Entry 1116 — A Wordless Long Division Poem « POETICKS

Entry 1116 — A Wordless Long Division Poem

I hope to continue work on the poem I had notes for here yesterday but for some reason got working on the following instead of it this morning:

WordlessMathPoem02

It will be part of my next Scientific American blog entry.  I’ll be using it as part of another lesson in mathematical poetry taxonomy–an illustration of something without verbal language that is nonetheless a poem.

It seems to me appealingly goofy.  To understand it, you need to guess what the circle represents.  And the remainder.  And, just in case you forgot, pi times the length of a circle’s diameter gives you its circumference.

.

Leave a Reply

Claude Monet « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Claude Monet’ Category

Entry 1078 — An Analysis of a Mathexpressive Poem

Friday, April 19th, 2013

A few people have told me (I don’t know how seriously) that they have not been able to figure out all the pieces I have in my latest entry in my Scientific American blog, and a few of mine colleagues even claim I can’t multiply.  Ergo, I have an excuse to blither about one of my poems.  I’ve chosen one I think the easiest to defend.  First, though, here’s Monet’s The Regatta at Argenteuil.  It’s important for one trying to understand my poem to know of it because it is central to the poem (as the third poem in my triptych makes clear with a full reproduction of it).

TheRegattaAtArgenteuil

Okay, to begin with the simplicities of the poem below, a person encountering it must be aware that it is a long division example.  That is indicated by two symbols: the one with the word, “poem,” inside it, and the line   under the sailboat.  The first, so far as I’m aware, has no formal name, so I call it a dividend shed.  The line is a remainder line.  The two together, along with the placement of the other elements of the poem, one where a long division’s quotient would be, one where its divisor would be, one where the product of the two would be, and one under the remainder line where a remainder would be, clinch the poem’s definition as long division.

MonetBoats1-FinalCopy
Now, then, anyone remembering his long division from grade school, should understand that the poem is claiming five things:

(1) that the text the painter who is unsleeping a day long ago multiplied times the scribbled sketch, or whatever it is to the left of the dividend shed equals the sailboat shown;

(2) that the sailboat is larger in value that either the painter or the sketch;

(3) that the addition of the letter fragments under the remainder line to the sailboat image makes the sailboat equal the poem referred to above it;

(4) that the the sailboat should be considered almost equal to the poem;

(5) that the letter fragments, or whatever it is that they represent must be less in value than any of the other elements of the poem with the possible exception of the quotient.

(2) and (5) are decidedly less important than the other three, but can still be important.

I could easily claim that the poem is wholly accurate mathematically by giving the painter a value of 2, the sketch a value of 7, the sailboat a value of 14, the fragmented letters a value of 3 and the poem a value of 17.  Arbitrary?  Sure–but by definition as Grummanomical values of the elements mathematically correct however silly.  (And I would contend that if I had time, I could given them Grummanomical poetic values most people would find acceptable, and–in fact–I believe one of the virtues of such a poem is that it will compel some to consider such things–at least to the extent of wondering how much value to give a painter’s activity, how much to a sketch, and whether a poem is genuinely better than either, or the like.)

7into17

I am including the above in my entry to help those a little fuzzy about long division (and I was definitely not unfuzzy about it when I began making long division poems, and still sometimes have to stop and think for more than a few minutes at times to figure out just what one of my creations is doing).   My poem imitates it in every respect except that it does what it does with non-numerical terms rather than with numbers.  I hope, however, that someone encountering it without knowing much or anything about such poems will at least find things to like in it such as the little poem about the painter, or the idea of the childish sketch as perhaps the basis of what would become a Grand Painting.  Some, I believe, would enjoy recognizing the sailboat as the one in Monet’s masterpiece, too.  But what is most important aesthetically about the work is what it does as a mathematical operation.  That operation must make poetic sense if the work is to be effective.  Needles to say, I claim it does.

