| Username |
Post |
| namita kiran-thuene |
Posted
on 25-Mar-01 01:09 PM
Re: Poetry and interpretation
Poetry should in my opinion stand on itself. I put value of the poem much more in text than on information about the poet. Some of you may have heard about the controversy of Japanese postal worker Araki Yasusada. Whose poems about the Hiroshima and its victims (his family included) were widely acclaimed in “American Poetry Review.” It turned out that the whole story about Yasusada was a hoax and the real author was a professor named Kent Johnson. Now, what does this story tell you? Too much emphasis on author’s background could be misleading. The poetry (I read) were brilliant. After knowing the truth, did it diminish the value of what was expressed? In my opinion no.
Across the highway a heron stands
In the flooded field. It stands
As if lost in thought, on one leg, careless,
As if the field belongs to herons.
The air is clear and quiet
Snow melts on this second fair day.
Mother and daughter,
We sit in the parking lot
With doughnuts and coffee.
We are silent.
For a moment the wall between us opens to the universe;
Then closes.
And you go on saying
You do not want to repeat my life.
-Ruth Stone
Do we need to know who Ruth Stone was/is to understand this poem. If it is just a curiosity then it is fine but to give the whole weight on poet’s life to understand this poem is not the right way to understand poetry.
Poetry could tell a huge story in four lines or two (maybe that is why I am drawn to it and I exercise it myself). Or sometimes in 12. My point is it is a great way to express your feelings whether about love, life, death, friendship, stone in your garden, tree in your neighbor’s garden, your friend’s loss of his girlfriend, or an imaginary fight with your imaginary wife without having to write a book. Now, the poet should write in such a way that it is clear for a little inquisitive mind (I am not really talking about brain dead people here). If readers after readers don’t get it then it is failure of that poet. But if it is just one or two (minority) then the “fault” lies in the interpreter. In Robert Forst’s poem case that is how that student saw, not true according to the most of the people so Frost is not to be blamed. When one reads Whitman’s Red Wheel Barrow, one of the most famous poems of the modern times, it makes you want to write yourself. It is barely five lines (I think). The way it is arranged, few words he chose to use, it is just beautiful. I don’t thin anybody who is used to reading literature would confuse with the meaning of this poem. Yes, a poet is successful if the interpretation is close to what he originally means but then again there might be some meaning hidden she may not have realized. And I don’t think it makes anybody less intelligent. If the interpretation is off the mark (entirely) then again I repeat – either the poet needs to work harder or the reader needs to get acquainted with literature.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 26-Mar-01 09:03 AM
Namita,
I am not saying that poet's background is more important than the text of a poem (Of course, we are trying to understand a poem not a poet). But understanding the poet helps understand his/her poetry better, that's how I feel. Have you ever read a poem "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" if you have not then try reading first without knowing the poet and his background and read it again after gathering more info. on the poet. Ask yourself did you enjoyed or felt closer to the words of that poem the second time when you knew the poet and his life (experience) better.
Have you read a poem "Because I Couldn't Stop For Death" by Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)?. It is beleived that the poem was written under the influence of Wardsworth's concept of immortality. It's good to know that. Also, how would you interpret Dickinson's poem "My life closed twice before it's close" without knowing her?
I agree many poems are straight foreward and may be understood (in original form) without knowing a whole lot about the poet. I, however firmly, believe poet's background immensly influence his/her writings.
BTW, when Biswo commented on your writing "Waiting for the Eleventh Reincarnation" by writing
"Isn't black stallion the one that Kalki avatar is supposed to
mount? Then probably you are not asking Vishnu to skip his 10th
incarnation, but to precipitate it (the Kalki avatar). I wonder
if I misunderstood this nice poem."
why did you bother to clearify what you meant?
"No, I really meant skip that avataar. Since it is established that there would be 10 avataars, I wanted him to come as the 11th. somebody could take over that 10th one, don't you think? I wanted Vishnu, no other. And, I wanted him to ride that Black Stallion, you know for a dramatic effect."
