New Rochelle New York Dating
June 19: The bit of drollery just in from endwar:Poem for Bob Grumman on why there is something rather than nothing (or, busywork)Also: "That's because an amplicipient has sighght. And perhaps insighght, too." This in response to something I said in a blog entry last October: "What I've just decided to call an 'amplicipient' will understand and get 'lighght.'"
Further thoughts on this: I would define an amplicipient as one who (1) comprehends what an artwork is explicitly and implicitly saying as an expression of some person's outlook on some aspect of existence (not perfectly but reasonably well); (2) understands what the artwork is doing as a man-made mechanism (npbrw); (3) is capable of feeling what it says and does; and (4) can, at some point, do all three of these things at the same time (npbrw).
That formulation may need work. Endwar got me thinking, too, with his response to my remarking that that following 5/7/5 (by me) was not my idea of a haiku:
intellectual
decipherability,
insidiously
Asked he, "Could it be a haiku even if it isn't your idea of a haiku?"
Yes and no. I do believe there are certain objective defining features of a given item-X that are, to all intents and purposes, absolutely applicable to item-X. These are features that just about all those knowledgeable in the appropriate field agree the thing should have to qualify as item-X. For a haiku, two of the features would be, (1) having aesthetically significant words, and (2) not having more than some low number of syllables--25, for sure. I further hold that nothing failing to have those two features is a haiku. The world's definition must be absolute for the sake of communication.
The question with the above would be whether its words are aesthetically significant. I would say no, not by my definition of aesthetic significance. But others might disagree, not subscribing to my definition of the latter, or believing the words are aesthetically significant according to it. That is, I don't believe there are features of "aesthetic significance" as firmly agreed on as there are for haiku. So I would say my 5/7/5 could be a haiku, meaning for the world-at-large, even if not for me.
If there is a (3), having a concern with sensual images rather than asensual concepts, then my judgement coincides with the world's, but I'm not sure what the consensus of informed opinion is on this matter. There are other features I think a haiku must have that I'm sure others do, too, but I am not certain whether a proper consensus has been reached. And I would want a very large majority to agree before accepting a given feature as objectively required for something to be termed a haiku, or any other item-X.
|