To consider the question, we must break down the long division operation the poem depicts into its components.  First of all, there is the multiplication of the sketch by what the painter is doing to get the sailboat–the painting of the sailboat, that is, sketch times something done by a painter almost having to yield a picture of some sort.  Does this make sense?  Clearly, a painter must carry out an operation on some initial sketch or idea or equivalent thereof to get into a painting, so I don’t see how one can wholly reject painter operating on sketch yields portion of painting as analogous to . . . 2 operating on 7 to yield 14.  But there is more to it than that, if only to those of us who think of multiplication as magic, and are still in touch with the way we felt when the idea that 2 times 7 could make 14 was new to us.  That is, just after we had internalized the remarkable mechanism for carrying out multiplication.  For us, the poem’s painter is using his painting mechanism to hugely enlarge a sketch the way the operation of multiplication (usually) hugely enlarges a number.  Doing so in a kind of concealed magical way unlike mere addition does.  A three-dimensional way.

At this point, the question arises as to whether the sailboat nearly equal to a poem.  That’s obviously a subjective matter.  Those who like sailboats (and poems) will tend to say yes.  Note, by the way, that “poem” here does not mean what I say it mean verosophically, but as what one of my dictionaries has it: “something suggesting a poem.”  Here the context–a work of art–makes it impossible to take the word literally,–and moreover, of taking it to mean not just something suggesting a poem, but something suggestion a master-poem.

Well, not quite here: the penciled informality of the word, “poem,” counters the idea that a super-poem is being referred to, and the sailboat is only a black and white portion of a great painting, not a great painting by itself.  We know it’s on its way to being that, but the multiplication is only telling us of it as a pleasant step, not anywhere close to being a realized goal.

The remainder, fragmented words, add very little to it, but we will later see that they are fragments of the phrase, “the faint sound of the unarrestable steps of Time.”  Again, it’s a subjective matter as to whether these words could deepen anything sufficiently to enable it to suggest a poem.  I say it does.  But even if not, I think it would be hard to claim that the addition of such words to a visual image could not be called a plausible attempt to mathematically increase the image’s value.

In conclusion, I claim that the poem carries out the operation of long division in two steps, one multiplicative, the other additive, to valuable aesthetic effect.  Elsewhere I have shown how, according to my thinking, it will put someone one appreciative of it into a Manywhere-at-Once partly in the verbal section of his brain and partly in the mathematical section of it.  The next poem in the triptych goes somewhat further; the sequence’s final poem brings everything to a climax–I hope.

.

Entry 931 — Continuing the Monet Sequence

Friday, November 23rd, 2012

Finally into my creative-flow zone this morning after thinking I never again would be, I produced the following, which is the fourth frame in a sequence devoted to Monet I hope to continue:

Here’s the frame just before the above one, to provide context:

I’ve had it here before, I’m pretty sure, but if you look carefully, you’ll see a few small changes I’ve made to it since then.  I still think it’s stupendously fine.  Urp.

.

Poetry News « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Poetry News’ Category

Entry 1227 — A New Anthology

Saturday, September 28th, 2013

Yesterday Jeff Side announced the e.publication of Shadows of the Future,  an anthology of otherstream poetry (or, in some cases–in my possibly excessively picky opinion–almost otherstream poetry) edited by Marc Vincenz, and published by Argotist Ebooks.  So I’m going to use this entry for some words about it instead of going on to the second part of my investigation of protozoa.  That I will do tomorrow, assuming I choose to continue my investigation (and I hope I do–nothing more valuable for the ol’ brain than a plunge into something you don’t know hardly nothin’ about).

Interesting.  When looking for what categories to assign this entry to, I found I had none for “Poetry.”  I do now.  So I can bring up that subject to tell you the anthology has 120 works, almost all of them poems by my definition, on 166 pages . . .

and here a digression to complain about my stupid computer (or, yeah, my stupid inability to know how use it):  I would like to be able to click from here to the anthology the way I can click from here to a file on my word processer or anywhere else but totally out of it.  There must be a way to save it as a regular file I can access on my word processer; if so, I’m ignorant of it.  So I have a second copy of this entry on the slot (can’t remember its name) with everything I can click to on it.  To get to the anthology, I go to that entry, and click the link in it to the anthology.  Very annoying.

Back to the anthology now.  Marc has a nice one-page forward in it.  Following it is a page-and-a-half introduction to it by me which is just my standard boilerplate about the refusal of the Establishment to so much as acknowledge the existence of the Otherstream.  Basically it’s a polemic intended to annoy estabniks enough to make them reply to it.  It has little chance of doing that but what else can I do?  I think it presents a good definition of the establishment, though.

