Wherefore Art...

[zorcas]

Cast out the triptychs,   
cast out the saints.  
Cast out the living                       EDIT 2
that artistry paints.
Away with all nature,
away with all form.
Away with the substance
that once was the norm.
Eschew the censorious,
hail the notorious  
and middling victorious
Today’s artist so pricey and banal
as he squats and strains,
voiding muck-tinted stains
of visions artless and anal.

[RC James]

Zorcas - I guess you intended the sing song chanting quality of this, but for me the subject far outstrips its treatment. 

The rhythm, though sing song is even throughout up to the last line which throws that rhythm off.

Maybe

in his soul of a sandbox

You include points that could stand a different treatment RC

[zorcas]

Perhaps our differing viewpoints are influenced by our differing pictorial tastes.

[RiverNotch]

Cast out the triptychs,
cast out the saints.  
Cast out the people
that artistry paints.
Away with all nature,
away with all form.
Away with the substance
that once was the norm.
Thou art a century too late -- there are
no ways to leave, no paths to tread
that have not been uncensored yet.
Eschew the censorious,
accept the notorious
This is most unfair -- the critic
too vicious finds his censor's work
so censored too. What is eschewed
is naught; accepted, all,
and even Dali had his taste.
and mediocrity victorious,
Ah! a stumble -- too many sounds,
too harsh the syllables.
praising as most glorious
But on a finer note: the use
of "ious" to rime feels much too forced,
too close they are, and dense
the choice of words.
Now's artist
Why leave your meter? Why break your rime?
Why lose punctuation? Why waste my time?
So artless and bold
At once the champion, now the critic -- change
is welcome when it's crystal clear to where
the piece should go, yet unclear as to how.
This piece: the how is broken, and the known
seems quite ill-handed, much too easily lost.
voiding vanity and brains
in the sandbox called his soul.
And just as the theme is lost, so too the style:
once high and churchly (if a little tired),
now modern -- yet lost in the sudden launch.

Ultimately empty, done --- tired. But not hopeless:
perhaps a change in tone, in thought, in pace?

It doesn't hurt to remember that critique in Serious is not about showing off, and banter should be kept to a minimum/ Admin

[zorcas]

Ah, yes, pedantry jousts with pleasantry, for are not the arts a form of entertainment whilst the pecksniffians seek tenure finding fault? So it was with the calipers of the calculating at Cambridge finding the off-leg buttock on a Rodin figure too small though those at Oxford found it too big. The prols at Birmingham opined that there was a smallness of character at one school, an excess of ego at the other. One cannot know what the current critic's credentials are--though his incapacity for unalloyed pleasure derived from consuming the whole of an artistic endeavor and not its parts is obvious, as is the likelihood that whatever school he attended was as parochial as one could be.

Or as most people would say, "thank you for your critique".  After all, workshopping tends to be at least a goodly portion of breaking an artistic endeavour into its parts and the enjoyment of the work as a whole need not enter into it.  Gratitude is best served at least once without vinegar/ Admin

[RiverNotch]

Ah, yes, pedantry jousts with pleasantry, for are not the arts a form of entertainment whilst the pecksniffians seek tenure finding fault? So it was with the calipers of the calculating at Cambridge finding the off-leg buttock on a Rodin figure too small though those at Oxford found it too big. The prols at Birmingham opined that there was a smallness of character at one school, an excess of ego at the other. One cannot know what the current critic's credentials are--though his incapacity for unalloyed pleasure derived from consuming the whole of an artistic endeavor and not its parts is obvious, as is the likelihood that whatever school he attended was as parochial as one could be.

Eh, I found the opportunity, and I took it. That is, with the meter -- if I offended, I didn't mean to. Rereading this piece now, it still doesn't work, and not just for the stylistic issues I did dutifully point out (again, the repetitive "ious" rhymes sound like a bad pop song; "mediocrity victorious" has got way, way, way too many syllables to work; and the loss of capitalization and punctuation, even if this is a deliberate, I now realize, volta, makes it look more like you just stopped caring -- no, that being an analogy of how artists don't care anymore takes too many leaps of logic to not sound like bullshit). To wit:

Again, the way you say those first eight lines, and even lines 9 to 12, capture the tone of a call to arms too well to sound like the speaker's actually a critic -- and yet, they lack the power, the actual casting out of triptychs and ravaging of the establishment, to be engaging.

