>modern literary theorists seriously think contemporary poetry is better than the likes of li bai and hafez
Watch them try and argue based on trendy theories why the garbage they put out now is better. It literally just comes down to their own autistic rules of how poetry "should" be. They don't read poetry for aesthetic appreciation but for the correct "hermeneutics" of a poem.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Modern poetry is talentless prose broken into random lines and references to white people. No one writes beauty or despair to sound, rhythm, or meter anymore because that takes skill and these people have no inner monologue.
People have been complaining that “modern poetry” is just prose broken into random lines since the 1920s. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. Even setting aside that there are still good published poets writing metered, rhyming poetry, contemporary free verse does not even remotely read like prose.
This is literally the first poem of the first journal I clicked on. Burn in hell lmao
how does that relate to what 23211704 wrote?
I don’t particularly like this poem but it does not read like prose. Put it together as paragraphs. Does it actually seem like something you’d find in a novel or short story? It’s clearly written and meant to be read as poetry.
>Does it actually seem like something you’d find in a novel or short story
From writers like this? Yes.
I do agree generally but such writing is better grouped under prose, or neither, since the supposedly poetic qualities also exist in prose and always have. It really does end up coming down to linebreaks. However, when you do have a fairly clear form with rules, sound not being involved is ok since it can be consistent and rigid enough to be labelled. Anyway, I would rather call it something more generic than insist on prose vs poetry. But then I rather say song than poem, to make the importance of sound clear.
You said: 'modern literary theorists seriously think contemporary poetry is better than the likes of li bai and hafez'. What you posted is not example of that.
HAHAHAHAHA frick me man
look up rupi kaur, the largest contemporary poet of our time. her books take the most space in both bookstores as well as used bookstores.
>there are still good published poets
name some. genuinely curious. ive been earnestly looking for good contemporaries but i haven't had any luck.
>name some
Dana Gioia. Gary Snyder. Kay Ryan. Anne Stevenson. Nausheen Eusuf. I’m not as familiar with younger poets so most of these people are quite old, but all still writing and publishing to my knowledge. All have very beautiful poetry, both traditional and free verse.
Also, while I won’t deny that Rupi Kaur’s poetry is hardly groundbreaking or comparable to the old masters, she reignited an interest in poetry for many young people and I think some of those people will go on to write extremely good poetry, if they haven’t already. So, I commend her for that at least.
>Rupi Kaur’s poetry
What poetry?
Yeah I'm sure a lot of today's hatted chefs ate McDonalds as kids too. Thank you Ronald.
My point is there are future great poets who never would have discovered their talents without someone accessible like Kaur to start them down that road. There is a place for plebeian artists with mass appeal.
>People have been complaining that “modern poetry” is just prose broken into random lines since the 1920s.
And they've been right for the past century.
>he got filtered by the Modernists
Humiliating. Let me guess, you also hate Picasso and Duchamp
duchamp is a footnote in chess history
One of the most fearless artists in history, not afraid to piss off anyone but also had something to say and wasn’t just a mindless provocateur. Influenced almost every 20th century artist of any medium, whether they realized it or not. Boundless genius.
Fair, I think he's doing some interesting stuff and some of his stuff is genuinely enjoyable, but I think it's entirely possible to understand what he's going for and simultaneously say "I don't like this qua art because it's intentionally stripping away an essential part of what I like about art".
I don’t have a genuine issue with people who dislike modernist art for aesthetic reasons, I just think those who believe these artists were “degenerates” who “ruined art” are largely brainlets incapable of understanding art on anything more than the basest, visual level. Which is why such people almost exclusively appreciate strict naturalism, as it’s the most literal possible form art can take.
>such people almost exclusively appreciate strict naturalism
not true, they also like anime
Not really. Realism in art was never strict or genuinely unstylised and empty till we got those photocopy style artists, which are quite new. Naturally, laymen appreciate skill (i.e. artistry) as far as they can see it more so than lack of artistry.
If you think pic related “lacks artistry” you are deranged. Even the abstract expressionists, who people deride for their squiggles, are able to portray depth, movement, and texture far, far, far beyond the abilities of a layman. People just assume there’s no artistry in it because again, they are highly concrete and literal thinkers who can’t recognize visual skill unless it’s depicting something immediately comprehensible.
What do you like about Duchamp?
Proud yes to both.
>NOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO PAINT PHOTOREALISTIC PAINTINGS IN A RENAISSANCE STYLE BECAUSE…YOU JUST HAVE TO, OK????
Midwit detected
>2024
>nooooooooposting
give it a rest
You do not draw
You don't know the first thing about art
pyw
>references to white people.
Sorry shitskin, maybe try doing something worth mentioning and you'll be included.
rhythm and meter are for subvocalizing monkeys, just imagining being impressed by something like that makes me sick
Inhuman barbarian. Your thumos is empty.
Anon there’s no way you’re not responding to bait
I just picked up a book of Anthony Hecht's work. What am I in for?
>modern literary theorists seriously think contemporary poetry is better than the likes of li bai and hafez
No they don't. Literally what are you talking about.
It's bait or some sort of a bot.
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23207494
Oh, is it Epic Gaslight Time already?
>It literally just comes down to their own autistic rules of how poetry "should" be. They don't read poetry for aesthetic appreciation but for the correct "hermeneutics" of a poem.
Damn, anon, you didn't have to suck your own limp dick like that in front of everyone. You just tried to spoonfeed us with your prescriptivist puritan new criticism formalist "autistic rules of how poetry 'should' be.
>modern literary theorists think
Bullshit
>hafez
Anything is better than sandBlack person noises.
How can I get into poetry? I thought about it after watching Paterson.
IQfy didn't bite