I think we really need a "Culture" category, but the mish-mash of "Misc." will have to do.
Recent mention was made of Winnie Mandela's fall from being a hero of tge revolution to just another thug with violent tendencies (an extreme analysis - but not too much so IMHO). Mention was also made of Mother Teresa's reputation.
Fank Lloyd Wright, a man who has been called a visionary, was mentioned in another context - "Objects of desire". I had recently read a book on his creations, tgen I read another book, just called, "Frank Lloyd Wright" (Naomi Stungo), a sort of biography (with an interesting typography and layout design).
A few quotations from that second book offer another view of this icon of architecture.
QuoteNever has an architect combined genius and infamy with such staggering aplomb . . .
[...]
The model for numerous books [...] including Ayn Rand's study of meglomania, The Fountainhead, Wright [...] scandalisedpolute siciety [...] and declared himself not onlytgecsingke-handed founder of modern architecture but also the greatest architect - ever.
[...]
The book asks who truly can decide that and mentions Gaudi and others.
[...]
The Guggenheim Museum [...] and Fallingwater are internationally acclaimed. And yet, almost all of his architecturehas huge technical faults: many of his buildings have leaked since the day they were completed [...] Fallingwater is being shored up, before it does, literally, fall into the water.
The book says Wright insisted on being involved with every detail, but most of his furniture was uncomfortable. Some of his decorative detail is, for me, seemingly influenced by Rennie Mackintosh. I like it!
However, this is the book that managed to print a mirror image of
Fallingwater . . .
Visionaries may not always succeed 100% in their own endeavours in their own time but they certainly have an influence on those who follow. Change is not always equal to progress, but it is necessary. Though there are times that I think progress means ressurecting the best of earlier times.
[Right, that's this evening's ration of vino disposed of . . .]
Quote from: Dave on April 06, 2018, 05:34:22 PM
I think we really need a "Culture" category, butvtge mish-mash of "Misc." will have to do.
Recent mention was made of Winnie Mandela's fall from being a hero of tge revolution to just another thug with violent tendencies (an extreme analysis - but not too much so IMHO). Mention was also made of Mother Teresa's reputation.
Fank Lloyd Wright, a man who has been called a visionary, was mentioned in another context - "Objects of desire". I had recently read a book on his creations, tgen I read another book, just called, "Frank Lloyd Wright" (Naomi Stungo), a sort of biography (with an interesting typography and layout design).
A few quotations from that second book offer another view of this icon of architecture.
QuoteNever has an architect combined genius and infamy with such staggering aplomb . . .
[...]
The model for numerous books [...] including Ayn Rand's study of meglomania, The Fountainhead, Wright [...] scandalisedpolute siciety [...] and declared himself not onlytgecsingke-handed founder of modern architecture but also the greatest architect - ever.
[...]
The book asks who truly can decide that and mentions Gaudi and others.
[...]
The Guggenheim Museum [...] and Fallingwater are internationally acclaimed. And yet, almost all of his architecturehas huge technical faults: many of his buildings have leaked since the day they were completed [...] Fallingwater is being shored up, before it does, literally, fall into the water.
The book says Wright insisted on being involved with every detail, but most of his furniture was uncomfortable. Some of his decorative detail is, for me, seemingly influenced by Rennie Mackintosh. I like it!
However, this is the book that managed to print a mirror image of Fallingwater . . .
Visionaries may not always succeed 100% in their own endeavours in their own time but they certainly have an influence on those who follow. Change is not always equal to progress, but it is necessary. Though there are times that I think progress means ressurecting the best of earlier times.
[Right, that's this evening's ration of vino disposed of . . .]
Good idea for a thread, Dave. I do admire the look of most of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings, but positively hate his furniture. I heard that he designed Fallingwater in less than 2 hours in a panic, so I'm not surprised that it and his other buildings are lacking in technical finesse. This is an area in which I agree with Le Corbusier when he said that a house is a machine for living in. That is often misunderstood; what he meant was that the building should be designed from the inside out and function perfectly, not that it should be a cold machine. Frank Gehry is another architect who takes the technical details very seriously - for instance, Bilbao Guggenheim has never leaked, in spite of its complex roof profile.