And then the volta doesn't really work because it's too jarring -- either it pulled the camera so suddenly away from the foolish Dadaist to the (in my opinion, even more foolish, as it's that same "artlessness" that once characterized Baroque to the Mannerists, Mannerism to the Medievals, the Middle Ages to the Romans....ie, art's moving forward is never a bad thing, even if it seems like it's moving to shit) critic, or the speaker decided to confuse himself. The voice has to be uniform -- if it's gonna be a call to arms in the first twelve lines, then either make that call to arms look bitter and satirical on the onset (not necessarily obviously, although there's not enough space in the words you've already chosen to show such subtle hate -- "artistry" is equally measured with "elitism", and "mediocrity" could also mean "kitsch": ie, use there the concrete, instead of the abstract, since abstractions have corruptible meanings, while shit shall always be shit), or structure the last lines so that the change of voice is clear, like say introducing a new, more objective speaker ("blablabla...said the artist who was in the future not even remembered", or something) to the mix; or don't make it a call to arms in the start at all, especially since the rhythm you've noted doesn't have much space, and such a tone necessitates repetitiveness. 

And, again, that volta: the speaker and the writer are ultimately among "now's artists", so this reeks of "vanity"; bold is a compliment, artless isn't, voiding vanity is a good thing, voiding brains is a bad thing -- those two lines aren't even the good kind of ambiguous, the previous lines were too straightforward; and "the sandbox of his soul" is a laughable attempt at a profound image, especially considering the speaker is talking about art. Ultimately, the first part is "artless", it lacks the space to develop, while the conclusion sinks into mud, such that you can't really blame the reader if he "misunderstood", so that everything reeks of vanity, of pretentiousness, and not even the sort that awes. 

And please, if you're gonna complain about a critic doing his job, then why bother, especially with this *critical* forum? Better to work on your own, with that attitude, then post in misc or the arse ---- and get trashed without consideration, or worse still, ignored. And critics do criticize critics who depend on the systems and credentials of their school, such elitism is out of fashion in today's democratic educational system ---- just as critics do enjoy works as a whole, those criticized just don't realize it, their works if so trashed were never enjoyable in the first place.

[zorcas]

Ah, yes, pedantry jousts with pleasantry, for are not the arts a form of entertainment whilst the pecksniffians seek tenure finding fault? So it was with the calipers of the calculating at Cambridge finding the off-leg buttock on a Rodin figure too small though those at Oxford found it too big. The prols at Birmingham opined that there was a smallness of character at one school, an excess of ego at the other. One cannot know what the current critic's credentials are--though his incapacity for unalloyed pleasure derived from consuming the whole of an artistic endeavor and not its parts is obvious, as is the likelihood that whatever school he attended was as parochial as one could be.

Eh, I found the opportunity, and I took it. That is, with the meter -- if I offended, I didn't mean to. Rereading this piece now, it still doesn't work, and not just for the stylistic issues I did dutifully point out (again, the repetitive "ious" rhymes sound like a bad pop song; "mediocrity victorious" has got way, way, way too many syllables to work; and the loss of capitalization and punctuation, even if this is a deliberate, I now realize, volta, makes it look more like you just stopped caring -- no, that being an analogy of how artists don't care anymore takes too many leaps of logic to not sound like bullshit). To wit:

Again, the way you say those first eight lines, and even lines 9 to 12, capture the tone of a call to arms too well to sound like the speaker's actually a critic -- and yet, they lack the power, the actual casting out of triptychs and ravaging of the establishment, to be engaging.

