Inspiring Truth in Art

 

As I say on top of my poetry blog almost everything inspires me to write these days.  This video from 2009 is one of the visuals that I return to again and again to see the small strokes details sounds senses . . . how so little makes so much.  In her sand animation, Ukrainian artist Kseniya Simonova tells a story of the Ukraine's involvement in WWII so powerfully and sensually that it is also a poem and a dance.   It is truth in art.

 

 

Today Mrsupole's post on Theme Thursday convinced me that I should blog occasionally on the videos that inspire me.  You may want to visit his too!  And we'll meet back here to talk.

 

 

Tell all the truth, but cook it first*

Today a poetic blog buddy wrote in a comment on one of my poems that he thinks "truth plays out best in the tales we tell each other....as opposed to raw truth..."  which made me want to chart my poems and commentaries on a scale of truth.   However,  I can't conceive the dimensions of such a chart and therefore, instead, place all my poems at one point: the point of "how the truth appears to me now in a moment after time."  I wrote a poem about this "moment after" in the lines of Shakespeare's sonnet #18:

Shall I compare my Truth to that of a summer day?

Mine is much more lovely and more temperate.

Rough truths shake us, the limbs of raw truth sway,

And summer's truth hath all too harsh a gait.

Sometimes too bright the truth of heaven shines,

And often is its too solid purpose dimmed;

And every truth with Truth sometimes rhymes

By chance, or Nature's changing course, untrimmed;

But Truth's eternal summer shall not fade,

Nor lose possession of the greatest Light it caught

Nor shall life brag Truth is of a grey shade,

When in eternal lines to Time Truth is wrought.

     So long as humans can breathe, or eyes can see,

     So long lives my Truth, and this Truth shines on thee.

*reference to Emily Dickinson's poem "Tell all the Truth but tell It Slant."

Truth and Poetry Part Three: Commenting on others' best efforts

perhaps truth is even more varied than I have asserted before
when it comes to comments

let's think about this together

Which comments do we find the most useful?
Which comments do we want from everyone?
Which do we want from only a few?
 I don't know.  I have been basking in encouragement lately, although I get little detailed information from the very short comments.  I like when people give me back a detail and interpret it.  That gives me part of them too.  Sometimes I can tell that way whether I need to do more to get my ideas across.

Which comments can we most easily make?
(Most readily and truthfully make without guilt that is)
Are we commenting to encourage?
Are we commenting to improve?
Are we commenting to give back parts of ourselves? 
I find that I can always give back a detail whether or not I love a poem or see its structure.  I can say when I don't understand--but I cannot say outright if I dislike or see major errors in facts or see overused . . . Indeed, I find that I do not trust others to tell me the truth in these areas either.  There is more going on here than insecurity.  When I obscure part of my response, I assume others do too.

And what if we are wrong?
And what if we disagree?
We have a lot to talk about here.  
I am not afraid to learn I am wrong, and I have a limited amount of tolerance for disagreement.
I don't like either feeling, but so what?


What can I do to be braver and more helpful than I am with all these thoughts about what I and others need and like as inhibitors?

Bring on the theories about stages in creativity.

Bring on the truth about human nature!

On my 61st birthday

I should be vacuuming and completing the little things I do when my parents are coming to visit, but here I am instead capturing these thoughts while they are ripe.  Just an instant ago, I wrote this poem on a theme that has been with me these past few months:  

Hitting the top

I am at the ceiling, I shall want

the days when sky was the limit--

nor is the ceiling made of glass.

I rub my eyes as if clearer vision

will assist me to rise above

like eyeglasses help me to hear.

I have roof tiles in my hands

tar between my teeth,  and grit

in my hair as I bat my head up.

Is the sky still blue?  And clouds?

Are they puffy? sketchy? still?

When did I become color blind?

When bound? What eagle eats

my bloody heart as I relish—

or try to—gifts I once gave?

I resist plucking feathers as past

you zoom and I try again to rise

in the tail of your gravity.

I am exaggerating, of course, but I feel this occasionally in the Halls of the Poets I have been visiting who have not even yet reached the peak of their knowledge or abilities in science, music, mathematics, probability, statistics, philosophy and chance.   I want to crack codes to hear the truths poets share.  Conversely, I want to stand in my own truths and admire the parade as it goes on by, proud that I used to be part of it.  

Amazingly (or not), I find many of them enjoy reading me, too—not as a relic but as a participant in their emerging culture.  It is a daily joy to walk with them as we nudge each other toward our bests. Something true is happening here and the poem above is part of it.   I have tears in my eyes, which I now know is a sign of more to come. 

Truth and Poetry, Part Two

In my poetry and fiction I fabricate stories, narrate from perspectives I could not possibly experience directly, and even--when using my exact experience--distance it from myself in some way so that the reader can not assume that I am the "I" that is the voice in the poem.  I seem to use these devices at random--and though there is always a  purpose to my strategy--I am not sure I can always articulate the reasons behind my choices.  Are my poems untruths, then?  

This question came to me because of new experience I am having workshopping my poems in two on-line groups.  The posted poems are exceedingly  good, and the comments range from helpful to outright praise.  But those who comment often speak to the writers as if they were the voice and as if they experienced the emotions and actions they present in their poems.  And the writers' responses often second that impression.  Except in the allegorical types of poetry, then, I feel out of step.  Should I change my ways, or frame my poetry in a fictional contest?  

I think, if I am not telling the truth, I am also not lying.   I write what I know, following the advice Audre Lorde gave me long ago.  But I remember also what Aristotle insisted was the difference between poetry and history: They are two different kinds of truth.  He even implied that poetry's truth was superior.  Here are his words--and yes, I am trusting the translation:  

. . . . [I]t is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen.

       Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular.

      By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she attaches to the personages. 

      The particular is- for example- what Alcibiades did or suffered. . . .

Aristotle is one dead white male that I don't mind referring to because I believe that he was trying to save education and literature and art back in his day just as many are trying to do now.   His teacher, Plato, and his time were trying to banish art and poetry and theatrical expression from political authority.  The evidence of this is in Plato's Republic, which preceded a new stress on military and local authority and seemed necessary for the obedience required in a more fascist state.  In The Poetics, to which I refer above, Aristotle is trying to establish the necessity of poetry by showing that it too has formal rules that could be quantified and then obeyed.  The Classical Age and its Ideals, according to Aristotle, had to embrace poetry as well as what actually was more controllable.

Two types of truth exist: poetry and history--maybe even more.  And many kinds of lying exist.  Adrienne Rich describes two in her essay "On Lying."  One is lying directly and the other is lying by omission. Plato (and my contemporary faith) show another kind of lying: saying words and taking perspectives that are not our own, IE acting and "playing at" as one does on the stage or when quoting another's truth.  And that is another subject for another time.  In the meantime, I console myself that my poetry fulfills some kind of ministry, even if as yet I do not know what that is.

(I'll be back to provide the links.)