News

American poetry that rises to the challenge

  21st century poetry needs to meet new challenges. We are at the beginning of a new century, which in the past has often marked a new beginning for art. Pound and Eliot launched the Modernist movement in the first few years of the 20th century, and their call-to-action was published in Poetry Magazine. In the early 19th century, in 1802 to be exact, Wordsworth opened the era of Romantic poetry with his reissue of the Lyrical Ballads.
  However , the calendar didn’t really matter. American poetry needs new challenges because our poets have been writing in the same way for so long. An important feature of Romanticism is that once it was widely accepted, people continued to create according to this model, and the same is true of Modernism, whose style has long been mastered by people. Modernism is in the DNA of the Master of Arts in Aesthetics. Despite the variety and experimentation of contemporary poetry, it has not escaped the influence of modernism. Modernism is the engine of contemporary writing—a tired engine.
  New poetry is necessary not because we want it, but because the poet has mastered the way of writing that can no longer express the essence and change of things. Reality transcends the art form: the art form is no longer equivalent to the reality around it. A century after Romanticism, Georgian poets, whose sensibilities had greatly diminished their romantic sentiments, expressed their love for pre-World War I England: “But / The church clock is fixed at 2:50 / for afternoon tea. Will there be any more honey?” The George poets did not perceive the outbreak of the First World War, and their poems did not match the horror of trench warfare (if you want to know the reaction of George poets, you might as well read Brooke’s line: “If I will die, remember my words: /A corner of foreign territory/It belongs to England forever.” The poem is beautiful, but still quite far from mesonism). It was Yeats who injected British poetry with the stimulant of 20th-century realism, and it was The Waste Land that created the chaotic and turbulent poetry.
  The need for innovation is obvious. Whether in public conversations, in middle school classrooms, in bookstores, or in the mainstream media, the elusiveness of contemporary poetry suggests that poetry has disappeared and is forgotten in the minds of the general public. There are only a handful of bookstores in the country that sell poetry collections. 100 years ago, poetry was commonplace in our newspapers; 50 years ago, major newspapers regularly published poetry reviews. Today, there is not a single poem in the newspaper. The New York Times Book Review publishes poetry reviews in only a few issues each year. Cultivating a broad public interested in poetry is a priority.
  Over 10 years ago, poet Dana Joya saw the disconnection of poetry from the status quo of popular life, and the questions he raised in his influential essay “Does Poetry Still Matter?” still exist today. Poets just sing to each other, ignoring the existence of the general public. Since reading groups do not buy their works, at least in small quantities, they cannot survive by writing poetry, so they go to teach. However, teaching careers take them further away from the general public. Thousands of people are awarded a master’s degree in aesthetics every year, and because the master’s in aesthetics program trains professional poets, this makes poetry writing closely linked to professional qualifications. These art form classes increase the number of poems, but limit the variety of poems. The end result is that the poem lacks a strong and healthy physique, a deafening voice, and a witty charm. Therefore, academic nourishment makes poetry, and it destroys poetry.
  It’s not surprising that poetry writing lacks passion. A few years ago, I read a review of three collections of poetry in the Sunday Times. One on the pain of old age, one on bomb-destroyed Ireland, and one on the poet’s deceased father. The question is, how can the art of poetry be elevated in such a bad mood? Of course, tragedy also has a place in poetry, and it is indeed one of the tasks of poetry to express passionately the greatest misfortunes that life brings to us. Let “the mind clap its hands and sing aloud / Its shattered earthly garments,” Yeats said. But art can’t just be sick. Poetry doesn’t have to be merely incomplete, it only needs to do so at times, such as when poetry is enveloped by only one voice and one emotion. Yeats was like that. He once wrote, “70 years of life are gone, / In 70 years, as an adult and a teenager, / I have never danced smoothly.” The impasse encountered in today’s poetry is not technical failure, but mental distress . America still needs to produce a figure like Mark Twain.
  The public neglect, and the pursuit of fame and fortune, led to the stagnation of the intellectual and spiritual development of the art of poetry. While poets pride themselves on being independent, have the most recent poems read a shocking political insight? It can be seen that attitude has replaced thought.   2.
  