I think Mies van der Rohe was a greater architect than Frank Lloyd Wright.
Though one must look at the detail as well as the overall image Mies van der Rohe's buildings do nothing for me, I dislike boxes.
I prefer Piano's The Shard and Rodger's Lloyds Building and even One Hyde Park, blocky but not monolithic. Rodgers' Centre Pompidou carries the industrial style a bit far for me. Rodgers and Zaha Hadid, though very different, are amongst my favourites.
There was a series on TV that analysed architecture in detail, one if the few sorts of things I miss after giving my licence up. I used to enjoy the OU programnes on design and architecture.
In Gloucester there are some fine examples of nice architecture in the wrong place. A block of flats in the docks looks misplaced, though I would like it in a more modern setting. Another piece of slightly Romanesque architecture, not out of place in style terms, is hidden in a place where it is hardly visible, even difficult to photograph.
Quote from: Dave on April 06, 2018, 06:27:44 PM
Though one must look at the detail as well as the overall image Mies van der Rohe's buildings do nothing for me, I dislike boxes.
I prefer Piano's The Shard and Rodger's Lloyds Building and even One Hyde Park, blocky but not monolithic. Rodgers' Centre Pompidou carries the industrial style a bit far for me. Rodgers and Zaha Hadid, though very different, are amongst my favourites.
There was a series on TV that analysed architecture in detail, one if the few sorts of things I miss after giving my licence up. I used to enjoy the OU programnes on design and architecture.
In Gloucester there are some fine examples of nice architecture in the wrong place. A block of flats in the docks looks misplaced, though I would like it in a more modern setting. Another piece of slightly Romanesque architecture, not out of place in style terms, is hidden in a place where it is hardly visible, even difficult to photograph.
I also like Zaha Hadid and Richard Rogers very much, as well as Mies van der Rohe's buildings. Oddly, their boxiness does not bother me. But above all, his furniture is to die for, especially his designs for the Barcelona pavilion. I only have one piece by him, the Barcelona footstool. My ex has some of his MR chairs in black leather.
My favourite architect is Oscar Niemeyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Niemeyer) (recently deceased). I may be a little biased, he designed the city I was born in.
Here are some examples of his curvy designs:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Cathedral_Brasilia_Niemeyer.JPG/450px-Cathedral_Brasilia_Niemeyer.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Palacio_do_Planalto.jpeg/800px-Palacio_do_Planalto.jpeg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Museu_Nacional%2C_Brasilia_05_2007.jpg/800px-Museu_Nacional%2C_Brasilia_05_2007.jpg)
I think it's a little unfair to a person when one places them on a pedestal as if they were some infallible human being letting others bask in the light of their incorruptible perfection. 'Followers' may not actually know the person they consider to be an icon, and so are surprised with a subsequent fall from grace. Why the grace in the first place?
A lot of it is image, which is marketed just as any other brand is.
My town has a college called Florida Southern. Or FSC. It has the largest collection of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in the world. It is an uppity college whose tuition is...a plenty. The buildings are gorgeous but a little bit out of the mainstream.
In some of the buildings I find the ceiling height to be a little bit disconcerting. The heights are practical but too low for my comfort because I have been weaned on standard heights of mainstream architecture. As far as I can discern, none of the furniture is of F.L. Wright influence. It is a beautiful place that is steeped in the liberal arts mindset. That college faces a beautiful lake, not more than one kilometer from my homes.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2018, 10:27:13 PM
I think it's a little unfair to a person when one places them on a pedestal as if they were some infallible human being letting others bask in the light of their incorruptible perfection. 'Followers' may not actually know the person they consider to be an icon, and so are surprised with a subsequent fall from grace. Why the grace in the first place?
A lot of it is image, which is marketed just as any other brand is.
But what if the person in question relishes their iconic status? Take Bill Cosby, for example. He was sometimes called "America's Dad" and used the influence he gained to moralizing several generations of young people and their parents. Now he's on trial for drugging and raping a string of women.
Quote from: jumbojak on April 07, 2018, 01:46:53 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2018, 10:27:13 PM
I think it's a little unfair to a person when one places them on a pedestal as if they were some infallible human being letting others bask in the light of their incorruptible perfection. 'Followers' may not actually know the person they consider to be an icon, and so are surprised with a subsequent fall from grace. Why the grace in the first place?
