[New-Poetry] Poetic Justice

[Judy Prince]

I love Pollock's drip paintings, as do most folk who know his work.  Spent a
wonderful summer some 20 yrs ago reading all I could find about JP as well
as Franz Kline and Mark Rothko, all whose works appealed to me.  Two bits I
recall from a fascinating bio of JP re his drip paintings were, first, his
participating in and being encouraged to fling and spatter new kinds of
'paints' by Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros', and, second, Pollock
as a kid with his father and brothers, pissing on [thereby creating designs
on] rocks somewhere in the Southwest [USA].
BTW, Bob, I know a little about visual art; I'm a published illustrator.
Regarding my using Warhol and Pollock as examples of less-than-Breathtaking
artists, I'm applying my own theory that Breathtaking art requires two
elements:  fresh and meaningful contexts.  Naturally, we revert to your
discussion earlier about HOW creative an artist is.  Since all artists
'borrow' from other artists or non-artists, we try to assess how they've
'gone beyond' the influences, how their work differs from them.  That's one
bit.  The other is less intellectual:  How are those fresh 'takes'
meaningfully contexted?  Regarding the two elements of 'fresh' and
'meaningful', we'll have a continuum of opinions.  You find JP on the
Breathtaking end; I don't.

Enjoyable discussion, this.

Best,

Judy



2008/10/31 Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net>

> Judy Prince wrote:
>
>> You both, interestingly, may be dealing with two dimensions which most
>> folk, perhaps unconsciously, regard as essential to creative works, the
>> dimensions together which are necessary and sufficient hallmarks of
>> creativity:  fresh and meaningful contexts.  In poetry, it'd be new
>> juxtapositions of things [usually in figures] and these in insightful
>> habitations.
>>
> I almost fully agree--except that "new juxtapositions of things," for me,
>  is at the lowest level of creativity if one is using standard ways of
> juxtaposition.
>
>>  If the poetry surprises in its figures and/or its forms without [I keep
>> searching for a word here] a meaningful .... inspired .... deep-felt/thought
>> foundation, it may strike us as clever, perhaps witty, or even stunning, but
>> more flashy than memorable.  New ways for us to see things, yes.  But
>> creative with a capital C?  No.  A sheen, a surface, a magic-work, at best.
>>  Warhol, p'raps Pollack, in fine art.  And then there is the
>> Breathtaking----a profound unity of new visits.
>>
>>
> Exactly--except that if you have any doubt about whether Pollock (the
> spelling of whose name I always have to check before writing it) was
> maximally creative, you don't know anything about visual art.
>
>
> --Bob G.
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20081101/e083954e/attachment.html