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.
1 comment:
1. a compacting into sphere, a desire for the parts to stick to each other, to be attracted to each other
--bead attracted to bead,
the whole necklace a loop, a form of bead
--through infinities of connecting across across physical and electromagnetic scales, across everything possible to cross
tines curve into spheres
...as if, the mind says, like that....
2. An entry point sets up initial conditions of an encounter with a print poam. What is first encountered establishes some of what becomes expected; there is an imprint of first encounter that marks the experience, preps perception according to initial content, and what has already been learned about roles of the beginning.
Much encouragement for processing a print poam as a whole comes from an apparent fact of the print poam existing on a single, the same plane --the spatial placement exerts influence, for those who are able to see the print poam, even before reading begins;
initial views of the print poam on the same page perhaps emphasizes the wholeness of the poam
but what if the parts were not on the same plane?
Post a Comment