3 questions on S T Y L E and analysis

1. The actual act of reading can be framed in different ways:

When I’m reading a line, I first read each line independently for individual comprehension, but after reading the entire poem, my understandings of each line felt as if they should be linked into a common theme… Is this appropriate?

2. Engaging Content:

The line: Moreover, they are not deformed by style,
That fire that eats what it illuminates.

3. We read this line at the very end of the poem. If it were the start point of the poem, how would you frame the rest of the poem differently? How would it integrate with the examples differently?

-- SIDENOTE :: For my project, how will viewing the different images in different order affect the total experience of the project (and what will we notice in each image // look for (even subconsciously)

When reading this poem, different ideas of support arise. For instance, many questions even come up before I actually start to read the poem, such as, from which point do I begin to read? The top or the bottom? Or even more interesting, is there a particular point in the middle of poem for which it would be appropriate to begin at? These are all questions dealing with points of entry. The point of entry into any ‘obra de arte’ dictates the experiencing of the art. It will shape and form how the poam is interpreted and what emotions it provokes. The point of entry is crucial in that each point of entry leads to a particular point of exit.

Now comes the actual act of framing while we read the poem: What am I doing when I am reading? How do I begin reading? Should I read and interpret each line individually and then try to piece them together in a logical fashion, or should I read the entire poem first and not think of any individual line before trying to interpret the meaning of the poem in its entirety first? Are there any physical aspects to poem? Is there any [particularly] engaging content, or something that comes out of the poem which draws me in?

One example which I had a personal prejudice with was the Disney character. I had to edit my thoughts that Disney character falling was negative and not funny, as related to the context. The failure of the imagination is only evident whenst it is noticed. Style destroys the infinite creativity proposed by an author. It limits the possibilities of true unique expression of author because it requires framing from the author as well as framing from the reader. Ultimately, style defines a poam, but inherently destroys it.

Thus à Imagination is key.

Style can be self-supporting

But when u notice it, its failure is INEVITABLE.

La Spirale

S T Y L E

When considering “La Spirale”, we assumed it meant spiral. More specifically, I envisioned a spiral that comes to a tip for the end (sort of like a coned spiral on either end). Therefore it had its limit and structure through the style of spiral. When then taking into thought the idea of our question 2 about the last lines of the poem “Moreover, they are not deformed by style,/ That fire that eats what it illuminates.” If we had read those lines first, would you view the poem differently? How would you frame it? And, how would it integrate with the examples differently? So, in other words, how would a different point of entry affect your framing of the poem in its entire dynamic form?

I decided to try to depict my vision. I used Google’s SketchUp program, which is freeware, in order to create a 3D animation which would explore the spiral [frame] from both angles. It definitely isn’t perfect, but I feel it is a great break thought for me in only 3 hours. I felt significantly more comfortable with this program after using it. Its simplicity in use and free nature make it a very appealing program. I first made two separate animations, and then using iMovie, spliced the clips and overlaid a soundtrack which I felt well accompanied the insight given by watching the POAM. In the future, Dmitri and I plan to overlay our voices over the clip guiding/navigating the ‘experiencer’ through the multitude of frames and the conical helix.

To explore this question in relation to my vision of the tapered spiral, we decided to form a visual representation and record first an orbit of the tapered spiral. Then we would compare that to a spiral that came to its smallest cycle in the middle, and its orbit. It is interesting in comparison when you view both orbits and whenever the spiral is viewed from a top view or bottom view they seem quite similar; similar enough to consider that they were the same figure, when in all actuality they are completely different. When reading the poem, the point of entry of the poem will affect how one views the rest of the poem and the individual lines that are comprehended. In its style and structure it builds up to an overall understanding of the meaning of the poem with previous notions of understanding by individual lines have been misunderstood. à So, it again raises this question of if the point of entry effects your framing of a POAM or poem as well. When in practice this visual representation evidently justifies that a difference in point of entry will account for a difference in framing. When further exploring the spirals, the thought of framing affecting the point of entry also came into mind. If given a specific frame, are you then following the intentions of the maker of that product? Moreover, is that frame the view from only that direction or does changing your angle of viewing direction within the frame (such as shown with the spirals) affect the points of entry you have for exploration of thought provoked by the product of an act of making? It seems as if there is a reciprocal question and answer set forth when analyzing this idea. There definitely is a relationship between the interaction of framing and point of entry within a POAM. Did the maker intend for an exact frame, or is the entirety of the images in a frame open for perception?

Also noteworthy is the ideas of lack of interaction within the poem, “Style”, and its representation in the coned spiral video created and how in both views of spirals they are never fully connected in the middle. The portrayal of this lack of interaction is obvious, whereas we intended for this representation, was that also the intention of Nemerov? In fact, we call them POAMS (Products Of Acts of Making), are all products made with specific intentions?

Where could we apply these ideas and this model in other areas of life?

Back to this ‘bioframe’ however, we can see that any knowledge of the subject of them poem influence our framing of its meaning. For instance, any specific word in the poem elicits a certain feeling (which is completely individual and UNIQUE for every person), and thus, can influence the context of the poem. If I have certain emotions and/or memories associated with the Holy Ghost, then I will think of it [the poem as a whole, as well as the metaphor] differently and it will alter the meaning/reaction I have to the poem. Any new information alters the perception of the poem. Even reading about the author changes things. We are college students, and are taught to make connections between strands of information, whether they are perpendicular or whether they are parallel and have no implicit intersection -- Queue imagination and connections via falsity.