 |
 |
I wasn’t so much arguing for the strength of the analogy as for its applicability in some measure. Yes, poets have historically been largely self-taught, and that, incidentally, was one of my points in criticising workshops in earlier posts on this thread. Therefore, I personally don’t see the need for courses in poetry composition for the same reasons you mention. But my point about the relevancy of courses, such as creative writing at degree-level, was not so much to defend them per se, but to defend the notion of the impotence of degree-level courses, such a philosophy or history of art, that make no claim to be practically “useful” to society. Perhaps, I’m just an old liberal humanist at heart. I agree with you about song and its usurping of the poetic “muse”. On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:22:29 -0400, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >In my own experience a pretty weak analogy. I taught myself prosody >with the help of a great deal of reading and seven years of writing >sonnets. Counterpoint would have been more of a stretch. > >I came from a family that appreciated poetry and serious music about >equally, by the way, with an equal lack of education in either. So >environment probably wasn't a factor. > >What can I say? Almost all poets have been largely self-taught, and >very few composers have been. Probably a reason for this. > >But for me the issue remains the sequellae of bureaucratization. We >risk producing a generation or ten of minnesingers. Especially >because poetry has ceased to be a part of the popular imagination, >except for song lyrics. > >Mark > >At 04:09 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: >>I can see David's point when he observes that the stakes are low when >>it comes to the practical ramifications of failed artistic practices. >>Certainly, no reader has been injured physically from reading a bad >>poem. Nevertheless, many degree-level disciplines in the humanities >>and wider arts subjects are similarly risk-free. Does this, then, mean >>that they should not be catered for at degree-level? >> >>Poetry does have certain skill-sets required in its writing, as anyone >>who has had to sit through endless lectures on prosody will tell you. >>True, prosody is, perhaps, now a defunct skill in poetic writing but it is >>a skill all the same, as much as that of any involved in musical >>composition. To the extent that creative writing degree-level courses >>teach this (along with, hopefully, the historical and theoretical >>components in the study of literature) then an analogy with degree- >>level courses in music can apply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:27:20 -0700, David Latane >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >Here are a few more probably pompous observations. I wasn't making >>an analogy, per se, between jazz and the totality of poetry--but trying >>to answer Mairead's query about whether there was any meaningful >>distinction between "creative writing" in the academy and training in >>music, architecture and other fields. One of the distinctions for me is >>that formal training (apprenticeship, guild, academy) in many >>artistic/craft fields came long before the granting of degrees for writing >>poetry for practical reasons. There were skills and techniques in working >>with materials that required practice and training--whether playing the >>piano, or engraving a copperplate, or cutting a dovetail. And there was >>a market for certified practitioners. Poetry writing was different. >> >I think there are big differences between slam poetry (or any language >>creation) and jazz. People with a certain hutzpa and no practice at all >>can stand up at a slam and make an impact. People with a certain >>hutzpa introduced to the piano or saxophone a few days before can't >>even begin to rip through a few Charlie Parker tunes (with significant >>variations) without having hard glassy objects thrown at them. >> >Architecture that gets built requires certain trained skills. >>When "things fall apart" (Yeats) in poetry "nothing happens" (Auden). >>When things fall apart on a construction site people are killed and >>money is lost. Poets' imaginations are free--no telos. Writing for an >>MFA degree or any other degree requires the end of getting the degree >>to qualify (hopefully temporarily) this freedom. Architects can imagine >>freely too -- but the vast majority of them sit a tables in big firms >>figuring out how to decorate a box more cheaply. They pay for Pei to >>play. So I wasn't dismissing any architects--but commenting on a fact, >>based on a goodly acquaintance with what their actually working >>conditions are like. Only a few are ever given a pile of money and told >>to make something beautiful. >> >"But poets, or those who imagine and express this indestructible >>order, are not only the authors of language and of music, of the >>dance, and architecture, and statuary, and painting; they are the >>institutors of laws, and the founders of civil society, and the >>inventors of the arts of life, and the teachers, who draw into a >>certain propinquity with the beautiful and the true, that partial >>apprehension of the agencies of the invisible world which is >>called religion." Shelley--Defence >> > >> > >> >David Latane >> > http://www.standmagazine.org (Stand Magazine, Leeds) >> > >> > >> >