The rush to make a 'finished' piece

[SarahJF]

I'm asking a kind of art-poetry-making similarity question (sorry).

When I started art foundation (a crucial 'sandwich' year between the 'A' level and degree course), our class all carefully trotted out our lovely (and rather dull) 'finished', 'framed' A level pictures in various portfolios.

The first thing we learnt was to tear the darn things up, and begin to experiment - explore and enjoy the creative process of 'making' rather than looking for a finished picture each time. We threw out the window the idea of framing - because if a picture can't stand alone without a square of wood around it, then it's pretty rubbish.

Anyway, I wondered how this relates to poetry. I'm new, live happily in C&C, but see lots of framed 'meaningfull' cliche (similar to our lovely portraits of angst-ridden somethings we 'did' for 'A' level).

I just wondered, really, how experimentation, working without an audience, and simply enjoying creating something relates to poetry. Is the rush to 'finish' as much an evil here? Do you have a kind of written sketchbook (because I was brought up on the idea that the sketchbook is the lifeblood of good drawing). Do poets try to 'frame' before they're ready, too?

Sarah
(and if you all totally ignore this horribly long post by a complete stranger, I'll not be at all surprised.)

[Rik Roots]

Hi, Sarah, and welcome to pffa!

I think experimentation is a key component of the creative process, and should be encouraged at all costs.

But I also think that it is important to separate out the process of creation and the process of crafting - turning the idea into the product. On this website the emphasis tends to be on the crafting side of the work rather than the creation side.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of areas (General Poetry, and most of the Rigidly Compartmentalised Chaos ones) where you could post up an "experimental" poem - perhaps labelling it as an "experiment in creation" - for comment.

Just my views, of course ...

[Dani B]

Hi!

My two cents--

I think what you've delineated sounds like a good exercise for any aspiring poet, in the sense that trying to nail down a perfect poem when just out of the gates leads to what might be termed as "pre-packaged poetry."

I have a notebook full of odds and ends that I jot down, and every once in awhile one of them snaps into a poem like a missing puzzle piece. I also adore reading the poetry of others and writing all-freakin-over everything.

basically, I have no problem being messy, on my own time. But here, we're aiming for finished pieces, even if we know that those of us in C&C aren't quite churning them out yet. Since we're here to pull the hem out of each other's work and inspect the frayed cloth left behind, whether a piece seems too "framed" or not could become a crit-worthy mentionable.

I don't see any point of, say, coming on here and posting jotted notes, or disjointed words...I mean, General gets plenty of that, anyways. We're all working towards some sort of holistic poetry nirvana that exists in the far corners of our brains, and whittling down rough edges tends to be part of that process.

But we can be pretty tough here...I can't imagine any gilded frame lasting all that long. ;)

cheers--

Dani B

[MEHope]

Poems get finished? ;)

[Andrea345]

The first thing we learnt was to tear the darn things up, and begin to experiment - explore and enjoy the creative process
Tore up / packed away all the poetry I'd written before I got here. Every now & then I'll pull out an old piece to see if there's anything which can be done with it. But pretty much everything since I joined the board has been "new."
I just wondered, really, how experimentation, working without an audience, and simply enjoying creating something relates to poetry.
Not sure what you mean about "working without an audience." Don't post the work here if you don't want an audience. Don't post a work on any of the boards if you don't want an audience. I got lots of those pieces.

But as far as experimentation goes, really depends upon what you mean by "experimentation." I "experimented" my way to learning how to write metrical verse on this board. Still don't write rhyming verse b/c my rhymes s-t-i-n-k. Check out who wrote the blurb on Experimental Poetry in the Experimental forum - ole Rik up there. Then, there's the odd knackers in Humor, (I think I've written two verses which sort of qualify as humorous, but have only posted them to "play" threads).

There's lots of experimentation going on. When I'm starting to play with an idea, but I want a critical audience, I post in Gen C&C or AGC&C. No critical audience, but just to play, think of setting a thread up in Challenges. Like-minded audience, try Experimental. No audience, don't post.

Is the rush to 'finish' as much an evil here? Do you have a kind of written sketchbook (because I was brought up on the idea that the sketchbook is the lifeblood of good drawing). Do poets try to 'frame' before they're ready, too?

