept (like many modern artists and contemporary artists attempt to suggest through simplicity or other “art” debates). I think art really is rooted in some innate, primal attraction to both visual stimulation and depth of the actual image. By depth I really mean the actual meaning behind the work of art that is not only written/explained by the artist, but actually translated visually through the image (without relying on the use of an artist statement).
Though I think there’s an overall difference between the role of an artist and the role of a writer, whether it be a poet or novelist. As a creative writing minor (with awful grammar) and a film major (aspiring to be a screenwriter) I’ve had to really understand that, when writing a screenplay, you have to focus not on the art of it but the actual narrative. That even though you’re writing the script for a film you have to write it as if you’re a novelist, allowing the Director and Cinematographer to capture the narrative itself and translate it into the film.
I think, when it comes to all mediums of writing, while you can supplement the written work with visuals, you can’t focus the writing on being a visual. as soon as you remove the integrity of that written work, chip away at it’s meaning in order to suit the visual medium, you lose the depth that enables it to then become art.
A good example would be my favorite statue, Saint George by Donatello. The statue’s of the biblical character, (disclaimer: I’m an atheist by the way so this isn’t any religious bias) Saint George, who had to fight a Dragon to end human sacrifice and rescue a princess. In the story, its commonly executed where St. George is just another generic brave warrior who slays the dragon and saves the day. In Donatello’s statue however, he captures this really perfectly executed, complex look of both courage, fear, hope, and despair all at once. It’s executed as well as a Daniel Day-Lewis performance and because of it you really, just by looking at it, capture a whole chunk of the narrative. It translates the emotions St. George would’ve had and because of that it really allows us to empathize with him and believe the situation, as well as the stakes.
I think this is the goal of any artist and writer, though the writer doesn’t necessarily have to focus on the art aspect, the artist’s primary goal is to please aesthetically. While Jeff Koons may create a statue of a balloon dog to emphasize that any everyday object can be aesthetically pleasing, he fails to capture that emotional depth and because of that fails in my opinion to be a ‘good’ artist. I think modern artists lost focus of this because they stopped relying on the demographic of large populations, and instead focus on galleries and selling art pieces to, normally uninformed wealthy individuals or celebrities who want to decorate their homes with something trendy. I think due to the need to appeal to masses, filmmaking is still disciplined into focusing on finding it’s depth and meaning while attempting to please mass audiences visually. A sort of market-driven culling for the best artists based on the true merit of their work… For the most part… We can’t forget people like Michael Bay and David Ayer are still working and making millions…
Ringling Jake Poetry 