Poetry: Cosmology or Zoology?

"For several decades now, world literature, music, painting and sculpture have exhibited a stubborn tendency to grow not higher but to the side, not toward the highest achievements of craftsmanship and of the human spirit but toward their disintegration into a frantic and insidious 'novelty.'" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

This quote comes from a wonderful essay by Solzhenitsyn which you can find here. Though I do not agree point for point with the great Russian (may he rest in peace), his essay is at least a brother to this post.

I would like to talk about poetry, but not in dry words which suck the marrow from its very bones. I want to talk mythically -- poetically -- about something very dear to my heart. Forgive me if this gets a little strange -- I will try to bring it all around in the end.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". This, the spoken logos which formed the universe (the singing, as Lewis so beautifully imagines in The Magician's Nephew). The word made word: something from nothing, yet in another sense something from everything. Creation ex nihilo in one sense, but in another not, for the creation sprang from the very wisdom of the LORD.

The modern world has, of course, sloughed the LORD off to the side but in a very real sense has kept the idea of ex nihilo creation intact. Like most ideas traditionally kept in the realm of religion, ex nihilo creation has been shuttled to the realm of the aesthetic. Man, in his infinite arrogance, has put himself in the place of God. There is certainly a very mystical side to all this (e.g. man's desire for transcendence "satisfied" through aesthetic means) but I want to focus tonight on the practical.

Let us narrow our focus from the cosmos to a single act of artistic creation. Narrower, narrower: we observe the poet about to write a poem. Now, what happens during those moments of thought and scribbling and editing? I submit that the prevailing conception of this act bears some resemblance to the ex nihilo. This assessment must of course be tempered. No one thinks that the poet shoots up into the Platonic stratosphere, grabs the forms he requires, and makes a flawless reentry right onto the page. Words exist already, and certainly even influences such as personal history are acknowledged as informing the artist, but in the end ex nihilo prevails. The very word 'creates' implies this making something from nothing. We do not speak of those who fashion poems (poetry and music make good examples here, better than the visual arts; one can readily imagine describing a sculptor as a 'fashioner' of artistic goods). Rather the poet would seem to make little universes each time he takes up his pen.

In the course of writing my senior thesis, I read quite a lot about the genesis and shape of the genius paradigm (the dominant artistic from the Enlightenment to today). Tied inextricably from the paradigm is the notion of the genius as just such a demi-god, forging world upon world in the bellows of his imagination. For our purposes it hardly matters whether this gift is egalitarian (it would seem to start out far from there, but of course the slide into post-modernism and "warm fuzzy" aesthetics has levelled the field a bit); the remarkable break with previous thought comes in thinking that it can be done at all.

This has been destructive to aesthetics in uncountable ways, but tonight my focus is on this "relentless cult of novelty" which Solzhenitsyn feels his way toward. If artistic creation may be equated with the ex nihilo, then what counts in aesthetics is the pressing on, the continued search to find new worlds to speak into existence. It is not sufficient that art be beautiful or good; it must first and foremost be new. We see this all over, in the very words critics use: bold (new), tired (in the pattern of something gone before).

But we have strayed. Let us once more trade the telescope for the microscope. One area which hits close to home for me is the poetic aesthetic. I must tread the proverbial eggshell here and make sure I am not misunderstood. Over time, poetry has shifted off the tracks, so to speak. Poetic forms long honored have been chucked out the window in favor of an "anything goes" aesthetic. The traditional concerns of poetry have been abandoned to make room for the obsession with personal expression. Let me make very clear that I am not making a wholesale attack on newer categories such as postmodern poetry or free verse. There is much that is good in these things, but I am saying that the general mindset of this aesthetic is fundamentally unsound. The quest for originality has led to a confusion over what poetry is really meant to be. Ideas such as rhythm and cadence (or rhyme and reason for that matter) give way to writing down whatever comes to mind, a sort of a vomit all over the page.

This is where all presumed ex nihilo creation leads. In my thesis (shameless self promotion: ask me if you want to read it!), I describe the genius paradigm as fundamentally self-destructive. There I am mostly concerned with the way that it has undermined itself by exhausting the wells of originality (leading to the ennui driven doodlings of postmodernism). Here I want to put it another way: how the drive for ex nihilo in fact leads to an increase in chaos. The poet sets out to create a world for himself, but instead ends up with a swirling eddy, a sounding fury.

Take, for example, the poetic "style" of flarf. What value -- save comedic, perhaps -- does the random jumbling of search terms hold? True, flarfsters are doing it (mostly) ironically, but this only goes to show how far poetry has fallen (a point I raise in my thesis is that postmodernism represents the downward slope of the genius paradigm, the slow viscious rebellion against a thought system which nevertheless presents indisputable guiding principles). The pursuit of novelty has led to this: mindless, artless scribbles on a page.

Let us turn the page, quite literally, from the first chapter of Genesis to the second. Here we see man in his natural habitat, so to speak. Man in the garden, charged with a special task in the creation process. Not the ex nihilo of the creation; the much humbler task of naming the animals. Man was not tasked by God to perform divine functions; he has not the power to make things that never were be. Rather he was allowed to participate in the divine song by giving order to those things which were already created. The ordering which began when God separated the light from the darkness continued as Adam lumped rhinoceri with rhinoceri, but well away from the lions.