If, by "framed" you mean "to begin the process of submitting for publication," heck, I'm sure that people do that without posting to critical boards, or after one pass on a board. Not sure what that means in the context of poetry b/c it's all a mind set: "I view this piece as done," or not. There have been many times on this board where a revision gets posted up to a year after the original piece(s) were worked, or revisions are posted to other boards, so you never know. What if a reader reads a piece as "finished," but the writer doesn't think so? What if a writer never submits for publication? What if a writer submits a piece which pokes people's eyes out to the International Library of Poetry and is accepted? This latter definition is the one closest to that idea of "framed" I think you're writing about & *shrug* who cares?

Other boards have information about publication, this one doesn't. The focus here is on the crafting of the piece itself, pretty much in whatever form the piece requires. The other boards which work with experienced writers are open to other forms as well. In all these cases, the focus is on crafting a piece with an audience in mind - or don't post the piece.

The thing though is, at these boards with experienced readers, it takes a very well-crafted piece for them to get excited about an experiment. I honestly can't think of one "type" of "experimental" poem which hasn't crossed these boards over the years. We've all seen more failures than successes & most of all, we've seen more poorly crafted failures than even true attempts. Those poorly crafted failures are a real irritation. The ones which are well-crafted don't poke you in the eye.

-a

[Harry R]

My mother is a member of an embroidery group. They have a periodic exhibition for which pieces are entered anonymously and judged by a panel of three judges.

A couple of years ago, one of the judges, made an observation which I think is relevant here. He felt that the members weren't spending enough time designing their work before starting to actually execute it. As you can imagine, a lot of the pieces submitted are very labour-intensive, and take many hours of patient work to make. He felt that, if you were going to spend all that time making something, you should be willing to spend at least as much time on the design process first - otherwise a beautifully made piece will be let down by poor design.

I assume that much the same thing is what you learnt on your foundation course - by committing to a finished design/concept too early, you end up with an carefully executed piece which is, nonetheless, dull.

The analogy with poetry is that I think my poems have been most successful when I've spent a long time turning the ideas over in my head before trying to produce something that looks like a poem. During that period, I mull over lots of related themes, trying to find the right angle to approach the subject, and come up with various images and phrases, but I don't make it into a poem. Eventually, the hope is that, out of all the material that builds up, I spot some connection or juxtaposition or idea that I can build a poem around.

Harry

ps I don't know how often the above *actually* describes my working practices, but it's a plausible theory, I think.

[jacopo]

I think Harry and Rik have excellent points: that with poetry, as with most art, I would say, there is a period of design/concept-making and then a period of actually crafting the piece. Using another example: a skirt can be ugly if either:

1. The material and cut are unflattering but it's sewed beautifully

or

2. A fancy design with gorgeous fabric is stapled together.

Both parts of the process are equally important: skimp on one, and the other won't save you.

For me, I find that I'll get stuck on one theme for a while (my father, rain, Nazi art-theft during WWII (seriously)), write a lot of crap in my notebook on that theme, and, long after I've moved onto writing about the Flood of 1927 or something, come back and craft a coherent piece out of the fragments and oddities.

I do get to a point where a poem is finished; no matter what I change around, it was better in the last draft. (Whether or not it's actually good is another question.) However, I actively keep a notebook of ideas, quotes from other poets, books and essays, and fragments that I read through when I'm stuck or bored.

So, that's my method. It works well for me.

[Kaltica]

On the subject of "finished poems", I'm with M.E. Hope. "Da poem ain't did until da poet is dead." Anyone who has seen Mount Rushmore knows that this is true of other art forms as well.

On the subject of experimentation, if we accept the notion that poetry is lateral thinking listed vertically, the idea of experimentation is already integral. All art, including (if not especially) poetry, is experimental. Poetry is always a trial balloon filled with hot air (i.e. language) appearing in an occasionally unique, new form. A quick glance at PFFA's own "Experimental" section pretty well confirms this in my mind; there is little there that one might not see in PFFA's critical forms or on other sites. Indeed, IMHO, "experimental poetry" may be as redundant as saying "an experimental experiment".

Insofar as planning is concerned, this is shadow-boxing's undercard. We list our candidate themes (vertically) in some order that makes sense to us. We then look (laterally) at the spaces between these themes for new contrasts, similarities, relationships, uses and/or views of the themes.