How I wish I could clearly describe the future blueprint of poetry.
  
But predicting the future of the next generation of poetry is like predicting the stock market. Poetry is more difficult to predict than the stock market, because it arises from the depths of the incomprehensible spiritual world. However, there is another way to do it, and that is to describe how the new poetry differs from our poetry today. Although it is impossible to know the whole picture of the elephant, at least we know how this elephant is different from the other animals on Noah’s Ark.
  A new generation of poetry is likely to be born where you don’t expect it. Poetry innovations after Modernism did not create new art forms. Technological innovation for technology’s sake is like a tail that tries to shake a dog. Whether to use free verse or metrical verse, and now, it has become a choice, each poet chooses one or the other according to his taste. My ideal new poetry is not generated from the constant pursuit of formal innovation, but the thoughts and emotions based on life experience.
  I have taught masters courses in aesthetics, and in my experience, they shape writers better. “Better” means better understanding of literary traditions and contemporary art, more proficient in writing skills, and better able to appreciate the opinions of critics that surround and, to a certain extent, promote art. Here’s the good part: When you graduate, you have a deeper understanding of readers’ complex tastes and other writers. But at the same time, such courses are often under pressure and have to succumb to the social atmosphere of quick success. They are exacerbated by the fact that they rely on a whole range of academic positions and incentives to function. Thanks to the creation of fellowships, grants, and other subsidies, those beneficiaries lost their sense of responsibility for writing books.
  Poetry is created out of necessity and impulse, and a Masters in Aesthetics can only mess with poetry creation. Artistic creation does not require a researcher system. Poetry writing is an extremely independent act, and it should be kept as far away as possible from mentors, poet-in-residence, and tenured professorships. The only valid impulse to write poetry is not to force it, but to share the surprise, anger, pain, or ecstasy in it. But surprise is forever. For poets, the sense of wonder determines whether the language can continuously stimulate fresh responses in the reader. Could the next Whitman be a graduate of a master’s in aesthetics? It’s hard to imagine.
  At an artist gathering, a researcher-in-residence asked me, “Where do you teach?” This question is not surprising, since the other artists in the room seem to be teaching for a living, even though they are dedicated to art. Teaching can be the empirical basis for perfect writing, however, the influence of subsistence on what is written (I think people today lack recognition of the connection between the two) shows that if teaching is all about supporting writing, then the overall experience of writing poetry The foundation will be destroyed. In fact, with very few exceptions, no mainstream American poet has ever emerged from academia. Wallace Stevens, Eliot, William Carlos Williams, etc., all of whom are in touch with critics in academia to some extent, but none of them have lifelong experience in academia, nor do they And create.
  In 1933, Hemingway went hunting in East Africa for the first time. Upon his return, he wrote the series of short stories “The Short Happy Life of Francis McCawber”, “The Snows of Kilimanjaro”, the non-fiction “Green Hills of Africa” ​​and the unfinished novel “The Truth in the Dawn” “. In the literary world, people usually think they should write about what they are familiar with. Hemingway is superior. He likes to find new ways in his creations and seek fresh experiences: ambulances in the Spanish Civil War, fishing for marlin in Cuban waters, and chasing bulls in Pan Rhone. Make it more exciting. Derek Wackett, winner of the 1992 Nobel Prize in Literature, said, “To change your language, you have to change your life.”
  Personally, I think anyone willing to cross a street to write a poem is very Rare, let alone emulating Hemingway. Poets subconsciously seem to be waiting for poetry to come to their door, and they see the artist as a passive rather than an active actor. This does not mean that great poetry cannot be born of poor poets. The problem is that contemporary poets don’t realize that writing is deeply influenced by lifestyle. Auden once wrote:
  God will on Judgment Day / Reduce you to / Tears of shame / If you live a perfect life / Then sing in your heart / The poem you want to write
  If poets pay equal attention to lifestyle and content, then Poetry will have a new beginning. Taoist tea masters set about trimming gardens, sweeping roads, and tidying up rooms for guests long before the tea ceremony began. Therefore, poets should pay attention to their own lives first like tea masters. Failing that, how do they deserve the title Shelley bestowed upon them as “unofficial legislators on earth”? If this is not possible, how can poetry creation become a moral act? How can poets be held accountable for the impact their work has on readers? Poets should first have a broad life experience, and then create boldly.

