Which is more constructive?

[Achebe]

Ouch. @Ambroisial and @Weeded - now I'll have to actually start posting good dope.
I think critting is something I've learned only on the Pen, by watching others.
Todd is a model, as Lizzie says.

Speaking of critters:
The Sharpshooter lost his mojo with the loss of his 'Q'.  
'P' doesn't have the same weight - it's like the Return of Sherlock Holmes.
A partial reconstruction of the face after suffering third degree burns. Quix made him do it. Tch tch.

[QDeathstar]

^pfffft, nigguh

[shemthepenman]

Damn shem, this is straight inspiration right here for both parties. It makes me want to write as well as write crit. It's basically everything I was trying to say but didnt know how, very dope.

I like what you said about the bottleneck, just cuz it makes so much sense, it could probably be a line in a poem, it sucks tho because i basically feel like im stuck inside that bottleneck, and i cant get out.

But if negative crit helps how you say,
then i should start writing some bad poems.

Ha nah just kidding, thats actually one of my worries about negative crit,

that is allowing your own expectations of yourself to diminish due to the fact youre not worried that it sucks,

which leads me to wonder,

can poetry be taught, or is it supernatural, a gift of sorts,

is there any point to even workshopping at all...?

now im rambling... dont answer that last bit hah

yeah, you raise some interesting questions. i think as long as you're posting here then it is an indication that you are, at least, concerned with the quality of your poetry. some aren't, but they don't last long and inevitably will never really make any progress. however, i am not an advocate of this perpetual workshopping, either. there has to be a point when one says "right, i am a poet now. i can do that", and you actually move into that free conceptual space. you still may write stuff that isn't very good [subjectively], but it will be on your own terms. it is at this point that the negative critiques, themselves, become static and primarily for show. like, for example, i really rate the art critic, Matthew Collings. his explanations of art are an art themselves. but, the works he talks about are already out there. finished. done. his comments are nothing to do with benefitting the artist. which is why i think retrospective critique should always aim to be almost entirely positive. because in this case, the critic is benefitting the audience. for example, i used to really hate conceptual art; then i listened to Matthew Collings talk about some conceptual art in a very inspirational way and it made me look at it differently, positively. this is a benefit to me. i would much rather someone show me the greatness in that which i had previously thought bad, than the flaws in a thing i had previously thought great. but that's another story.
anyway, it all gets a bit complicated after the basics. and even then, someone may very well pick and choose exactly which standards they wish to follow and which ones they want to ignore. and then one has to simply accept they are doing things their own way, and that's pretty much all you can say about it. sometimes you'll get it and like it. . . other times it will be annoying.
in relation to that, there was this fellow who posted a few things here and everyone pointed out that he was writing in cliches. he argued back he didn't mind writing in cliches and cliches were a good thing. and all you can say is, "ok, well done. i respect that. i also won't be reading any more of your poetry."

also, in terms of positive feedback. although this may be of negligible benefit to the poet, it may benefit the critic, themselves, and as this is a public forum, may benefit other poets. again, this is why it must be dualistic.

can poetry be taught? i think so. but like anything, one has to have a natural will to want to do it. can you teach someone to write good poetry? what is good poetry? what is poetry? who decides? is the fellow right that cliche is good? are we right that it isn't? i think these questions are academic. we write.

[Leanne]

Can poetry be taught?  Well, some precious poets who are all about the muse or their [insert deity here]-given gifts will tell you no, it comes from the heart or some other misappropriated organ, or even that intangible and therefore (to the faithful) irrefutable soul.  

Can you teach someone to play the piano? Can you teach someone to draw?  Can you teach someone to dance the macarena?  

Poetry is not special.  It is not some unique talent that only a few chosen ones may dare to dream of using properly.  Poetry is a craft, not an art.  

But you can't teach someone to become another Shelley or Whitman or Dorothy Parker, because what made them great was not their poetry, but their minds.  Poetry was just the tool they used to connect their thoughts with the world.

Poetry is all about tools

[Leanne]

I don't care personally if every bad poem gets moved to the sewer. I mean, I don't want any of my bad poems ending up there.. But other than that sounds swell ^_^

This can't happen. It's asking for sewer overflow, and we're already far too full of shit.

[Weeded]

Can poetry be taught?  Well, some precious poets who are all about the muse or their [insert deity here]-given gifts will tell you no, it comes from the heart or some other misappropriated organ, or even that intangible and therefore (to the faithful) irrefutable soul.  

Can you teach someone to play the piano? Can you teach someone to draw?  Can you teach someone to dance the macarena?  

Poetry is not special.  It is not some unique talent that only a few chosen ones may dare to dream of using properly.  Poetry is a craft, not an art.  

But you can't teach someone to become another Shelley or Whitman or Dorothy Parker, because what made them great was not their poetry, but their minds.  Poetry was just the tool they used to connect their thoughts with the world.

Poetry is all about tools

Poetry is all about tools alright   

But my only problem with this is simply that while yes, you can teach all of those things,

can you teach someone to play piano, draw, or dance well? What about the fact there are fellows born with a musical ear, born with an artists hand, or born with rhythmic hips?

You once said yourself that when it comes to poetry(or maybe you meant everything): Don't be great, be amazing.

