Poetry and the Masses

[Todd]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

[billy]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

those people can play scrabble and write hallmark poetry. i'm fine with that as long as they don't want to do it here, i suppose someone could set up a hallmark workshop though

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

who said it's on a perch, those who have never really bothered to read poetry other than in forums? poetry is widespread, it's in libraries, bookstores and amazon, it's even on piratebay how widespread does it have to be before it's widespread?

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

you're right though i'd say good poetry has never been popular, almost everyone has written or read a love poem

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

ex lax should move you, senna should move you, for me poetry should lift you and lick your face or slap it with a wet fish.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

if they like cliche, they like cliche. maybe poetry is a calling, a vocation of sorts. sometimes people see something and assume it's the real deal. some may not be able to see what i see outside cliche, nor me what they see inside cliche.

[Leanne]

All painting should be done to match your decor.

All music should be written as a soundtrack for stock film footage.

All novels should be Dan Brown novels.

All television programs should be Funniest Home Videos.

All poetry should be cliched tripe.

Don't tax those masses. Don't tax yourself. Variations on a theme.

[Wjames]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

I think this has already happened via pop music; pop music is catchy, dumbed down (not necessarily, but usually) poetry for the masses. I honestly don't know a single person who (openly) likes poetry, or reads enough to have a favorite poem or poet. Everybody does however, have a favorite line or two from songs. I don't really view this as a problem, as I can be moved just as much (or more, with the added impact of music) by a great song as by a great poem. The thing I have an issue with is that most people only ever listen to top 40 crap, thanks to the fame factory that Hollywood's become over the past 30/40 years.

[milo]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

Bad poetry is easy.
Good poetry is hard.
Great poetry is really, really, really fucking hard.
I always see this discussion come up when a new writer comes to the realization that it might be easier to convince the whole world to embrace bad poetry than to write great poetry.
Too fucking bad. We don't want cheap and easy. We want to be dumbstruck with awe at something rare enough we couldn't do it ourselves even if we have to slough through a thousand lines of shit to get it.
Tough breaks. Sharpen your pencils. Roll up your sleeves. Buy a lot of notebooks. Empty the trash bin a lot.

[Truerenigma]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

Bad poetry is easy.
Good poetry is hard.
Great poetry is really, really, really fucking hard.
I always see this discussion come up when a new writer comes to the realization that it might be easier to convince the whole world to embrace bad poetry than to write great poetry.
Too fucking bad. We don't want cheap and easy. We want to be dumbstruck with awe at something rare enough we couldn't do it ourselves even if we have to slough through a thousand lines of shit to get it.
Tough breaks. Sharpen your pencils. Roll up your sleeves. Buy a lot of notebooks. Empty the trash bin a lot.

Often.Milo. Empty the trash bin often. I was on the phone, /what's/ your excuse?

[jdvanwijk]

I agree with you, Todd. When a poem turns out to be accessible for a "general audience" then I would say that's a nice side effect, but actively setting out to write something that "speaks to everyone" by dumbing down the language sounds like a terrible idea.

[milo]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

Bad poetry is easy.
Good poetry is hard.
Great poetry is really, really, really fucking hard.
I always see this discussion come up when a new writer comes to the realization that it might be easier to convince the whole world to embrace bad poetry than to write great poetry.
Too fucking bad. We don't want cheap and easy. We want to be dumbstruck with awe at something rare enough we couldn't do it ourselves even if we have to slough through a thousand lines of shit to get it.
Tough breaks. Sharpen your pencils. Roll up your sleeves. Buy a lot of notebooks. Empty the trash bin a lot.

Often.Milo. Empty the trash bin often. I was on the phone, /what's/ your excuse?

I wanted the parallelism.

[rayheinrich]

Anyone who thinks poetry isn't wildly successful has a kink in their definition.

[ellajam]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

So many people, so much art. There's room for so much variety. Pollock, hate it today, love it tomorrow, just keep walking, genius, hack.

But there's always a craft to hang your art on. The reader, viewer, user will feel the difference when there's nothing solid underneath, if they bother to think about it. There's a joy and torture to honing a skill, a person does that for themselves, usually, at least in the later stages of developement. Whether it's valued by other people isn't the point, but often hard work and practice with a bit of inspiration is recognized on some level, by those who see the detail and nuance.