A lot of it is image, which is marketed just as any other brand is.
But what if the person in question relishes their iconic status? Take Bill Cosby, for example. He was sometimes called "America's Dad" and used the influence he gained to moralizing several generations of young people and their parents. Now he's on trial for drugging and raping a string of women.
I see your point. Some cases such as Bill Cosby and maybe even Trump (plus Mother Teresa and Winnie Mandela, mentioned in the OP) are pathological. People in general who relish iconic status are power-tripping and in many cases don't know how to handle their power, be it political, power over the lives of others, or power to influence others. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
(I'm not defending Bill Cosby, just wondering if he deserved to have such a label in the first place, even before word of the sex scandals came out).
"America's Dad" is a label given to the public image of Bill Cosby, and public images are just one facet of a personality. I watched a clip long ago of some Clay Aiken fans gathered in a fanclub meeting where they talked about the singer like they knew him personally, and that surprised me. They had never met him but instead had fallen in love with an image of the perfect Clay Aiken they had in their minds. It wouldn't surprise me that such a thing would lead to disappointment.
It's true that the label went with the image, which would be fine if humility accompanied that label. The problem as I see it is that people tend to believe the hype and cultivate that image themselves, using it as a platform.
Televangelists provide a more cynical series of examples but I think the result and process is the same. Someone receives praise and builds on that, hiding their flaws. At first they probably know that it's bullshit, but over time they become believers themselves.
Yes, I think you're right, people end up marketing a public image like it's their personal brand.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2018, 10:18:10 PM
My favourite architect is Oscar Niemeyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Niemeyer) (recently deceased). I may be a little biased, he designed the city I was born in.
Here are some examples of his curvy designs:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Cathedral_Brasilia_Niemeyer.JPG/450px-Cathedral_Brasilia_Niemeyer.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Palacio_do_Planalto.jpeg/800px-Palacio_do_Planalto.jpeg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Museu_Nacional%2C_Brasilia_05_2007.jpg/800px-Museu_Nacional%2C_Brasilia_05_2007.jpg)
I have always wanted to visit Brasilia to experience those lovely buildings in person.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2018, 10:27:13 PM
I think it's a little unfair to a person when one places them on a pedestal as if they were some infallible human being letting others bask in the light of their incorruptible perfection. 'Followers' may not actually know the person they consider to be an icon, and so are surprised with a subsequent fall from grace. Why the grace in the first place?
A lot of it is image, which is marketed just as any other brand is.
I am the world's biggest Charles Eames fan, but that is because I adore his designs, especially his furniture, but I know very well that he was not a perfect human being (who is?). He had quite a few affairs that caused his wife Ray a lot of sorrow. He also rarely acknowledged the talented people who executed his designs under his direction, and took sole credit, with Ray, for the design icons the Eames Office produced. That was a reason why the masterly Harry Bertoia left the office after receiving zero credit for his contribution to some of the classics we label "designed by Charles Eames".
There is also an opposite effect, where people refuse to enjoy works of art produced by nasty people. Wagner is a good example. I wonder whether the world would have adored The Kiss (Gustav Klimt) as much if it had been painted by Hitler.
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 05:05:26 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2018, 10:27:13 PM
I think it's a little unfair to a person when one places them on a pedestal as if they were some infallible human being letting others bask in the light of their incorruptible perfection. 'Followers' may not actually know the person they consider to be an icon, and so are surprised with a subsequent fall from grace. Why the grace in the first place?
A lot of it is image, which is marketed just as any other brand is.
I am the world's biggest Charles Eames fan, but that is because I adore his designs, especially his furniture, but I know very well that he was not a perfect human being (who is?). He had quite a few affairs that caused his wife Ray a lot of sorrow. He also rarely acknowledged the talented people who executed his designs under his direction, and took sole credit, with Ray, for the design icons the Eames Office produced. That was a reason why the masterly Harry Bertoia left the office after receiving zero credit for his contribution to some of the classics we label "designed by Charles Eames".
