Even the assertion that free verse poets are more often inferior may show my lingering biases, but that opinion is consistent with my view across many genres. The genius in "Fountain" was Duchamp's bold and revolutionary
idea
; a ****** itself is not of great artistic value. The "bold" artists specializing in found art today are not really bold at all; they simply rehash an old idea. So I tend to agree with critics who denounce Hirst's "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living." With their response "A Dead Shark Isn't Art," stuckists asked: "If Hirst’s shark is recognised as great art, then how come Eddie's, which was on exhibition for two years beforehand, isn't? Do we perhaps have here an undiscovered artist of genius, who got there first, or is it that a dead shark isn't art at all?"
I use this example to point out that some artists, even ones recognized and widely revered, pass off ordinary as works as extraordinary ones simply because they have subscribed to a genre the public finds to be "edgy." In reality, comparatively unknown artists are producing very similar works, and often the artwork on the pedestal is no better than those trod on below it. Lately the modern art scene has focused heavily on marketing, the business of making ordinary things seem extraordinary because it can be profitable to do so. Today's poetry scene seems to be in an analogous state.
My first post on this thread complimented your story, yet I think my message was drowned by my tangential argumentative ignorance. I should have stressed your brilliance more strongly, and the fact that I liked your story and
wanted
it to be a free verse poem should be taken as a very high compliment. I remember searching various lines from your work because I thought it
must
have been taken from somewhere, only to find that your phrases here are alone on the internet. I strongly recommend that you publish the story.
01-Sep-2013 00:35:43