[Serious] The pants that is free-verse

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Find what you like and pursue more of that.

Avoid what you don't like.

Agreed, but herein lies the difficulty to an extent.

Endlessly looking at dedicated poetry forums, only to find that it's free verse or nothing. Unmitigated pretentious crap in a tiny, barely-readable bold font, trying to disguise the fact that they have no interest in the art. A cop-out.

I can accept free verse as a form of the art, but why the deluge?

Personal tastes are sacrosanct - but that won't stop me calling crap crap.

[ODE TO FREE VERSE]
Verbal diarrhoea
oozing
down
the
page

It meets the criteria of concentrating the thought, and allowing the tongue to roll and savour the opening line.

Perfect.

[bold mine]

Simply put, because it's easier for people who fancy that they're actually poets. While it isn't strictly necessary for a poem to have rhyme, rhythm and metre, I suspect that a lot of free versers are just breaking up their thoughts into variously sized textual chunks and calling it a 'poem' and themselves 'poets'.

This is precisely why  people call Jackson Pollock a 'painter'.

Boru

[Rhizomorph13]

To be fair to Pollock though, some of his work is moving, which brings to my mind that any artistic endeavor is comprised of a start, a good measure of doing, then deciding when to stop. Some of his paintings are moving because he chose a good stopping point.

There is a dude right now doing spin art using swings with paint in them and while I'm, at first, infuriated by the simplicity and randomness of his art. I must concede that he is having fun AND selling them shits at a profit.

There is also Damien Hirst who does a few different kinds of art but spin paintings are among his work.

https://www.artsy.net/artist-series/dami...-paintings

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To be fair to Pollock though, some of his work is moving, which brings to my mind that any artistic endeavor is comprised of a start, a good measure of doing, then deciding when to stop. Some of his paintings are moving because he chose a good stopping point.

There is a dude right now doing spin art using swings with paint in them and while I'm, at first, infuriated by the simplicity and randomness of his art. I must concede that he is having fun AND selling them shits at a profit.

There is also Damien Hirst who does a few different kinds of art but spin paintings are among his work.

https://www.artsy.net/artist-series/dami...-paintings

It must be me - I find it difficult to be ‘moved’ by a painting that looks like nothing so much as if someone have vomited a black bean burrito over a perfectly good piece of canvas.

As for Hirst, I had a Spirograph when I was a kid. Hard to spot the difference.

Boru

[Rhizomorph13]

Thus proving only that art is subjective. There is no right answer so, in that, you are as right about art as anyone else.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thus proving only that art is subjective. There is no right answer so, in that, you are as right about art as anyone else.

Which is why I’m perfectly happy to refer to all of it as ‘art’.

Boru

[Sal]

'Art' is way too ambiguous for me to use casually, I'd rather use subgroups 'painting', 'carving', 'chiseled' material, etc.