There is also an opposite effect, where people refuse to enjoy works of art produced by nasty people. Wagner is a good example. I wonder whether the world would have adored The Kiss (Gustav Klimt) as much if it had been painted by Hitler.
I have to agree that judging the "product" by the personality or reputation of its producer is rather, er, illogical(?) but entirely human. There are those who judge art by its merit but most find that fifficult. I have seen amateur "hobby" work that, in my mind, is equal to the "masters" - and work by acclaimed artists that does absolutely nothing for me (Jackson Pollock for e.g.).
I wonder if there is a "universal set of rules" for srt?
And I have to agree that many iconic people are either self-inflating egotists or "victims" of the greed of others who "market" them and who then feel themselves infallible in some way.
Quote from: Dave on April 07, 2018, 08:58:43 AM
I wonder if there is a "universal set of rules" for srt?
No, and there cannot and should not be any rules. If there there were a set of rules, we would have had no progress in the visual arts and music. I believe the best "guideline" we have is consensus among academics in the field and other cognoscenti. Second best is probably what happens at the international art sales at houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonhams auctioneers.
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: Dave on April 07, 2018, 08:58:43 AM
I wonder if there is a "universal set of rules" for srt?
No, and there cannot and should not be any rules. If there there were a set of rules, we would have had no progress in the visual arts and music. I believe the best "guideline" we have is consensus among academics in the field and other cognoscenti. Second best is probably what happens at the international art sales at houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonhams auctioneers.
Hmm, perhaps I am going to expose what some might consider my "philistine", or perhaps "plebian", roots here. I rarely hold in opinion of tge cognoscenti in high regard. Probably goes back to the days of a TV programme with George Melly, some large woman dressed in black (and smoking cheroots) plus a guest who discussed some piece of art. I saw it as "jargonised-peer-opinion-pumping-aren't-I-clever"ness. There was, to my mibd, a feeling of mutual sycophancy, if one of these "experts" thought a piece was superb the others, if they did not like it, were very muted and conciliatory in their critical responses. If they also liked it they were ebullient in their support of the other's opinion.
So, for me, art is "that representation of the universe which has a meaning/message". By "universe" I mean absolutely anything, from the micro upwards, concrete or abstract, as interpreted and depicted/constructed by a human - art as in "
artifice". A few marks on a postcard can, for me, be more meaningful than a huge oil painting. A hint of an eye with a raised eyebrow and the very corner of a smiling mouth in black and white - cah't remember where I saw it and wish I had bought it!
So, is art that which resonates with sonething in one's mind? I can appreciate good workmanship but it may not "move" me.
Sorry, folks, I am rambling. Have had these sort of internal debates all my life but never a chance to express, and test, them with others. And I have to come to my conclusions, not adopt another's just because they are considered an expert. A friend, a mild homophobic, hated Brian Sewell until I persuaded her to actually listen to him. Sewell had the knack of explaining art without stuffing it down one's throat, he offered and his own, obvious, emotionality played a part. But I also like the more ascerbic style of Jonathan Meades, though he has a wider field of interest.
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 04:48:15 AM
I have always wanted to visit Brasilia to experience those lovely buildings in person.
:grin:
My favourite building (though not designed by Niemeyer) would be the JK Bridge:
(https://www.nabaladadf.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ponte-JK041.jpg)
Especially at night:
(https://www.soubrasilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ponte_jk-800x450.jpg)
:tellmemore:
Quote from: Dave on April 07, 2018, 11:43:28 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: Dave on April 07, 2018, 08:58:43 AM
I wonder if there is a "universal set of rules" for srt?
No, and there cannot and should not be any rules. If there there were a set of rules, we would have had no progress in the visual arts and music. I believe the best "guideline" we have is consensus among academics in the field and other cognoscenti. Second best is probably what happens at the international art sales at houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonhams auctioneers.
Hmm, perhaps I am going to expose what some might consider my "philistine", or perhaps "plebian", roots here. I rarely hold in opinion of tge cognoscenti in high regard. Probably goes back to the days of a TV programme with George Melly, some large woman dressed in black (and smoking cheroots) plus a guest who discussed some piece of art. I saw it as "jargonised-peer-opinion-pumping-aren't-I-clever"ness. There was, to my mibd, a feeling of mutual sycophancy, if one of these "experts" thought a piece was superb the others, if they did not like it, were very muted and conciliatory in their critical responses. If they also liked it they were ebullient in their support of the other's opinion.
