[Serious] The pants that is free-verse

[Belacqua]

It seems to be an abrogation of the art to neglect form, construction, framing, rhyme, rhythm, metre, sense et. al. 

One good thing about art is that it's a really big category. It includes just about anything anyone wants to put there. And if someone declares that a thing isn't art, you can be pretty sure that someone will come along and make it art, because artists tend to be ornery that way. 

So I don't think it's useful to declare that any kind of art has to be a certain way. Poetry can be just about anything. 

At the same time, I think we can make strong arguments for a thing being good art or bad art. And to do that, we need to look at qualities that we consider good or bad. 

So for example, in something that claims to be a poem, we could work on whether it is a cliche, or whether it is telling me something not usually known, or whether it's intelligent or not. Because originality, telling me something I didn't know, and intelligence are good things in themselves. I can't prove scientifically that being original and intelligent are good things, but I can argue whether or not a particular poem has those things. 

But of course this isn't something that can be fully settled for everyone, or quantified. It's not like chemistry, where definitive answers are possible. 

Chuck out a stream of incoherent and disjointed consciousness or a bad wet dream and call it poetry. And get the plaudits.

Most poetry is bad. Like most painting, or most novels, etc. And plaudits almost always come for something other than quality. The best way to get plaudits is to flatter the audience with something that looks intelligent but isn't. (So somebody like Banksy gets rich.) 

In the example you gave, my first impression is that it's trying hard to look artsy, but won't repay close study. But I may be wrong.

[RozzerusUnrelentus]

At the same time, I think we can make strong arguments for a thing being good art or bad art. And to do that, we need to look at qualities that we consider good or bad. 

Fully concur. Who has the authority, if you like, to define what is or isn't?

But sometimes, there is an assault on the senses which panders to the outrageous and ill-disciplined in the name of 'art' (in any form.) For example, Tracey Emin’s display My Bed: a violent mess of sex and death, in the Tate Modern years ago alongside the works of JMW Turner. Described as, Amid the yellowing sheets there are condoms, a tampon, a pregnancy test, discarded knickers and a lot of vodka bottles.

Goes well alongside the pickled cow.

Some unusual and novel things and forms of expression may be interesting, but I can't help thinking that much rubbish is attention-seeking, and the best way to propagate it is to be lazy and/or shocking.

Vive la différence!

[Angrboda]

Like they say, don't judge a philosophy by the abuse of it. That there's a lot of bad poetry doesn't indict the form itself, just as bad music doesn't make all music bad.

[Belacqua]

much rubbish is attention-seeking, and the best way to propagate it is to be lazy and/or shocking.

I think the trouble with contemporary art, as with so much else, is capitalism. Although the decline in religion hasn't helped things any.

As Marx taught, value in capitalism can be evaluated in two ways: through use value or through exchange value. Use value is just obviously the amount of use you can get out of a thing, and once upon a time prices were determined largely by this. A useful item had value. A well-made hammer gave more use over time, so it cost more. 

Now, though, use value is largely divorced from exchange value, which is basically just price. So the price of things is no longer pegged to the use we get from them, but simply to what people are willing to pay. And clever capitalists know how to get us to pay a lot. 

So for example a 5-cent plastic bag from the supermarket will carry as much as a $5000 purse, but people are willing to pay the $5000 for status. The use value is the same for both items, but the exchange value is wildly different. 

And the ideal for a capitalist is to sell a product that cost nothing to manufacture but has the highest possible exchange value. And that's where art comes in. It can cost zero in labor costs and material, but sell for millions. And artists know this. In olden times, an artist's medium was paint on canvas or marble -- that's what they manipulated to make an object valuable. But today the most famous artists just manipulate exchange value itself. Exchange value is their medium. If there is genius involved, it is in figuring out how to make a little bit of nothing worth as much money as possible. That's why Banksy, for example, is a kind of genius. Because he makes banal worthless stenciled pictures, but makes them sell for zillions. 

The infamous bed you mentioned is a good example. That artist, and the guy who pickled the shark, got famous because Europe's biggest advertising man got a lot of attention for buying them. He made sure everybody noticed that he was buying. And just this attention made the prices of those artists go up. And then after the prices went up he sold everything and made a fortune. It wasn't even subtle. The works are worthless in any conventional sense, but they serve sort of like stock certificates that you keep in a safe deposit box. They are tokens of exchange value. 

This is the kind of age we live in, so this is the sort of art we deserve. Exchange value is the only way we have of assigning value to something. And everything has to be quantified, but the only way to quantify art is according to what it sold for. We're stuck with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your comparison of the use value of a plastic bag and a designer purse seems off. If 5k gets you status, then that's it's use, and comparing use value between the two wouldn't be an issue of how many items either can hold. Art, for it's part, has always been this way. There was less art under the patronage model than there is under the consumer model - but more status-use value.

I think the comments about exchange value being the new medium are spot on - it's a great way to describe money laundering.

[Rhizomorph13]

Art is subjective.

Anything, literally anything, can be art.

Find what you like and pursue more of that.

Avoid what you don't like.

Don't shame others for their personal taste.

I also find free verse to be pointless but I have read a few that I instantly liked. I prefer limericks that are funny. Most poems, even written in any classic rhythm and rhyme schemes annoy me, but some resonate. Meh, to each their own.

[onlinebiker]

My rule of "what's art"- If setting it on fire is an improvement - it's not art.


And if it is?

It will soon be a moot question.

[RozzerusUnrelentus]

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.

[Rhizomorph13]

There is no such thing as crap.

Crap is simply something you have arbitrarily labeled according to your value system.

I agree with your summation, but, much like when I find myself perusing the modern art section of an art museum, I get unnecessarily angry sometimes when I view art that I imagine to be too formulaic or simple. I then recall how stunned and awed I have been at incredibly dumb things like the piece, "Five Words In Orange Neon" which is simply a neon sign that says quick simply and explicitly "Five Words In Orange Neon". I was also floored when I saw a bicycle laying on its side with the rear wheel spinning ever so slowly. It just kept spinning, obviously by a motor somewhere embedded in the piece, but I was, none-the-less awed by the artistry.

So, in conclusion, art is subjective and there are large swathes of it which I would label CRAP! I am right! I am wrong.

Thus concludes this free verse poem. Applause now!

[RozzerusUnrelentus]

There is no such thing as crap.

Crap is simply something you have arbitrarily labeled according to your value system.

I agree with your summation, but, much like when I find myself perusing the modern art section of an art museum, I get unnecessarily angry sometimes when I view art that I imagine to be too formulaic or simple. I then recall how stunned and awed I have been at incredibly dumb things like the piece, "Five Words In Orange Neon" which is simply a neon sign that says quick simply and explicitly  "Five Words In Orange Neon". I was also floored when I saw a bicycle laying on its side with the rear wheel spinning ever so slowly. It just kept spinning, obviously by a motor somewhere embedded in the piece, but I was, none-the-less awed by the artistry.

So, in conclusion, art is subjective and there are large swathes of it which I would label CRAP! I am right! I am wrong.

Thus concludes this free verse poem. Applause now!

I knew it. Every day, crap. But at least you tried. ;-)