Literature & Art

Is Poetry a Waste of Time?
You must be logged in to view polls.
donutsizzle
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Answer the poll, or don't, or whatever, like I care, pschhh

  Spoiler:
david s
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
david s 25 United States MelancholicCholeric ISFJ 621 1193C
I generally tended to prefer prose when I was a child, thinking of poetry, and indeed art in general, as being a total waste of time.

However, I've come to the realization more recently that a textbook can only tell you what to *think*. Art, poetry, music and plays can teach you how to *feel*.

I've also learned first hand that book knowledge doesn't mean jack schist, and the only thing we can actually do that matters is to help others and to understand them. If you give up the liberal arts, you're dooming not only yourself, but your people, to a loss of true feeling. And feelings are very important. Ohyes.

As such, I now consider the arts to be of very high importance, as high as the sciences. I feel that our technical educations are going to do us harm in the long run, and I think that a good understanding of art is critical to making a well-rounded person.

Poetry is still something I struggle to create. Most of my skill lies in mimicry, so I'm not actually that creative. I've tried to make poems before, I think I even tried to make one recently after my grandmother died, since that was the same few days as my car died on me, and earlier that summer my oldest brother killed himself, and a few months before that our family's oldest pug died. Also somewhere in there another one of our dogs died. 2015 hasn't been a good year for me, so there was definitely a spike in my attempts at artistic expression as of late.

But instead of poetry, I tend to go with visual arts. Still, I try every now and then to make something of interest in flowing words.
Tama Yoshi
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Tama Yoshi 24 Canada PhlegmaticCholeric INTJ 513 472C
It's easy to get carried either way when talking about art.

It takes "feels" to appreciate art; it takes "feels" to create art.

So is art really just a subset, or an epiphenomenon of feelings? It's always felt that way to me. It's easy to picture a robotic form of intelligence: its ruthless pragmatism is unmoved by art, and ultimately dismisses it as unimportant.
So is art really good? Well... are feelings good? Who are we, people gifted by this thing called "feelings" which seems to be constructed to appreciate itself, to say that feelings are *good*? We are the ONLY PEOPLE to say that feelings are good, and thus that art is relevant.
This question is unanswerable on a larger scale as long as we do not find (or make) new forms of intelligence.

As for poetry... well... why poetry? Why not music, visual arts, radio, video games, television...? Is this really the *poetry* poetry, or any kind of literature? If it's the former, then when does a text become *poetry* and not just some other work of literature?
There is also the fact that poetry (the poetic kind) has become a quite dense and inaccessible media, seldom preferred to any of the other forms of art I have listed. So democratically, no. And by virtue of the simple fact that art is art, please don't force me to choose.

I tend to see grandiloquent pedantry in these kinds of attempts to say "this is really important" or "this is very bad" or "things should be THIS way". If we weren't "feeling individuals", we wouldn't care. While we probably have a collective will to preserve these feelings, I think it's also very easy to get all touchy-feely when dwelling on. That is, feelings are very intangible, and talking about the legitimacy of certain medium of beauty is rarely anything but circular or unfounded.