And then the volta doesn't really work because it's too jarring -- either it pulled the camera so suddenly away from the foolish Dadaist to the (in my opinion, even more foolish, as it's that same "artlessness" that once characterized Baroque to the Mannerists, Mannerism to the Medievals, the Middle Ages to the Romans....ie, art's moving forward is never a bad thing, even if it seems like it's moving to shit) critic, or the speaker decided to confuse himself. The voice has to be uniform -- if it's gonna be a call to arms in the first twelve lines, then either make that call to arms look bitter and satirical on the onset (not necessarily obviously, although there's not enough space in the words you've already chosen to show such subtle hate -- "artistry" is equally measured with "elitism", and "mediocrity" could also mean "kitsch": ie, use there the concrete, instead of the abstract, since abstractions have corruptible meanings, while shit shall always be shit), or structure the last lines so that the change of voice is clear, like say introducing a new, more objective speaker ("blablabla...said the artist who was in the future not even remembered", or something) to the mix; or don't make it a call to arms in the start at all, especially since the rhythm you've noted doesn't have much space, and such a tone necessitates repetitiveness. 

And, again, that volta: the speaker and the writer are ultimately among "now's artists", so this reeks of "vanity"; bold is a compliment, artless isn't, voiding vanity is a good thing, voiding brains is a bad thing -- those two lines aren't even the good kind of ambiguous, the previous lines were too straightforward; and "the sandbox of his soul" is a laughable attempt at a profound image, especially considering the speaker is talking about art. Ultimately, the first part is "artless", it lacks the space to develop, while the conclusion sinks into mud, such that you can't really blame the reader if he "misunderstood", so that everything reeks of vanity, of pretentiousness, and not even the sort that awes. 

And please, if you're gonna complain about a critic doing his job, then why bother, especially with this *critical* forum? Better to work on your own, with that attitude, then post in misc or the arse ---- and get trashed without consideration, or worse still, ignored. And critics do criticize critics who depend on the systems and credentials of their school, such elitism is out of fashion in today's democratic educational system ---- just as critics do enjoy works as a whole, those criticized just don't realize it, their works if so trashed were never enjoyable in the first place.

Odds bodkins! Your reply brought to mind that before entering this group I devoured poetry with absolutely no regard for punctuation,  metrical fluidity or whatever, suggesting that either the poets were perfection divine and failed not to do everything ship shapely or the overall effect of their work took precedence over precise details. Somewhere between the two lies a compromise. The impression I get is that reviewers/critics here fasten upon the first putative problem like an errant comma and thenceforth snuffle through the remainder looking for more. Have noted that there be scant few bits of praise for the whole of anyone's efforts, only for bits and pieces of it. Wherefore Art was read by divers friends, English faculty among them, and all laughed. None of you did.

That your friends have enjoyed a poem, or told you they did, has no bearing on its purpose in a workshop.  Please, if you do not intend a piece to be workshopped, select a different forum.  If you do, then it's time to learn that nobody is obliged to cushion their replies.  This is the one place where we expect that it's perfectly ok to be dispassionate and address only the poem/ Admin

[ellajam]

Please, let's not have another workshop thread tumble down into comments not directly related to the poem and, to be blunt, snotty attitudes. Please walk away from personal comments and comments about the site in general. No poem or poster will be appreciated by everyone and if there's a point to be made about types of poetry or poetry sites please start a thread about it elsewhere. Thanks, ella

[rollingbrianjones]

Personally, I enjoyed the asperse nature of this poem. Certainly amused me, and I certainly grabbed the meaning. There was once a time (Restoration period especially) where poetry was often a weapon to attack trends of the time, other poets and their choice of style.

It's relevant... especially these days. But sort out the last four lines!
They don't really continue the rhythm of the rest and I feel if you're going to write something like this you shouldn't hold back, which I felt, after enjoying the rest of it considerably, the ending does. Have a proper dig. If you are going on the attack, end strong, leave the reader with a punch in the mouth.

Also, from reading comments above, I've never seen pop song lyrics with 4 "orious" endings that rolled off the tongue so easily- to me that's definitely poetry not pop. Think you received a few harsh comments on a simple poem conveying a simple (and imo relevant to the present day) message. Maybe such comments will inspire you to continue in this fashion with less reserve...

You can improve it with less bland observation and a more wit. A poem like this, if to appeal to those that do NOT share your sentiment, must convince them through witty retorts and perhaps a more colourful description of what you're getting at. Wit is everything in this sort of piece.

Also, if you feel this way, I'd not be put off by comments etc. I mean, yeah you might come across arrogant, but no more arrogant than an assured critic.