My only real disappointment with the anthology is how little visual poetry is in it–but that was because, for some reason, few visual poets submitted anything to it.  There were visual poems by seven people–and textual poems by five people like mIEKAL aND who often do visual poetry.  In all, 37 had works in the anthology.  When going through it doing my counts, I spent a few minutes with my own poems.  One of them disturbed me:  I decided it was wrong!  Here is the wrong version:

Mapling

 

I doubt anyone but I would see what is wrong (crucially wrong, in my view) with this, but just for the fun of it, I won’t say more about it, nor show the corrected version for a while.

I’m too worn out from being too worn out to say much more about the anthology.  Before signing off, though, I want to recommend it strongly.  It’s an excellent tour of what’s going on in the vast countryside beyond the borders of the mainstream.  The vispo cover by David Chirot is worth the trouble of clicking to it alone!  That one work will give you more to wander through thoughts and feelings about by itself than the entirety of most mainstream anthologies of contemporary poetry.

.

Entry 874 — Have I Sold Out?

Thursday, September 27th, 2012

The other day I learned that the Harriet Blog run by Poetry had somehow come across my Scientific American guest blog and given it a nice positive write-up here.  The good of this is that it means a little more exposure for the otherstream, and more credibility for it with . . . well, those who ignore everything that is not properly certified by higher-ups.  The bad of it, of course, is its scaring me with the possibility that what I’m involved with is now at Poetry’s level.   That’s not a genuine worry.  If Harriet says something good about this blog, though, I will worry.  It’s got no seal of approval on it like “Scientific American.

To be honest, I’m pleased that the Harriet staff seems to have sincerely liked my blog entry.  People like those on it and the more advanced readers of Poetry are the audience I’m trying most to capture with my mathpo blog.  So, no more about it.

Entry 623 — My Decline « POETICKS

Entry 623 — My Decline

Well, according to astrology, I’ve begun to decline vocationally after reaching my peak a week or two ago.  It wasn’t much of a peak.  I got my art on display, but doubt that more than a handful of people have looked at it, and probably no more than one or two has really looked at it.  I haven’t been very productive, either.  I’m going to return to my Shakespeare book today (after a little head-start last night).  My intention is to either finish it, or–if I have significant trouble with it–switch to another project of mine, a non-fiction book that may be of general-interest but I’ll say no more about–to keep its theme, which is original, I think, and will be its main selling point, a secret.  I will say that it’s about life in general, not about Shakespeare, psychology or poetics. 

To make this entry more than a diary entry, here’s a poem of mine from a year or so ago.   I posted it then, but just now made a slight change to it, making a whole new poem.  I changed “full” to “certain.”  I decided the implication that I’d come to understand everything was dumb.  Now what kind of understanding I’d achieved is unclear, but should come across as Important.  I don’t know whether this poem became visual later; I don’t think it did.  I think it may work best as is, but who knows.

.

Leave a Reply

Entry 588 — Back to “the the” « POETICKS

Entry 588 — Back to “the the”

 A brand-new mathemaku I got the simple idea for a few days ago and made on my computer yesterday.  One thing I dislike a great deal about it is that it is an opinion poem–worse, the opinion is a political one.  But it has a nice graphic taken from my Long Division of Poetry series to which a photograph of outer space taken by the Hubble telescope has been added.  A central meaning of its remainder, which I stole from the fourth frame of my “Suite for Odysseus” is “mystery.”  As you all should know, its dividend, which I use in lots of poems, is from a poem by Wallace Stevens.

 

* * *

 Thursday, 8 December 2011, 3 P.M.  I’m in a good mood.  The poem above came out reasonably well, and smoothly–and gave me something for this blog entry.  It will probably be in my show, so counts as work done for that.  But I also got one of my piece for that into a frame that can be set on a counter, which counts indisputably as work for the show.   Meanwhile, I’ve disconnected completely from my Shakespeare book.  Next, I have to get a press release for the show done.  Should be easy but I’m having trouble pumping myself up to do it.

.

Leave a Reply

Entry 1227 — A New Anthology « POETICKS

Entry 1227 — A New Anthology

Yesterday Jeff Side announced the e.publication of Shadows of the Future,  an anthology of otherstream poetry (or, in some cases–in my possibly excessively picky opinion–almost otherstream poetry) edited by Marc Vincenz, and published by Argotist Ebooks.  So I’m going to use this entry for some words about it instead of going on to the second part of my investigation of protozoa.  That I will do tomorrow, assuming I choose to continue my investigation (and I hope I do–nothing more valuable for the ol’ brain than a plunge into something you don’t know hardly nothin’ about).

