 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / July 2005Hallucinating Arkansas
What a great name for Hillary's Autobiography! From Allen Ginsberg's Howl: "who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war..." MobiusDick starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night, who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz, who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated Great posts both. They made my morning. Thank you. I had the opportunity of seeing Ginsberg read from "White Shroud" which was a sequel poem to Kaddish about his mother's incarceration & death in a mental institution. "Shrud" was about his wandering New York City to find his mother did not "die" but was actually a homeless person. Howl, Kaddish, and White Shroud are my favorites although I must admit I am not as familiar with his writing as I'd like to be. BTW after the reading where I met my writing teacher, I left a little too soon as the group of three( from my class) went out to dinner with Ginsburg as my writing teacher Molly Ramunajan was wife of poet Krishna,I believe was his first name , Ramunajan, a poet at the University of Chicago where I studied writing. One can't tell from my detox addled memory of the Elememts of Style and spelling but hopefully it will come back. Thanks again! I am going to cut and past the lines and read them as the spirit hits. Thanks again. he used to hang around the aspiring young writer scene in Berkeley and wait for an admirer to give up some a.s .. he was often successful > Great posts both. They made my morning. Thank you. I had the > opportunity of seeing Ginsberg read from "White Shroud" which was a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > again! I am going to cut and past the lines and read them as the > spirit hits. Thanks again. It is important to be able to separate the artist from the art. They have nothing to do with on another. If you read some of the Ezra Pound, TS Elliot and John Crowe Ransom essays on literary criticism, their main point is that the only person who is unfit to actually interpret a work of art is the creator of said art, simply because there is no way to separate ones self from your art enough to keep all of the underlying psychological influences from your life from affecting ones own interpretation of a piece. It is sort of analogous to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The observer cannot observe a system without altering the system he is observing. Thus, the artist cannot give an interpretation of his work without obfuscating the true meaning (if there be such a thing) because of a lifetime of psychological factors that cannot be looked at independently without changing the meaning or interpretation of the work in a way that does not reflect the work itself apart from the psychology. Anyway, the meaning of art is based solely on the observer and not on the artwork or the artist, only on what the work invokes in the observer. MD I was the midst of responding to your post when a huge thunderstorm and a large clap of lighting crashed my computer. The power terminals in North Chicago are ill. Anyway, I noticed that while I was watching my documentaries with an audience, people laughed at parts I thought were serious and visa-versus and not out of the ridiculousness of the film. Whenever this happened I was a bit insulted until people came up to me after the screening and told me how great the film was and how much such and such a scene was funny/traguc. No as a writer/filmmaler, I have no idea of the aesthetics of it all. The best I can do at structuring a piece is present ing unanswered questions which makes the audience ask, " What happens next,", find interesting idiosyncratic characters, & throw in dramatic irony. As far as long winded explanations of why this or that works, I do not reaaly partake. My writing teacher used to try to explain to the clas when I did something "write" in one of my pieces. She completely lost me. I am totally right brained and am lucky I can work on a remedial level on a computer. When it comes to making a change on my Mac, it is always a bifg deal for me. I am thankful for the gifts I have but really am a bit envious of persons with math and science knowledge. > Anyway, the meaning of art is based solely on the observer and not on > the artwork or the artist, only on what the work invokes in the > observer. Absolutely.. and great art has the quality of invoking a special and unique reaction in each observer... In other words, a critic's anal-ysis reveals more about the critic than about the artist or the piece... ~R~ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.