09-02-2012, 10:46 AM
when people leave feedback does it change the beasts voice? (i know i'm off topic and i'm sorry but i think the discussion is just evolving. i suppose if anything a beast raging in the wilderness makes it less diminishable at least top them. it certainly doesn't diminish their voice to me, but i have to ask is having that voice enough, when you share the poetry of the beast? i've never really been that lucky that i had that kind of feeling with my poetry. i write it because it gives me something as well as enjoying the doing of course. i embraced my demons and every other demon outside me long before poetry, so while i can use them, they're not really my poetry, they don't define me per say. and the stigma i got never really bothered me too much. ( and i have suffered at the hands of stigma 
) i was just able to cope with it i suppose. i'm one of those lucky bastards whose always a happy person, no more so than when i'm in the thick of all that shit. i get weary when it's all smooth sailing. while i can't but agree that poetry is art and probably everyones poetry is their own art to themselves; is it really art to others or is some it ( a lot of it ) just crap pretending to be art?
and that's one the things i hate about a lot of poets in general. they espouse their art to be good or great art when it really isn't, it's just bad or mediocre art. i have now problem with that kind of art, as i've stated i enjoy that kind of art because i see it in certain circumstance, grow. so while i love good art, and while i love bad art, i hate bad art that pretends to be good, i hate or should i say dislike art as if or when it implies it's worthy of being good art.
i'm wary of being told everything is art. more often than not to me, the dirt between mine and other peoples toes is just that, toe dirt. writing a poem about it and saying "it's my art" doesn't convince me. it has to connect to what I perceive to be art.
one definition of a poet is;
one who writes poetry : a maker of verses. 2. : one (as a creative artist) of great imaginative and expressive capabilities and special sensitivity to the medium if it's to be belived then a lot of poets aren't actually poets at all and sometimes the voice of the beast raging in the wilderness is just that. one doesn't necessarily make the other exist.
) i was just able to cope with it i suppose. i'm one of those lucky bastards whose always a happy person, no more so than when i'm in the thick of all that shit. i get weary when it's all smooth sailing. while i can't but agree that poetry is art and probably everyones poetry is their own art to themselves; is it really art to others or is some it ( a lot of it ) just crap pretending to be art?and that's one the things i hate about a lot of poets in general. they espouse their art to be good or great art when it really isn't, it's just bad or mediocre art. i have now problem with that kind of art, as i've stated i enjoy that kind of art because i see it in certain circumstance, grow. so while i love good art, and while i love bad art, i hate bad art that pretends to be good, i hate or should i say dislike art as if or when it implies it's worthy of being good art.
i'm wary of being told everything is art. more often than not to me, the dirt between mine and other peoples toes is just that, toe dirt. writing a poem about it and saying "it's my art" doesn't convince me. it has to connect to what I perceive to be art.
one definition of a poet is;
one who writes poetry : a maker of verses. 2. : one (as a creative artist) of great imaginative and expressive capabilities and special sensitivity to the medium if it's to be belived then a lot of poets aren't actually poets at all and sometimes the voice of the beast raging in the wilderness is just that. one doesn't necessarily make the other exist.