So, for me, art is "that representation of the universe which has a meaning/message". By "universe" I mean absolutely anything, from the micro upwards, concrete or abstract, as interpreted and depicted/constructed by a human - art as in "artifice". A few marks on a postcard can, for me, be more meaningful than a huge oil painting. A hint of an eye with a raised eyebrow and the very corner of a smiling mouth in black and white - cah't remember where I saw it and wish I had bought it!
So, is art that which resonates with sonething in one's mind? I can appreciate good workmanship but it may not "move" me.
Sorry, folks, I am rambling. Have had these sort of internal debates all my life but never a chance to express, and test, them with others. And I have to come to my conclusions, not adopt another's just because they are considered an expert. A friend, a mild homophobic, hated Brian Sewell until I persuaded her to actually listen to him. Sewell had the knack of explaining art without stuffing it down one's throat, he offered and his own, obvious, emotionality played a part. But I also like the more ascerbic style of Jonathan Meades, though he has a wider field of interest.
I don't think you are being a philistine, just pragmatic. Yes, these questions have been debated for years and I don't think will ever be resolved. The best is to choose what speaks to one, and not be too concerned what others say or think about it. There is a lot of "great" art I would not want in my home. On the other hand, some buy for investment and not necessarily for enjoyment, and they would be wise to see how the experts value a piece before they buy it.
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 05:05:26 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2018, 10:27:13 PM
I think it's a little unfair to a person when one places them on a pedestal as if they were some infallible human being letting others bask in the light of their incorruptible perfection. 'Followers' may not actually know the person they consider to be an icon, and so are surprised with a subsequent fall from grace. Why the grace in the first place?
A lot of it is image, which is marketed just as any other brand is.
I am the world's biggest Charles Eames fan, but that is because I adore his designs, especially his furniture, but I know very well that he was not a perfect human being (who is?). He had quite a few affairs that caused his wife Ray a lot of sorrow. He also rarely acknowledged the talented people who executed his designs under his direction, and took sole credit, with Ray, for the design icons the Eames Office produced. That was a reason why the masterly Harry Bertoia left the office after receiving zero credit for his contribution to some of the classics we label "designed by Charles Eames".
There is also an opposite effect, where people refuse to enjoy works of art produced by nasty people. Wagner is a good example. I wonder whether the world would have adored The Kiss (Gustav Klimt) as much if it had been painted by Hitler.
Maybe, in a parallel universe, Hitler painted something people liked and he got into the art school of his choice, going on to be come a famous artist. Maybe WW2 would have never happened, or at least never had him as a leader in that conflict. Maybe this type of speculation is pointless. :P
I don't know much about how the brain processes aesthetics, but there is clearly an emotional aspect involved. I doubt some people would be able to enjoy Wagner's
Ride Of The Valkyries knowing that Hitler enjoyed that piece immensely, because of the revulsion people in general feel for the dictator. I think many people might find it easier to forgive Wagner's character flaws, because like you said, who's perfect? but don't want to be linked to Hitler in any way by association. The revulsion may seep...
Others find it easier to compartmentalise I guess. Or simply don't care what Hitler liked and didn't like and associate their own emotions and memories with Wagner's music. Maybe they heard it for the first time in an emotionally charged state of mind, maybe they heard it before knowing that Hitler loved the piece, I don't know.
The pedestals erected in the name of an idol, often can not bear the weight of their gremlins of perversion.
Quote from: Dave on April 07, 2018, 11:43:28 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: Dave on April 07, 2018, 08:58:43 AM
I wonder if there is a "universal set of rules" for srt?
No, and there cannot and should not be any rules. If there there were a set of rules, we would have had no progress in the visual arts and music. I believe the best "guideline" we have is consensus among academics in the field and other cognoscenti. Second best is probably what happens at the international art sales at houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonhams auctioneers.