  In the long history of mankind, poetry has been essential to all. For those of the samurai age, Beowulf and ancient Icelandic epics tell their heroic stories. The themes of Homer’s two epics are the intercourse between the gods and the people in the beginning of the world. The ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius expressed his science and philosophy in poetic form, in which each line is a neat six-note. Virgil expresses the mystical history and divine help of Rome in epic form. Chaucer’s five-step heroic doublet paints a picture of life at the top and bottom of British society, and has earned him a reputation for his narrative genius and love of humanity. Elizabethan playwrights laid the foundations of the entertainment industry with the iambic pentameter. Whether epics, dirges, contemplations, religious zeal, satire, public poetry, or poetic drama, they all illustrate a problem: poetry is by no means limited to lyric poetry. Today, however, the monolithic lyric dominates the poetry world, and the only function of the ubiquitous lyric is to personalize readily available subject matter.
  More broadly, the purpose of lyric poetry is to realize the full meaning of being human. The lyric poet understands the world through himself. Great lyric poetry is ultimately the key to knowing oneself. Frost’s modest but famous assertion about poetry: “[It is] a species of life – not necessarily so great as to be the foundation of sects and beliefs, but . . . it is a moment of sobriety in confusion .” The lyric poet seeks self-knowledge, and through self, knowledge. Epic poets, on the other hand, need knowledge about the world and know how to apply it. This is because epics create world order, and morality is desperately needed to regulate it.
  I think the current phenomenon of lyric poetry monopolizing the literary world and excluding other forms of poetry is another sign of the poor art of poetry. Poetry in every era has its limitations. The reason for it is not that the poets have insufficient understanding of things, but that they simply do not take some things into their field of vision, or they cannot imagine their artistic value. So, I think poetry should be held accountable to the public. Samuel Johnson, from the standpoint of the ancients, pointed out that the purpose of art is to entertain and educate. Movies, novels and pop songs, the best part of these works has survived because it’s art. We love art because it tells about our lives. I am educated in joy. For poetry to find its place in American culture, it must have depth and joy.
  The Poetry Foundation of America is committed to using the historical genius of Ruth Lilly to make poetry more visible and vibrant in our culture. Through its many programs, the Poetry Foundation continually strives to discover the best poetry and make it known to as many readers as possible. This does not mean that we vulgarize poetry to suit the masses. The tradition of poetry motivates us to discover and promote the best poetry. Of course, it cannot be said that the reader is the sole criterion for determining whether a poem is good or bad. The importance of poetry lies in all the complexity it entails. For some poems, there may be only a few readers, no matter how many. Each poem is addressed to a certain audience, and our goal is to make the poem accessible to the largest number of specific audiences.
  No one knows when the golden age of poetry will come, but poetry without readers is unimaginable. Look at the plays of Shakespeare’s time, or the novels of the last century, or the films of today, and you’ll see that art entered its golden age when it was accessible to and inspired by the masses. In the golden age of poetry, readers were not limited to clubhouse salons where poets sang to each other; readers were not limited to students in classrooms. For the past half-century, these two places have been a haven for poetry. Poetry readers also exist among non-poetry readers, who seek deep spiritual motivation from poetry. Whitman said: “To produce great poets, there must also be great readers.” So Whitman wrote for them.
  Innovative art breaks ground when artists change their imaginations about their relationship with readers and communicate with readers in new ways. When Melville wrote: “I am Edmary”, when Whitman wrote: “I praise myself, and sing about myself, / What I bear you shall bear”; when Baudelaire wrote : “The Hypocritical Reader”; each of them seemed to have radically changed the reader’s imagination when Frost wrote in the first poem of his first book, “Come too”. Their names became more direct. Poetry is persisting and inheriting, and literature has changed.

error: Content is protected !!