You wanted reader to know what you meant, didn't you? Even though you also put down
"Normally I write and leave it. It is upto the readers what they make out of it."
sparsha
|
| Adwiti Subba |
Posted
on 26-Mar-01 09:10 AM
This was Biswas's question to me:-
It surely implies that you want a poem(or art) to be polymorphic, and allow representation in different ways. As a writer, how will you feel when the poem you wrote is understood by readers in the sense that you didn't intend originally?"
What I write comes through me but does not BELONG to me in a form of an attachment. I cannot control how and what people feel and think.
I would like to think of my art as being like water,
taking any form and shape
yet not changing the essential subject matter.
I am very pleased to see some healthy discussions going around here. I was out of town and you have asked me a question. I have also a very busy schedule, but I do not have the heart to ignore this.
|
| Adwiti Subba |
Posted
on 26-Mar-01 09:34 AM
I remember Sparsha ,when I was younger, in one of the art/poetry classes I presented the teacher with a bunch of words thrown in together and asking her to interpret it for me. And she did, and even commented that it was good poem! I know where you are coming from! Definitely, a subject matter is imperative in any work of art.
Sometimes words can be wiser than thoughts, but the words in which they are wrapped in, are deep enough and ponderous enough to make even those who use them stand in awe at their own wisdom!
I remember going to the Smithsonian In Washington DC and getting genuinely outraged at one of the art pieces I was inflicted with,in the museum, where the artist had painted his canvas stark black! We were supposed to look at it and feel something. I even wanted to write to the directors at the museum saying that I found that piece of work was just to ridicule the viewers.
But, that piece has obviously been given almost a permanent spot in the museum …. The abstract quality of the art has made more and more people curios and they have interpreted that art as many ways as possible. I accepted the power of interpretation in my own way.
To give you an example, in one of my recent poetry readings here, I read out my poem “ Mother”. The poem was about the loss of my mother. After the reading, a lady walked up to me and said “ Thank you for the beautiful poem, it reminded me of my father” Now, that is interpretation isn’t it? Should I have turned around and told her “ No, it is about a mother!” She identified with the loss.
I reiterate that I said “ I would like to think of my art as being like water,
taking any form and shape
yet not changing the essential subject matter.
” therefore, the water may go into a glass or a bowl but the ingredient is H20.. Art definitely should have a basis. The basic nature should be there.
If you want your poem to be exactly the way you wrote it then by all means that is your feelings and your thoughts, your interpretation. Poems are not theories and you know that! It is not a science. If everything is explained to the , then Poetry should not be called poetry, but Poetical Science!
Even Albert Einstien said "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Wassily Kandinsky said "There is no must in art because art is free"
Jackson Pollock said "The painting as a life of its own. I try to let it come through me"
Namaste'
Adwiti Subba
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 26-Mar-01 10:35 AM
Adwiti,
Thank you for your comment.
I agree poet has no control over his/her poems. I already mentioned that under "Poetry and Interpretation" thread.
As you mentioned, someone related your "mother" poem with the loss of her father. In your example what I think though is reader understood your poetry. The experience, your mother's loss, was the source of your poem and that reader could relate the feelings with her own experience-her father's loss.
I also wrote earlier that it may not be possible to understand poetry or any form of art (anything abstract) in it's exact form. We all know how diffiucult is it to materialize abstract matter. But closer we are to the feeling better it feels.
Like Water - as you mentioned-is your poetry. Readers can put into any shape and see it that way. However, would you like if some readers replace "the water" (or intent) by sand or mud or vaccum?
We all know just adding science to a word does not make the subject scientific. What kind of science is Political Science? It got nothing more than theories of left right and center (presumably). What does science mean in Social Science? I am not quite sure.
Finally, I have no doubt that no one owns others' power of interpretation but it is better to know what is or was originally meant in the expressions of an artist, is it not?
sparsha
|