Hmm, perhaps I am going to expose what some might consider my "philistine", or perhaps "plebian", roots here. I rarely hold in opinion of tge cognoscenti in high regard. Probably goes back to the days of a TV programme with George Melly, some large woman dressed in black (and smoking cheroots) plus a guest who discussed some piece of art. I saw it as "jargonised-peer-opinion-pumping-aren't-I-clever"ness. There was, to my mibd, a feeling of mutual sycophancy, if one of these "experts" thought a piece was superb the others, if they did not like it, were very muted and conciliatory in their critical responses. If they also liked it they were ebullient in their support of the other's opinion.
So, for me, art is "that representation of the universe which has a meaning/message". By "universe" I mean absolutely anything, from the micro upwards, concrete or abstract, as interpreted and depicted/constructed by a human - art as in "artifice". A few marks on a postcard can, for me, be more meaningful than a huge oil painting. A hint of an eye with a raised eyebrow and the very corner of a smiling mouth in black and white - cah't remember where I saw it and wish I had bought it!
So, is art that which resonates with sonething in one's mind? I can appreciate good workmanship but it may not "move" me.
Sorry, folks, I am rambling. Have had these sort of internal debates all my life but never a chance to express, and test, them with others. And I have to come to my conclusions, not adopt another's just because they are considered an expert. A friend, a mild homophobic, hated Brian Sewell until I persuaded her to actually listen to him. Sewell had the knack of explaining art without stuffing it down one's throat, he offered and his own, obvious, emotionality played a part. But I also like the more ascerbic style of Jonathan Meades, though he has a wider field of interest.
I sometimes struggle to understand what goes on in people's heads when it comes to items such as art. My father, for instance, buys paintings that, to me, look a little cartoony and childish, which I would never buy for myself if I had money to spare. He adores them, I don't see the appeal.
I also can't stand the "expert talk" when it comes to art. I think one might comment on the technique employed but as far as aesthetic value goes, each person knows whether they like a piece of art or not. It's not for another to say whether a piece should be appreciated or not, these things seem to 'click' in people's brains and it seems people see things based on their own emotions, expectations and "baggage".
Literature can also be the same way, especially poetry, when it comes to interpretation. There are so many cases of experts interpreting a poem in a way that is different from how the poet meant for it to be read, and this happens so often that universities here don't use a living poet's work in their entry exams!
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2018, 12:42:06 PM
Literature can also be the same way, especially poetry, when it comes to interpretation. There are so many cases of experts interpreting a poem in a way that is different from how the poet meant for it to be read, and this happens so often that universities here don't use a living poet's work in their entry exams!
I have an embarrassing confession to make: I struggle very hard, and usually fail, to understand poetry. I really only understand and appreciate Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsberg. There, I feel so much better now.
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2018, 12:42:06 PM
Literature can also be the same way, especially poetry, when it comes to interpretation. There are so many cases of experts interpreting a poem in a way that is different from how the poet meant for it to be read, and this happens so often that universities here don't use a living poet's work in their entry exams!
I have an embarrassing confession to make: I struggle very hard, and usually fail, to understand poetry. I really only understand and appreciate Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsberg. There, I feel so much better now.
I don't understand it either, I would just read it for the rhymes. :secrets1:
Well, this is didactic:
(https://scontent.fpoa13-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30415317_1311048432327934_7054950650920042496_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&_nc_eui2=v1%3AAeG1qQPuorQ80QfUBp3SvExmf1Ba5XiCjJzU0qDRVsScDY5jLHK__llyiRtvLLqq60vnMNmj4IoCH5Ed9vY4hQY1WTwpHmXBpGrqPI5ow9x1iQ&oh=671a7de512bf7f86034cd5500bcce4fa&oe=5B64237D)
Quote from: hermes2015 on April 07, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2018, 12:42:06 PM
Literature can also be the same way, especially poetry, when it comes to interpretation. There are so many cases of experts interpreting a poem in a way that is different from how the poet meant for it to be read, and this happens so often that universities here don't use a living poet's work in their entry exams!
I have an embarrassing confession to make: I struggle very hard, and usually fail, to understand poetry. I really only understand and appreciate Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsberg. There, I feel so much better now.
Most of it just baffles me. Dickinson and Frost are the only poets I can count on being able to make sense of.