Communication+with+Others

"I believe that all artists want to communicate with some audience or another, though that potential audience may vary enormously in size and/or kind. If one truly cared nothing about making contact with others, however few or select (not every poem is for every reader, or even for the same reader at every time and in every mood), there would be no reason to make art. One could simply commune with oneself within the confines of one's own mind" (6). SORRY to quote such a lengthy passage, but this whole section intrigued me. It is very interesting, striking me because I have never considered such thoughts beforehand. Do people agree with this? If not, do we have a right to disagree, not being professional poets ourselves -- or can everyone with some level of knowledge be a poet in his or her own way??

I have always thought, //Well, the poet can say that because even though I do not understand what it means, it makes sense to her or him. It is what he believes and what is in his or her mind.// After reading the above passage, I questioned the accuracy of my thoughts. I am still not sure if I entirely agree with him, but according to Shepherd, the poet must be communicating __something__ worth reading. Bro Tom told us in class that he said something along the lines of, "I always knew that I didn't want my poetry to be a private conversation." Thus, poets really are wanting to tell you something; perhaps they do not care so much that everyone completely understands it, but they do have a strong feeling or message that they wish to convey to others. I, personally, have not always thought this way when writing my own poetry. I had always thought that I could write a poem, regardless if others understood it or got anything from it at all.

Moreover, what is in parentheses carries weight to be considered: Is it alright then if we cannot always "get" a poem -- because maybe we are not the intended reader. . . or just not in the right mood? The latter idea, especially, seems sketchy. How can a mood matter? . . . but maybe poetry is this subjective in this way; maybe it is meant to be like that. What does everyone think?1203990846

I definitely agree with the passage. I think that everyone has experienced this firsthand as well. Let me try to clearly state my point.

I've discovered that there is no purpose of putting on a play, making a movie, writing a book, or taking a picture other than getting some form of message out. Whether it is a mood, an idea, a storyline, or just some jokes you made up last week... it all needs to be showcased. I think I'd go crazy if I didn't have an audience for the fall or spring plays or someone to look at my artwork. I think that, deep down, all artists want someone else to appreciate their work for the amount of time they spent on it and for their original idea. There is no feeling better than being praised for something you did, either by yourself or with a team. Of course, certain medias are not for every audience. I'm sure that a four-year-old today wouldn't appreciate classic movies made in the 40's or 50's more than someone that grew up with those films. Each artists specifies their work for a particular audience when they're creating it. If someone doesn't belong to that audience, they might not understand it or enjoy it.

I think that we all have an opinion and a preference when it comes to our own work. I'm probably not going to spill out all my deepest secrets on an essay Br. Tom is going to read. I think that we all have the right to agree or disagree with that passage because everyone has experienced some form of showcase. Over time, we've been accustomed to giving our work to others to appreciate. 1203991626

sfa said that they didn't care if anyone understood or got anything out of their poetry. I still think that by writing it down that signals that you wish to communicate it to someone else even if that other person was never suppose to understand it or get anything out of it. Can you just want to share what you have done without looking to actually communicate anything other than, "I wrote this poem"? Is this even communication? I think it is very hard to say that we can actually write something or create a work of art without ever thinking of those who would see or experience it. I know that I often wonder whether it will make sense to others and often look for their approval. This is especially true with schoolwork. Aren't we always looking to please our teachers and gain their approval. I do think that it is possible to create art without having the intention of communicating with others. This is very rare. I think that it is also kind of selfish to create art without intending to share it with others around you. The quote also says that communication is the reason for making artwork. Although it may be possible to create artwork with out the intention of communicating something, does it have any other purpose? If there is another meaning for art, what is it? 1203995547

I agree with the notion that poets write to communicate with others because if they did not want to communicate to others then there would be no reason for them to put their thoughts to paper. To me that is why poets are famous, not because they are loved by everybody, that is not possible because everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good poem. But rather it is the fact the poet has found a way to communicate with thousands of people. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who hate certain poets yet their names are still familiar because they have allowed their poems to communicate on such a grand scale. I vividly remember debating a particular poem that I could not stand, yet I was still discussing it; therefore, the poem still spoke to me in one way or the other. If the poet did not want to elicit that kind of reaction, then why would they bother even writing?

I also think that is perfectly okay to not understand a poem because sometimes we cannot understand or fully grasp the meaning of poem since we may not have experienced what the poet is discussing or simply because we have not been around long enough to have acquired a certain level of knowledge and/or wisdom. In fact, not understanding a poem can be a good because it forces the readers to think on the certain that they are not used to, pushing them beyond their comfort zone and their normal perceptions on life.1203998093

I agree. The poet does not expect us to know everything yet, but they use their own way of thinking to expand ours. Like the lyrics to one of my favorite country songs by John Michael Montgomery, "Don't worry about what you don't know, Life's a dance you learn as you go." It is not about how much we know in this moment, but that we are always learning. We learn from everything we encounter, even if it is a poem that we just can not understand. Just by reading it and attempting to decipher it, pushes are minds in a way that they have not gone before. . . we are learning and growing. 1204148385

I think that a peom or poet can gain fame through several different methods. The poet can write something very easy to understand, yet very catchy and hard to forget. This would include something very short or something with a simple rhyme scheme that has a steady beat. However, a poet could also write a poem that is difficult to understand and open to many different interpretations; this poem could be memorable because the meaning could be debated for an indefinite period of time. Perhaps the poem could have several different meanings that all have credibility.

Memorable poets all have their own ways of gaining recognition whether it be good or bad. Some poets are remembered for writing good poems, but others are remembered for writing terrible and possibly annoying poems.1205015547