After the planning comes the main event: writing the damned thing. The same process continues: list the lines of our current draft vertically on screen or page and start looking around (laterally) for alternative candidate terms and phrasings. This is where that other truism comes into play: "Poetry lies between synonyms."

Gee, maybe J.R. Sherman was right. This poetry stuff is easy!

Well, talking about it may be. Writing it is, too. Writing it well may be another matter entirely.

That is my 2 cents worth, at least. An interesting thread, for sure.

[Rik Roots]

Hi, Colin.

Originally posted by Kaltica
On the subject of "finished poems", I'm with M.E. Hope. "Da poem ain't did until da poet is dead." Anyone who has seen Mount Rushmore knows that this is true of other art forms as well.

This is certainly one school of thought. Typically, I disagree with it. In my view, the poem is done when the poet loses interest in it. And a poem revisited after 10 or 20 years is a new poem.

On the subject of experimentation, if we accept the notion that poetry is lateral thinking listed vertically, the idea of experimentation is already integral. All art, including (if not especially) poetry, is experimental. Poetry is always a trial balloon filled with hot air (i.e. language) appearing in an occasionally unique, new form.

I disagree with this as well. I believe that the poem is the tool used to communicate image, emotion, story, revelation, (whatever) between two minds. A good poet knows exactly how to fashion the work to achieve the required effect.

We can resume our old argument about "what is art" on another thread, if you like.

A quick glance at PFFA's own "Experimental" section pretty well confirms this in my mind; there is little there that one might not see in PFFA's critical forms or on other sites. Indeed, IMHO, "experimental poetry" may be as redundant as saying "an experimental experiment".

Check out the guidance for the experimental forum. There are a few pieces in that forum which (in my view) deserve their place therein.

Insofar as planning is concerned, this is shadow-boxing's undercard. We list our candidate themes (vertically) in some order that makes sense to us. We then look (laterally) at the spaces between these themes for new contrasts, similarities, relationships, uses and/or views of the themes.

Everyone has their own preferred route into the realms of creativity

After the planning comes the main event: writing the damned thing. The same process continues: list the lines of our current draft vertically on screen or page and start looking around (laterally) for alternative candidate terms and phrasings. This is where that other truism comes into play: "Poetry lies between synonyms."

Inspiration can certainly help the crafting process. But I still believe it's 98% craft.

Gee, maybe J.R. Sherman was right. This poetry stuff is easy!

Well, talking about it may be. Writing it is, too. Writing it well may be another matter entirely.

That is my 2 cents worth, at least. An interesting thread, for sure.

I think I prefer the theory to the practice at the moment. [insert smiley face here]

[Steph#2]

I’m incredibly reluctant to think of a poem as finished. To say it can’t be better, when all I can see are its weaknesses, smacks too much of failure to me. It’s a terrible cop-out, really. As I can’t conceive of a poem as finished then it makes the revision process an aimless one. It’s fortunate that I enjoy working on a poem more than the satisfaction of finishing one. I don’t really know why I try to write poems other than it passes the time of day when work is slow or I get a free evening with nothing to watch on the TV. Looking back over the time I’ve spent at PFFA, it’s been those moments where I’ve had to work towards a goal (with JB in the Schooner and one Malpractice session) that I’ve achieved the most growth, but I don’t have sufficient self-discipline to do it on my own. There have been other motivations for finishing a poem, though: the PFFA competitions and contributions to threads in the Challenges forum. One Big Motivation to finish a few was my first ever participation at a performance poetry gig... scare-eee! So, it appears that I need the discipline of someone demanding I finish one for a specific reason or occasion, like weddings for instance... how you doin’ Harry?

Hmmm, good subject.

Cheers,

Steph#2
The Tardy One.

[SarahJF]

This is fascinating. It beautifully explains to me that, just like visual artists (not that I really thought it would be any different), all poets are going to have a different idea not only about what one is talking about but argue about the concepts surround it.

Hurray for that (without informed discussion and debate the world would be duller than a stick). Anyway, I'm going to print all this off and look at it properly.

Personally, by the way, I wouldn't try to experiment until I felt happy that I fully understood the structure behind any art form. So, I can happily abstract an image of an apple on paper, paint it, play with it, because I feel qualified to actually draw that apple reasonably accurately (although draughtsmanship isn't my strongest point).

