Tag: literature

There seems to be something wrong, counterproductive and absurd in these academic analyses of poems, which dissect the verses to the point of highlighting the expressive effect of each of the letters that make up its words. The contradiction is obvious when we see the result: endless paragraphs that seem to hide the essence of the verses rather than elucidate it. It is curious: these academics see alliteration, assonance before the very meaning of the words they read. There is no denying that such expressive resources sometimes reinforce an idea; but that is what they do: reinforce, and are merely auxiliary. It is even ridiculous to want to see the analyst as having expressive intent in sibilants when the author has limited himself to using plural words, not to mention worse examples. What is this? Finally, we are left with the feeling that there is an attempt to idealize the futile to the detriment of the essential.

As far as rhythm is concerned, the poem seems to lack a support, an expected tonicity in specific syllables, so that there is a sense of harmony and that the planned breaks can stand out. If the rhythmic pattern varies with each verse, there is no pattern and therefore no rhythmic base on which the verses rest. Unless one avowedly makes poetry by stripping it of musicality, the much-criticized regularity seems a necessary condition for poems that are meant to be good.

Language offers everyone identical possibilities. It is nothing more than a huge set of signs to be used as a vehicle for the expression of ideas, facts, feelings. In a work of art, therefore, the use of language, the style, will be more authentic the more it individualizes the expression of what it intends to express, that is, the more the uniqueness of the artist is exposed through the universal set of signs. Well then. It seems that based on this—correct—reasoning, everything has been legitimized in letters and, due to another reasoning that often accompanies it—that, in art, the important thing is to be “original”—true aberrations have been considered marvelous. Faced with such works, one gets the feeling that there is something wrong, that something so simplistic cannot be good, just because it is different. And then it seems fair to note that true mastery, in art, makes the complex appear simple—and not the other way around…

If we have form as a means,—and not as an end,—and technique as the expression of an individuality, we must admit a certain relativism regarding the aesthetic quality of a work. Better said: although many have tried to do so, it is not possible to establish, in art, rigid and universally applicable criteria to judge a work. Especially when it comes to technique, it is not rare to see first-rate artists seem to cultivate it in an antagonistic way, making it obvious, therefore, that this “how” is valid as it enhances an individuality which, yes, is a reasonable measure of the greatness of a work.