Can someone give me a really good example of "experimental". I realize it's opposition to "conventional" but other than that I am not sure.
See if you can figure out what the following experimental poems have in common:
Moon-cold could awe joy's proud star?
Dull earth has sent this
High brave glee!
Trees, say high
This bed that birds loved.
Far-out voice calls, "Look, no moon!"
Dreams cool. They hold shy looks in awe.
Spread soil and
How her heart hums!
Love-charms were loud and joy said all!
Ice tolled fey moon-scenes!
Beyond the obvious of 'they make no sense?' All words are pronounced as one syllable.
They all have 3 lines and are definitions of a sort.
Hint - there is a reason all have 15 syllables.
Of course--15 syllables. Obviously, these poems were written by a person who loved to write haiku but had really poor math skills!
Can't be all the letters of the alphabet- there's no z.
All have 15 words also. But is there supposed to be some sort of relationship between moon, earth, etc. ?
I will post another hint tomorrow if nobody nails it. Meanwhile, try the one below, if you have a mind to:
Of the old loves of a remote lost land,
recalled all as in a dream mournfully.
The closed door too rudely overgrown remembers,
and the lost love only recalled in dreams
fading mournfully as ... as mounfully ...
and as mournfully as the dark.
What is unique about this composition, poetry-wise (different from the first ones)?
Shouldn't poetry be about EMOTION, PEOPLE, SOCIETY, ART!!!, ETC. Riddles are riddles and poetry is poetry. Or, maybe I am still missing it. This experimental stuff "makes no sense", as was most plainly explained in the earlier post. When reading it, I can not paint a picture, or connect a thought, idea, nothing! So wat is the point? Anyone got a different idea?
No, what you plainly explained was:
Can someone give me a really good example of "experimental".
I realize it's opposition to "conventional" but other than that I am not sure.
That's what you got. If it makes you unhappy, tough toenails.
These poems were all taken from Western Wind, by John Frederick Nims, one of the finest poetry books ever written, by one of the most brilliant of authors.
Experimental poetry, conceptual art and psychoanalysis all have one thing in common - you have to believe in them for them to work for you. Most people don't (me included)
Okay, but I still don't get the 15 syllables part.
"Shouldn't poetry be..."
When I hear the words POETRY and SHOULD, I know it's going to be a bumpy ride.
SHOULD photography be in focus?
SHOULD music glorify the existing political regime?
SHOULD art be a-political?
SHOULD painting be representational? (As Michelangelo said to the Pope: "You don't want an artist! You want a bloody photographer!")
There is certainly a point at which I (to pick a person completely at random) will say: THAT is not poetry. THAT is not music. THAT is not art. It's my perception and it's my freedom of speech and I'm not afraid to use it!
Besides, I'm RIGHT. (Most of the time [I think] ). I just hope I have the humility, or perspective, or whatever, to remember that every major cultural advance was NOT CULTURE to someone, at some point.
I think Marion-NYC is well-said about that!
In my humble and possibly ignorant opinion of "experimental poetry" and what I have seen of it, it has not quite clicked with me. Maybe I need some special glasses. However, I am also aware that what is perceived as experimental to one maybe dosn't quite fit another's definition. What would that definition be?
I think that the point is that 'experimental' is in the eye of the beholder. 'Prufrock' is probably a good example of how an experiment can wind up in the canon.
Poetry is not about: it is. As to riddles, some of the earliest poetry in anglo-Saxon were riddles. What are kennings, or Homeric epithets or metaphors but expanded explained or accepted riddles? A few years ago the Martian school of poetry tried to write about everyday life as ifa martian were watching it and trying to understand- more riddles.
>Okay, but I still don't get the 15 syllables part.
From: [groups.google.com] />
In the last few decades, some poets used a "scale" of fifteen vowels
according to the pitch of the lowest (lower?) formant, I think. There
were poems called "pendekas" of fifteen syllables, one with each vowel
in this scale. From highest to lowest, with familiar American-style
names and American-style ASCII IPA (which I hope I got right):
long i [aI]
short i [I]
short e [E]
short a [&]
short u [V]
"short oo" [U]
"long oo" [u:]
If you want to see some pendekas, including one in ascending and one in
descending order, try Western Wind, a poetry textbook by John
Frederick Nims. My copy seems to be on permanent loan.
Some people have waaaayyyy too much time on their hands. (and people complain about the restrictions of meter and rhyme!)
They were pretty bad, yup. (look, no moon? Gimme a break.) I liked the last (mneumonic) post in the Google Groups thread, though:
The way I learned it, as a speech major, was a structure based on vowel
placement, from where the vowel sound was voiced: front, middle of
palate, back. (I won't used the symbols, just the mnemonic, since it
differs from the one used in this thread, and I can't figure out how to
type it, anyway!) It's "Good American Speech," and sounds quite like
Margaret Dumont's characters in the Marx Brothers movies. I doubt that
anyone other than a speech major would pronounce these all correctly,
with the exception, of course, of those lucky enough to have been
brought up by speakers of Good American Speech.
Front vowels: Lee Will Let Fair Ann Pass.
Middle vowels: Blurring The Sun.
Back: Who Could Obey All Honest Fathers?
Pay attention to where the sound originates, and the placement of your
tongue, as these vowels are pronounced, and you'll see how the sound
does indeed move front-to-back. There's another for diphthongs, which
escapes me at the moment. Cheers, Shisha
I think people should Experment with the true quetions in life Like what am i going to do with my life