You do not have to believe a word of the Bible to see the very profound insight given in this assigment. It has direct bearing on this artistic conundrum of the cult of novelty. We must in fact shift our paradigm away from a belief in the ex nihilo power of the artist and toward a belief that the proper function of art is to bring order and reason and harmony, both to our own thoughts and to the world around us. The genius paradigm has already proven itself to be rotten at core; we must set our feet on firmer ground.

The poet does not create from nothing. Instead he bestows order on the world around him, the thoughts which flit through his mind, the dog which waddles down the street. He grabs from this place, steals that word, mixes them together like a potioneer. In that sense he does forge; he smelts his various parts into a glittering ore. Freed from the ridiculous desire to create something original, he can concentrate on making something good and beautiful.

What would such a thing look like, practically speaking? It would mean a reverence in art for clear form, balance, order. In poetry, it would mean an embracing of form and especially rhythm. It would not be the endless rote sculpture of the Egyptians, cranking out sonnet after sonnet as easily as making sausage. Certainly the breaking of form can be as artistically significant and beautiful as the strict adherence to it. I fully recognize the good in straying from forms set down, but when those forms are abandoned completely, only chaos remains.

I close with this: what a wonderfully freeing thing constraint is! We are so afraid that boundaries commit us to staid art that we miss the plain truth, that there is immeasurable freedom in pursuing things within their limits. The beauty of Chris Paul breaking ankles on a drive to the hoop is in no way diminished by the fact that he can never score a touchdown; rather, such blurring of lines would be a diminishment. So too with art: when man steps over the line of restraint, grabs greedily at the ex nihilo, he winds up with nothing indeed. But if he will stoop, be content with the naming given to him, who knows what wondrous hippopotami will emerge?

Filler

To tread water until I can find the time to make an actual post (it's coming by the end of the week -- I promise!), I thought I would write some reflections on this past weekend, when I saw Paul Simon perform at the Bob Costas Benefit Concert. It was worth it all: the six hours to St. Louis, the suffering through a not-so-good-but-not-bad-enough-to-mock comedian, the late hour. Totally worth it.

I think one reason was that the concert was the opposite of everything I fear about typical pop concerts (and the reasons I avoid them). It was not ear shattering, but a nice volume that let you hear and understand the lyrics (so important to Simon's work). It was in a theater, and thus maintained a very relaxed, somewhat formal feel. Probably it helped that much of the audience was "of an advancing age"; that made me dig it all the more. I don't go for mosh pits and the like, and the restrained interest of the audience was a plus to me. Also, it made the end incredible; as Simon and his band closed with "You Can Call Me Al" (not counting the encore, a haunting solo rendition of "The Sound of Silence"), it was as if all the pent up excitement of the evening exploded. People danced in the aisles and shouted the chorus back to Paul. It was not cheap; he truly earned the response.

One thing I found gratifying was Paul's stage presence. Some performers have to be in the spotlight; it is what keeps them going, what they live for. But he seemed almost shy; content at many points to let his band take over. It probably helps that his talents lie more as songwriter and singer than guitarist (most of the heavy lifting lick-wise was done by his backups), and that he has had so long to get used to the fact. He knows how to let the music speak for itself. I think this probably contributes to his reputation as an everyman (side note: I have been wanting for some time to write a post comparing Simon to Randy Newman, driven by the idea that Newman is an everyman who seems like an intellectual, while Simon is the opposite). He comes across as so humble that you could easily believe he would love to grab a beer with you after the show.

His band, by the way, was very very good. I liked the way he adapted his more intricate songs to a smaller group, and the expansive noodling done on some of the songs. My favorite was probably "Graceland", which featured an awesome intro which lent it more of a country western feel than the studio version. But yes, his band can really play, from the accordionist to the slide whistlist. The percussionists probably shone the brightest.

My one complaint regards the set list. He played 5 songs from Graceland, which is by no means a bad thing, but it came at a cost: no songs from either There Goes Rhymin' Simon or Hearts and Bones, my two favorites after Graceland (and on the right day Rhymin' Simon ties it). Also nothing from Rhythm of the Saints, another great and bold album. On the plus side, no songs from his vanity project The Capeman were included.

Okay, enough of my semi-coherent ramblings. In short the concert was amazing, an experience I will remember for quite some time. And, if he does an actual tour anytime soon, I would gladly make a long trip to see him, that time hopefully without the surrounding rigmarole.

Easter

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

What do you do with Easter Saturday? It's such a strange day, much harder to deal with than Christmas Eve, which is all anticipation and warmth and candleglow in the windows. Easter Saturday: Christ in the grave. The pain of his passion behind us, but the glorious hope of the Resurrection still to come.

