(Just thought, funny "wonder" means both "ask oneself" and "amazement"... I'm not an native english speaker :p )
I've always written poetry. I'm not very "productive", I only write when a strong necessity is felt, but I can say it is the activity that suits me most deeply. But, roughly, since the coronavirus and the first lockdown, I'm kind of dry of "inspiration", it seems that I no longer have this faculty of being fascinated, amazed. Also, I don't suffer from it as much as I would have expected, but still, I can feel something missing, and I can't really tell how much this kind of "lack" is significant and wether or not I should worry about it or/and try to remedy it.
That lead me also to wonder about poetry, since I started - thanks, among others but notably, to Laura and the C's - to consider things from a more "cosmic" point of view. (First, I thought I would post this thread in the "Questions for the C's", but I then I suspected I may come up with, at least, the beginning of an answer myself.) The questions are : what is poetry ? What is its function ?
I think there are two kinds of poetry : one that in some sort is just a way to cope with our ignorance and feeling of helplessness by staging it in an aesthetically pleasing form, but in the end it remains ignorance and feeling of helplessness. That would be the majority. The other kind, the (rare) "true" poetry, is the formal expression of a real understanding and cannot in no case contain any bit of ignorance.
I'm currently reading Gurdjieff and I was struck by his take on art (I'm reading it in French so the translation is mine) : "In true art, on the contrary, nothing is accidental. Everything is mathematical. Everything can be calculated and predicted. The artist knows and understands the message he wants to deliver". The problem is, most of the things we are inclined to find beautiful, are things we don't understand. (Tell me whether or not I should only speak for myself :p ) We are fascinated by strangeness, and it is what we want to display in art : that feeling of the unknown, and not a truth or something we understand as a truth, and therefore art can be merely objects of misunderstanding, unknowing, or ways to beautifully not know and understand, pointed out. It's like, the moment you understood something, it's not interesting anymore (notably from an aesthetic point of view). A part of me knows what Gurdjieff means and agrees, but another part of me finds it a little bit sad. Is it just some kind of program to make us feel ignorance and its manifestations desirable ? Or is there something else ?
It's like, the more I learn about this reality, the less I feel like writing. It's puzzling.
Sorry if all this is a bit messy. Have you any thoughts to share ?
Camille.
I've always written poetry. I'm not very "productive", I only write when a strong necessity is felt, but I can say it is the activity that suits me most deeply. But, roughly, since the coronavirus and the first lockdown, I'm kind of dry of "inspiration", it seems that I no longer have this faculty of being fascinated, amazed. Also, I don't suffer from it as much as I would have expected, but still, I can feel something missing, and I can't really tell how much this kind of "lack" is significant and wether or not I should worry about it or/and try to remedy it.
That lead me also to wonder about poetry, since I started - thanks, among others but notably, to Laura and the C's - to consider things from a more "cosmic" point of view. (First, I thought I would post this thread in the "Questions for the C's", but I then I suspected I may come up with, at least, the beginning of an answer myself.) The questions are : what is poetry ? What is its function ?
I think there are two kinds of poetry : one that in some sort is just a way to cope with our ignorance and feeling of helplessness by staging it in an aesthetically pleasing form, but in the end it remains ignorance and feeling of helplessness. That would be the majority. The other kind, the (rare) "true" poetry, is the formal expression of a real understanding and cannot in no case contain any bit of ignorance.
I'm currently reading Gurdjieff and I was struck by his take on art (I'm reading it in French so the translation is mine) : "In true art, on the contrary, nothing is accidental. Everything is mathematical. Everything can be calculated and predicted. The artist knows and understands the message he wants to deliver". The problem is, most of the things we are inclined to find beautiful, are things we don't understand. (Tell me whether or not I should only speak for myself :p ) We are fascinated by strangeness, and it is what we want to display in art : that feeling of the unknown, and not a truth or something we understand as a truth, and therefore art can be merely objects of misunderstanding, unknowing, or ways to beautifully not know and understand, pointed out. It's like, the moment you understood something, it's not interesting anymore (notably from an aesthetic point of view). A part of me knows what Gurdjieff means and agrees, but another part of me finds it a little bit sad. Is it just some kind of program to make us feel ignorance and its manifestations desirable ? Or is there something else ?
It's like, the more I learn about this reality, the less I feel like writing. It's puzzling.
Sorry if all this is a bit messy. Have you any thoughts to share ?
Camille.