> If art can be called the re-creation and formal expression of
> reality through the medium of human experience, then the creation of
> language may be called the greatest achievement of art.
I stumbled on this first statement of Govinda's.
'expression of reality through the medium of human experience' doesn't make
a whole lot of sense to me. Is human experience an expression of reality? Or
is the experience reality itself?
Is art no more than a re-creation and formal expression of reality?
"then the creation of language may be called the greatest achievement of
art" Did art create language? Or did it spring from some other imperative?
Like survival?
Others have noted the power of the word. "In the beginning was the Word."
But this was not because art re-creates and expresses, but because art IS
the thing itself.
I have to agree that habit is the force that washes out power, leaving
shadows. It is poetry, brought alive in each generation, which revives the
power of the word. Perhaps this is what he means by the 'creation of
language'.
On the point that our culture saturates us with words, I recall someone on
this list [an editor, I think] saying that they commonly read 50 or so poems
a day from works submitted. What poet would choose to be read in that
context?
Just some thoughts in response to Jon's post of Govinda. I agree that the
list often leaps away from discussing language, poetry and meaning.
Regards,
Gillian Savage
OZpoet http://www.ozemail.com.au/~gbsavage/ozpoet.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|