Just work on it. More "artistic" language use, more wit, chuck in some humour and you're there.

RBJ

[zorcas]

Appreciate your carefully considered comments and will do some repairs. Not sure, though, whether adding more wit might help, given that it's a hard sell these days.

[rollingbrianjones]

It is only a hard sell if being sold to a mundane audience. And you're not selling this piece- yet!
Most of the great poets of their time prior to the 20thC at some point wrote scathing letters or poems to/about critics, other poets. I just thought a little wit or at least something tongue in cheek here or there will mean those that enjoy this poem will enjoy it a bit more- as I feel they are the types that appreciate these things. Those that don't agreee with your sentiments won't anyway...

But on second reading tonight I still enjoyed it, just a stronger ending I still feel would improve it. Don't scrap this one for sure, just try to widen the idea and embellish it.

RBJ

[zorcas]

Has been edited to enhance muscularity whilst soothing the toothing.

---

Zorcas - I guess you intended the sing song chanting quality of this, but for me the subject far outstrips its treatment. 

The rhythm, though sing song is even throughout up to the last line which throws that rhythm off.

Maybe

in his soul of a sandbox

You include points that could stand a different treatment RC

different--ahem-- treatment of ending seen in edit may help.

[rollingbrianjones]

Haha yes ending much more amusing but reads a bit awkwardly!
You maybe did this- but in case you didn't I'd read aloud and then write a similarly "themed"(?) ending that rolls off the tongue with the same ease that the previous lines really, really do. Nice work!

[Leanne]

Cast out the triptychs,   
cast out the saints.  
Cast out the people -- people is not a strong word here -- I feel you're missing an image that makes an impact
that artistry paints.
Away with all nature,
away with all form.
Away with the substance
that once was the norm.
Eschew the censorious,
accept the notorious -- here your meter is lost.  This should be used to pick up the pace and race to the end, but it's stumbling.  I'd suggest "hail the notorious"
and mediocrity victorious, -- same here -- maybe "the middling victorious"
praising as most glorious -- I'd suggest "praised" instead
Now’s artist so pricey and trite -- a little shift here perhaps to "Today's artist: pricey and trite" or something similar, as "now's" isn't quite right
as he squats and strains -- instead, perhaps "he squats and he strains", removing "as", since he's always that, not just when he's in the act of voiding...
voiding multicolored stains -- I'd like a more evocative word than "multicolored" here.  After all, that kind of sounds pretty, like he's an artistic shitter, whereas the implication beforehand is that pretty much anything he produces is going to be beige.
from a rectum far too tight. -- as this end few lines read like a limerick, I feel you need some extra feet here.  What about "from a rectum that's [dismal] and tight" (obviously, suggested adjectives may require improvement...)

I think at some point we've all written a variation on this theme -- at least, those of us who've read enough poetry to realise how ridiculous it is to hold up what is trendy as the one-true-way-that-all-must-hereafter-aspire-to.  In art, as in most things these days, there is a constant need to dumb down, to appeal to the status quo.  Many innovative poets fade into obscurity because they weren't noticed by (or sleeping with) someone in the New Yorker, or didn't go on a talk show, or didn't write about teen angst even though they're 56 and working in an accountancy firm.

[zorcas]

Well said, so do you have any ideas how  out-of-step, non-dumbing-down poets can find their way into even modest prints? Oprah's magazine noted that when it decided to carry poems in one special issue, the number of submissions coming in over a long weekend amounted to 35,000. Another nagging question: would Frost have written his famous poem if he'd had a nav system like we all have today guiding us to the nearest scandals, disasters and advertisers?

[Leanne]

You'll find quite a few discussions on the topic in the Poetry Discussion forum. You might have to go back through a few pages. There are quite a few quality journals publishing a wide variety of styles -- the idea that there's no market for good poetry really only arises because the mediocre stuff shouts the loudest. There are publications out there if people want to find them.

It's a thankless game though, publishing poetry. Nobody complains louder than poets when editors "fail to appreciate" their amazing genius. Rejections are par for the course, so if your skin isn't thick, it's best not to enter the game.

[zorcas]

Thanks! Will snuffle about to see what's what.