Most painters have painted themselves. So have most poets: not so palpably indeed, but more assiduously. Some have done nothing else.
~Augustus William Hare and Julius Charles Hare, Guesses at Truth, by Two Brothers, 1827
Given our discussions about art vs. poetry, reflect and react to this statement.
18 comments:
I do believe that most poets paint themselves because they express themselves, which paints a picture to the reader. Also, most artists paint themselves with the work they do. I do believe that poets and painters are very similar because they both have expression which "paint" themselves. Some people use art as expression and some use writing and poetry.
When artists paint a self-portrait, there is a tangible product left behind. However, because a poet's "portrait" is found woven throughout his or her work, there is a less tangible product, yet it is still there. Also, it is more difficult for the poet to paint a self-portrait with words, than it is for the artist to do so with paint. Thus, poets work tirelessly to put part of themselves into their work.--I don't want what I have said to suggest that I don't think artists work extremely hard, because I know they do, though.
I really like the last sentence of Melissa's comment. Everyone expresses himself/herself differently, and thus, paints their self-portraits in different ways.
I agree with melissa and kelsey's statements. I also believe that this quote could also be talking about what inspires poets and artists. Some of their work is inspired through their own experiences while others are shown by appreciating other things.
I agree with Melissa and Kelsey. painters show how they view and feel about themselves when they do self-portraits or just other normal paintings. With a painting, you can look at it and ty to figure out the message the painter is trying to convey. With poets and their poetry, it's not as easy because you can't physically look at a poem and see the message. you have to read the poem to understand the message.
A couple of things:
1. I too agree with Melissa's connections between paint vs. words to create art. Very insightful.
2. I also really dig what Kim has to say about artist inspiration--we touched on this with Ryan's Amazon shaman.
3. Cara brings up a good point. We do a lot of talking about poets and painters and how they are similar...but how are they different? What makes a painting different than the poem (other than the obvious)? Think in relation to making meaning.
Good stuff tonight guys, totally college-worthy.
I agree with everyones comments! I think that painting gives a more direct meaning, were as poetry has more "gray" areas that can be interpreted differently. Everyone has there own opinion, but I think poems are more challeging because expressing feeling/ideas/emotions with words can be difficult.
Everyone's stuff makes sense to me too. Painters paint what they see in life, hence why it's all different. With poetry it's the same way too. Every gets different things out of life. But I think the painting and poems both be difficult, because painting is the painters way of writing poetry. People won't know nesscarly(I totally spelled that wrong) what they felt why they painted it, but it's still full of feelings.
I hope that made sense..
Totally.
To me this quote talks about how poets and painters put themselves into their works. Painters make it obvious with visual works, and poets have a way of hiding it in an abstract way. Poets and painters are similar in the way that they give us a message about themselves or their views on things. Yet the way they go about it is different. Painters show us by using different colors, and textures, and shades, and different artistic tools. And poets show us by using diction, and languages, and grammar, and different writing styles. I agree with what Kim said about some art and poems being inspired by the creators own experiences and some being inspired by their appreciation of things around them. It really connects artists and poets to eachother and shows a similarity between the two mindsets of each.
Immediately after reading this quote I got the impression that the painter is not literally painting himself, but rather, he is using qualities in the work that define him. This applies to music and poetry too. For example the music to the movie "Australia" just "sounds like" it was written by Hans Zimmer in his style. I haven't checked the credits yet so if it isn't him, I give you all permission to make fun of me.
Anyway, what I was saying was that a writter's poems are characteristic him or her. That is what I got out of the Hares.
My blog fits in with aj's. I like how she breaks it down. I think that she and I are hinting at similar subjects. Everyone has their own use of the selection of utensils or wirds or objects or colors or notes and this tends to give a trend for that person. Why can you pick out a Picasso paining from a line-up?
Painters and poets, artists of time, though different by visual relations and presentation, are very similar. I do agree with what everyone has said, but I would also like to add on to it... Poets, as we know, write. Sure, all we see are the words, but when the poet writes, they write with great amounts of emotion. It seems hard to decipher, but why would these poets throw in hints, such as expressive adjectives, dates, times, and loaded descriptions, for fun? These hints help us feel what the poet feels when they were experiencing something or feeling some emotion. Painters, on the other hand, show their emotion through another outlet. Many painters paint different pictures, but these pictures can speak to us not by what they are, but by the colors used. The painter can express their feelings of joy by painting with warm colors, or painting a happy scene. Painters may have an easier chance to display what their point is, which is a point of kelseys that I totally agree with. However, as kim and amanda said, people are affected by their experiences and each artist uses their own techniques to express themselves.
Ok, this is my first time responding to this blog because we have a block on my computer for blogs for my much younger siblings that my dad put on it :), so I will do my best to figure this out for the first time. For me, Hare's quote is full of veracity. All works of art are full of an artist's thoughts simply put to canvas, paper, etc., and all artists are painting "themselves" because they are bringing their creative thoughts to life for others to view. They are literally painting their influences and their minds at work. Poets, as well, are bringing their brilliant reflections to life for others to view. A poet's works of art are expressed in words, so they are not as tangible as the works of a painter, yet poet's put the extra amount of effort to cautiously refine and perfect their works because of the countless numbers of people who they know will be critically analyzing their works (this is also done in art, don't get me wrong :), both paintings and poems have innumerable interpretations because of people's varying opinions.) Both poets and artists immmortalize themselves because they are leaving their direct thoughts in palpable forms to be viewed and scrutinized for many years.
I did go ahead and reply to the other two blogs if anyone cares... :).
Yes, I do care Hannah :)
Most poets paint an image of how they see the world around them. This image that they place into the minds of the reader is painting a portrait of the authors life. So the details that the author provides lets the reader know what kind of person he/she is. The author decides what features that the reader knows about them.
I can completely see an artists' self-portrait within their words. The fact is that the words of a poet reflect an inner person, and what is a portrait? Nothing more than a reflection of a person, which can be depicted by the person who is painting the picture.
Post a Comment