Unpunctuated cliches in common words has it's audience, I'm that audience and participant sometimes. No one's going to die over it. There's a place for everything but it's always good to be observant enough to realize where you are.

[Truerenigma]

Anyone who thinks writing worse poetry is going to make it more successful as an art is delusional. There is plenty of that around. There is far more bad poetry than good. So the more proficient poets should lower their standards and just blend in? I think not. We need more, better, original poetry. There is no shortage of bad poetry. I'm not sure if anyone actually reads it though...for example; when someone gives you a hallmark card, how many times do you read the poem? Once.

[heslopian]

Making poetry more accessible is fine and good, but the path to that end isn't in changing poetry itself, but public attitudes towards it. One wouldn't try to arouse public interest in science by dumbing it down, restricting its progress, generalising and neutralising it, so nobody has to use or improve their minds and everyone can share the same degraded shit. Rather, we should be teaching people that poetry as it is isn't so impenetrable as snotty English teachers make it seem. Frankly, I'd also rather burn every poem than watch them be reduced to banalities for the sake of the intellectually lazy.

[Truerenigma]

Frankly, I'd also rather burn every poem than watch them be reduced to banalities for the sake of the intellectually lazy.

[Nihil Loc]

What is the function or purpose of poetry that isn't already supplied to us by lyrical music?

Meaning is more clearly expedited with prose.

Music transcends or explodes the limits of rhythm and timbre in poetry, and there is potential for a balance between the overall meaning of the lyrics, the lyrics alone, as they are fitted to serve the music.

[tectak]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

Bad poetry is easy.
Good poetry is hard.
Great poetry is really, really, really fucking hard.
I always see this discussion come up when a new writer comes to the realization that it might be easier to convince the whole world to embrace bad poetry than to write great poetry.
Too fucking bad. We don't want cheap and easy. We want to be dumbstruck with awe at something rare enough we couldn't do it ourselves even if we have to slough through a thousand lines of shit to get it.
Tough breaks. Sharpen your pencils. Roll up your sleeves. Buy a lot of notebooks. Empty the trash bin a lot.

Yes yes yes....to all that.
Stick it to'em milo!
Don't tell anyone I said that.
tectak

[bena]

I'm not sure whom I love more right now, milo or Leanne.

[milo]

I'm not sure whom I love more right now, milo or Leanne.

the correct answer is me, of course. Where is leanne? Busy patting herself on the back or counting her many friends and admirers, no doubt. Too busy to campaign for your love and affection.

[bena]

Well you are certainly right, milo. Every time I flirt with her she reminds me she is straight. As if that matters!

[milo]

Well you are certainly right, milo. Every time I flirt with her she reminds me she is straight. As if that matters!

Weird - every time I flirt with her she tells me she's a lesbian.

Wait, this is the pig's arse, right?

[pochinuk]

I saw this discussion touched on in a thread, and thought it might make a good discussion here.

In my own words:

The idea was that poetry is too focused on grammar, structure, and highbrow words to appeal to the 6-7 billion people on this world. What we should do is move to something that appeals to the masses, and is more of a populous approach. This way would say: people like cliches for a reason, people aren't fond of grammar, or using a thesaurus.

If poetry is to be widespread it must come down from its self imposed perch.

I'm not trying to give a straw man argument just represent how I took the message.

My view, poetry has never been popular. If the answer is to lower the bar to gain popularity, I'd rather all poetry burn. I'd rather we all turned on reality TV, and forgot about it. I think this approach makes poetry nothing worth saving.

Art should move you. This insipid dumbing down of poetry wouldn't accomplish that purpose. It would make it no different than Muzak.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir (cliche for the masses) or maybe I'm not.

Thoughts?

Beauty is the intense expression of the heart; and poetry is beautiful; and the less we think "grammar", structure, the less life blood going into the work. I composed a poem the other day, and if the two words I chose for the title did not take a step down to the last line of the poem, and if the last line of the poem did not take a step up to the title: my poem was ruined, it would not have been an intense expression of my heart: beautiful! Going down, or going up, we must still dot our eyes and cross our teas. (spelling errors intended).