In poetry, I don't personally know enough about the basics of the art to feel that any 'experimental' poems I produced would be more than silly. Having said that, I'd like to understand enough of the bones to be able to flesh out the skeleton, then dissect it, and put it back together in a totally different way. Playing around is fun, but playing around to actually create something worthwhile, in my mind, takes ooodles of time. But you have to learn about something before you can happily free your mind of it, maybe?

I'm personally always wary of trying to make a 'finished' piece. If I'm talking of more mature creations, then I like to make happily, and then engage my mind (the hard work) to batter the thing into some sort of 'real' sense for an audience. And then there's the pitfall of over-tweaking. Oh well...

(and goodness knows what 'framing' would be in poetry. Trying to use a verse form to validate something that isn't very good???)

[Harry R]

how you doin’ Harry?

Actually, I had another idea in the shower this morning.

*fingers crossed to prevent jinxing*

Harry

[Kaltica]

Hi, Rik,

Good hearing from you, as always.

Originally posted by Kaltica: On the subject of "finished poems", I'm with M.E. Hope. "Da poem ain't did until da poet is dead." Anyone who has seen Mount Rushmore knows that this is true of other art forms as well.
This is certainly one school of thought. Typically, I disagree with it. In my view, the poem is done when the poet loses interest in it.

But unless the poet dies there is no guarantee that the poet (and their interest) will not return to it. Not even publication has safeguarded poems from subsequent and, no doubt, unforeseen revision.

And a poem revisited after 10 or 20 years is a new poem.

When I return to a poem after 20 minutes or 20 years, it is the same poem: the same words always leap out of the page at me. The poet may have changed. The world may have changed. In rare cases, yes, the language itself may have changed. But, no, the poem never revises itself. I grant you that my poems generally age about as well as fish. All the more reason to revisit and, yes, revise them. Or bury them.

On the subject of experimentation, if we accept the notion that poetry is lateral thinking listed vertically, the idea of experimentation is already integral. All art, including (if not especially) poetry, is experimental. Poetry is always a trial balloon filled with hot air (i.e. language) appearing in an occasionally unique, new form.
I disagree with this as well. I believe that the poem is the tool used to communicate image, emotion, story, revelation, (whatever) between two minds.

Of course. The purpose of the trial balloon is, indeed, for people to see it and have an understanding of it. Insofar as the word "communicate" is concerned, I agree with its use for "image" and "story" but would prefer "inspire" with "emotion". As for "revelation", don't get me started!

A good poet knows exactly how to fashion the work to achieve the required effect.

This statement presumes both of the following:

1. Every poem that this "good" poet writes "hits the mark".

2. Every (moderately sophisticated) reader will derive precisely the effect that this poet intended.

To this I would respond that:

1. No poet that I can name is that "good".

2. It isn't entirely clear that any poet should want to be that "good".

Speaking for myself, I prefer poets who occasionally fail--not because it makes them human but because its shows that they continue to experiment. I certainly don't define a "successful" or "good" poem as one on which all interpretations agree. "Unidimensional" is the term that I would use, and rarely in a flattering context.

A quick glance at PFFA's own "Experimental" section pretty well confirms this in my mind; there is little there that one might not see in PFFA's critical forms or on other sites. Indeed, IMHO, "experimental poetry" may be as redundant as saying "an experimental experiment".
Check out the guidance for the experimental forum. There are a few pieces in that forum which (in my view) deserve their place therein.

I did read the guidelines for the experimental forum. And, yes, some of the pieces there are clearly experimental. So are many in the forums that I mentioned. More to the point, the latter don't look out of place there.

Insofar as planning is concerned, this is shadow-boxing's undercard. We list our candidate themes (vertically) in some order that makes sense to us. We then look (laterally) at the spaces between these themes for new contrasts, similarities, relationships, uses and/or views of the themes.
Everyone has their own preferred route into the realms of creativity.

Agreed. In my experience, though, if that route to creativity does not include significant time spent on examining alternative expressions and strict attention to thematic relationships the "off-the-cuff" results are best relegated to the Pink Palace of Poetitude.

After the planning comes the main event: writing the damned thing. The same process continues: list the lines of our current draft vertically on screen or page and start looking around (laterally) for alternative candidate terms and phrasings. This is where that other truism comes into play: "Poetry lies between synonyms."
Inspiration can certainly help the crafting process. But I still believe it's 98% craft.

On this we agree.

Best regards,

Colin