Does this mean that one can be taught to write what others may view as amazing poetry?

It's in this regard I personally feel like poetry, or any artistic/musical expression is special, as there are some that dont need to be taught, at least not as much as others.

For instance, I used to play guitar, and I learned through working with other musicians theres two types of musicians; those that play from the heart or whatever you wanna call it, and those that play from musical knowledge (be it scales, arpeggios, musical influence, etc.). Both reached plateaus in different areas of their craft, and neither could exist without having some form of the other. The one player I know that reached the point of what I'd define as amazing was in fact a player that plays from musical knowledge. But he was only amazing at imitating, at learning songs and playing them well. 

To which I wonder... what is the point of poetry? Is it to express that which is in ones mind/soul, is it to inspire thoughts and ideas in others, is it to change the world with words, or is it to please/impress others with the use of learned tools/techniques?

Here I am rambling again... meh.

[Leanne]

The point of poetry is to generate all of those questions, fail to answer them and keep going with it anyway

[ellajam]

weeded wrote:
To which I wonder... what is the point of poetry? Is it to express that which is in ones mind/soul, is it to inspire thoughts and ideas in others, is it to change the world with words, or is it to please/impress others with the use of learned tools/techniques?

Use of tools/techniques is only impressive when it comes together with an idea and raises that idea into something that reaches outside and above itself. I recently had two readers agree that one of my poems was "competent", quite a low bar for a poem. It was an idea that interested me enough to write about it and it came out in a form I enjoy writing in, but they did not come together well enough to make something more than the sum of its parts.

I think the fun of all arts is expressive, the work of all arts is to express it so finely that the reader/viewer gets an effective impression of the whole, much more likely when it is crafted with care and honed technique.

I love this site not because I express myself more (I'll always be a babbling fool, making something or other), but because it has taught me how to refine my words, remove what distracts from my point, in fact read my own work more closely so that I myself can understand what that point is.

Learning this would not have been possible if members were not willing to point out where my words were not doing the job they needed to. Had the members of the site not encouraged me to investigate various forms I would not have the variety of armatures to hang my ideas and words on that I have now, not to mention the fun of learning to play with language in new ways. Reading others' work closely enough to comment has enabled me to refine my own voice.

For me, the workshop format of the pigpen has worked, I'm sure partly because there are so many parts of the site to just goof around in while the workshops are the studios set up for work and growth. I need both, I want it all.

[shemthepenman]

To which I wonder... what is the point of poetry? Is it to express that which is in one's mind/soul, is it to inspire thoughts and ideas in others, is it to change the world with words, or is it to please/impress others with the use of learned tools/techniques?

those questions are all very well and good as a mental exercise in the wee small hours when you can't sleep. but i wouldn't spend too much time on them. they could end up stopping you in your tracks. i think all creative people are working slightly off centre, not quite synced with practical reality, which is a good thing. once you start asking yourself why am i writing these odd little things that hardly anyone reads and even fewer people actually appreciate or like, you'll find yourself falling down a big black hole of meaninglessness. . . well, maybe not that dramatic. but, and i hate to break it to anyone who's new to writing poetry, it is a thankless hobby [yep, i said hobby] and 99.9% of everyone who has ever written a poem or even had aspirations of being a recognized poet will live and die entirely unacknowledged. the other 0.1% is shakespeare [yep, and he was a fucking playwright]. so, you're not going to change the world with words and you most certainly aren't going to impress anyone [nope, you can't even poem a woman into bed with you anymore - although, you play guitar, and that'll do it]. we're all like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill and it falling back down again, and as Camus suggested, all we can do is recognise the absurdity of it all and be determined to carry on regardless. . . or am i thinking of monopoly? :/

[ellajam]

To which I wonder... what is the point of poetry? Is it to express that which is in one's mind/soul, is it to inspire thoughts and ideas in others, is it to change the world with words, or is it to please/impress others with the use of learned tools/techniques?

those questions are all very well and good as a mental exercise in the wee small hours when you can't sleep. but i wouldn't spend too much time on them. they could end up stopping you in your tracks. i think all creative people are working slightly off centre, not quite synced with practical reality, which is a good thing. once you start asking yourself why am i writing these odd little things that hardly anyone reads and even fewer people actually appreciate or like, you'll find yourself falling down a big black hole of meaninglessness. . . well, maybe not that dramatic. but, and i hate to break it to anyone who's new to writing poetry, it is a thankless hobby [yep, i said hobby] and 99.9% of everyone who has ever written a poem or even had aspirations of being a recognized poet will live and die entirely unacknowledged. the other 0.1% is shakespeare [yep, and he was a fucking playwright]. so, you're not going to change the world with words and you most certainly aren't going to impress anyone [nope, you can't even poem a woman into bed with you anymore - although, you play guitar, and that'll do it]. we're all like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill and it falling back down again, and as Camus suggested, all we can do is recognise the absurdity of it all and be determined to carry on regardless. . . or am i thinking of monopoly? :/

Well said. I took a 30 year hiatus from writing became it became enough just to think it, from photography because it was enough just to see it, on and on. I don't seem to be motivated by an end product, its the process I enjoy.