I was thinking about Kierkegaard this morning, oddly enough -- about the knight of resignation and the knight of faith. It is a strange topic for Easter morning, that most important of days, full of joy. But, then, a lot of things in life mimic the pattern of our saviour, and we must often taste death before we regain hope. I tasted this morning, and it was bitter in my mouth. I was disappointed in life (but no, not merely disappointed; deeply saddened by it). The comforting shell of resignation, the warm blanket of stoicism I wrap my heart in -- I could feel it creeping in again. But then I stopped and thought about Kierkegaard. I thought how so many people can give something up, a life or a dream, but how the difficult part is believing it will be given back to you. Abraham brought Isaac up the mountain, yet he did not doubt the promise given him. And so I made the choice of a fool: I chose to believe that what had died would resurrect, that my hope was not in vain.

And so our lives are a mimesis of that one life that mattered most. "The Son of Man must be lifted up", John tells us; lifted up only to fall to the ground, to be planted in the Arimithean tomb. Our lives have such tombs, those spaces which are dark and empty and cobwebbed. We fear them, perhaps rightly. We fear the falling to the ground.

This is why Easter Saturday is such a bother. The overwhelming pain of Good Friday is in some ways easier to handle than the blank drip drip drip, the waiting in the tomb. There is somewhat of a debate about what Christ's spirit was doing on that day; I'm content to leave it a mystery, but I can see the appeal in having the question answered. Do you know the feeling of having cried so long that you have no strength for tears? Hope has not yet come back, your resolve is not strengthened. You lie on your bed, exhausted. This is Easter Saturday, that terrible inbetween.

I don't think we always leap directly from resignation to faith. The death of a dream must lie in the fallow field awhile, sometimes, before it springs up into life. For me the wait was short this morning -- a few minutes -- but then again a few moments in time can be an epoch. You have no reckoning of day or night when you're in a tomb.

But if it dies, it bears much fruit. This is the promise of Easter morning. How small are our dreams when we dream them ourselves, when we grasp them tightly, terrified to let them slip away. How alone we are then. Even when we dream the right dream, have the right cause, are in the know, when we grasp what we are in fact doing is choking the life out of that which we hold. Yet when we let go -- when the single kernel spirals to the ground -- then we are free. It is the cry of Christ as he breathes his last: Into your hand I commit my spirit. And though we do not always see clearly, rebirth lies in the very seed which falls. We should not be surprised when our shattered dreams bear much fruit. He who raised Christ from the tomb, who restored Isaac to his father, is the same God who hears our prayers, who has conquered death utterly. The tomb does not have the final word. It is only a fallow field, waiting for the seed brave enough to plunge beneath its soil.

John in Real Life

[Ed. Note: Funny how writing works. I had a long post in the works for tonight on another topic entirely, but found myself hitting a wall partway through. So I dug up this one which I started awhile ago. Hope the pinch writing works alright.]

Sometimes inspiration just strikes. As I showered yesterday, I was hit out of the blue by a realization about my movie preferences. For some reason John Cassavetes came into my mind; I thought about his monumental film A Woman Under the Influence; about why, great as the film is, I have held it at a distance and refused to really embrace it. Cassavetes worked primarily as a filmmaker of ultra realism, striving in all things to be faithful to "real life".

The film certainly can be painfully true to life (and consequently very hard to watch), but even at its finest it fails to capture a certain something about the experience. Why should I fail to connect to it when I love documentaries so much? I suppose the fact that the events in documentaries actually happened could contribute to this preference. Then again, my interests range far beyond mere history to the truth about the human condition, so why should I be constrained by matters of fact?

No, the reason that documentaries work for me in a way that ultra realistic films do not is quite simply this: good documentaries always capture the unexpected moments of life. I am thinking of that magical, heartbreaking scene in Hoop Dreams when the father of one of the boys challenges him to a game of one on one, and all the bitterness of their relationship plays out on the blacktop. Or the lynchpin of Gates of Heaven, when Errol Morris interrupts the story of pet cemetaries to let an old woman ramble on for several minutes about her grandson. It can be as simple as the moment in 14 Up when the cameraman pans away from Suzy's face to record a dog chasing a rabbit, or as significant as a killer admitting onscreen to his crime. These are the wild and wooly moments of our lives that really ring true, the unexpected swerves and nosedives that make life worth living.

It is precisely these moments that fictional films can never -- by definition -- capture. In fiction there is always some conceit driving the film, always some direction. Even if all the dialogue is improvised, the general plot moves forward and the actors must still play roles; they are not truly themselves. Because of the constraints of the medium, you simply cannot capture the sly, strange moments of life.

This is not so much a problem in general fiction films, whether they be genre pieces or straight dramedies. It is when the director swoops in close to real life that the problems begin. When you collapse the space between screen and viewer, dangerous things happen. I suppose this is why part of me still prefers hand drawn animation to "realistic" CGI (or medieval painting to Renaissance). When you ape life too closely but lack an essential ingredient, the result is offputting and is more disturbing than something clearly not real. Think about cyborgs: no matter how much they may resemble humans on the surface, dig deeper and you find essential differences; the fact that they come so close yet fall so short makes them unnatural and creepy in a way that, say, forest animals could never be.