Interesting.  When looking for what categories to assign this entry to, I found I had none for “Poetry.”  I do now.  So I can bring up that subject to tell you the anthology has 120 works, almost all of them poems by my definition, on 166 pages . . .

and here a digression to complain about my stupid computer (or, yeah, my stupid inability to know how use it):  I would like to be able to click from here to the anthology the way I can click from here to a file on my word processer or anywhere else but totally out of it.  There must be a way to save it as a regular file I can access on my word processer; if so, I’m ignorant of it.  So I have a second copy of this entry on the slot (can’t remember its name) with everything I can click to on it.  To get to the anthology, I go to that entry, and click the link in it to the anthology.  Very annoying.

Back to the anthology now.  Marc has a nice one-page forward in it.  Following it is a page-and-a-half introduction to it by me which is just my standard boilerplate about the refusal of the Establishment to so much as acknowledge the existence of the Otherstream.  Basically it’s a polemic intended to annoy estabniks enough to make them reply to it.  It has little chance of doing that but what else can I do?  I think it presents a good definition of the establishment, though.

My only real disappointment with the anthology is how little visual poetry is in it–but that was because, for some reason, few visual poets submitted anything to it.  There were visual poems by seven people–and textual poems by five people like mIEKAL aND who often do visual poetry.  In all, 37 had works in the anthology.  When going through it doing my counts, I spent a few minutes with my own poems.  One of them disturbed me:  I decided it was wrong!  Here is the wrong version:

Mapling

 

I doubt anyone but I would see what is wrong (crucially wrong, in my view) with this, but just for the fun of it, I won’t say more about it, nor show the corrected version for a while.

I’m too worn out from being too worn out to say much more about the anthology.  Before signing off, though, I want to recommend it strongly.  It’s an excellent tour of what’s going on in the vast countryside beyond the borders of the mainstream.  The vispo cover by David Chirot is worth the trouble of clicking to it alone!  That one work will give you more to wander through thoughts and feelings about by itself than the entirety of most mainstream anthologies of contemporary poetry.

.

8 Responses to “Entry 1227 — A New Anthology”

  1. Ed Baker says:

    Bob,
    I just went through the ENTIRE anthology… what, 166 pages??
    non-stop garbage ! You used to be better than this….

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Each to his own, Ed.

  3. karl kempton says:

    future looks bleak to me if this is a forecast. do not see much light coming out of the unconsciousness

  4. Bob Grumman says:

    Haw, I was worried that too much of my three pieces were giving off light out of my unconsciousness!

  5. karl kempton says:

    the scribbling was a side show to the shadow work

  6. Bob Grumman says:

    Not sure what you’re saying, Karl. What’s the “shadow work?”

  7. karl kempton says:

    shadow — shadow is unconsciousness

  8. Bob Grumman says:

    Now I need to know what the scribbling was–the texts? You ARE talking about my three pieces, yes? Everything in it is partially from the unconscious mind, and partially subjected to the critical consciousness. it seems to me, although I don’t really care where anything comes from, only that it seems to me to do something worthwhile.

Leave a Reply

Pluraphrase « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Pluraphrase’ Category

Entry 569 — Sample Hand-Out for Show

Sunday, November 20th, 2011

 

Mathemaku for William Blake

This is one of my favorites of my own poems.   Blake is not a central hero of mine, but I do like some of his poems and a lot of passages from his work, particularly the wonderful:

                       To see a world in a grain of sand
                       And a heaven in a wild flower,
                       Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
                       And eternity in an hour.

In my poem the grain of sand is the dividend (that’s what you divide into, for those of you who may have forgotten the terminology—and it took me a long time to remember what was what in long division when I started making long division poems).  Most of one world that might be in it is the many-color design under it.  My (very loose) idea was to say that the right kind of eyesight can multiply a dreary day into a wonderful world.  Add ripples, or an influence spreading out from that world, to it, and you’ll get what Blake found in a grain of sand.

I thought of the “right kind of eyesight” (or, really, over-all sensitivity) as being “unlessoned” or without much formal education and therefore able to see things in an unconventional way, like Blake did.  I liked the pun the word makes with “un-lessened,” or “not reduced.”  I added “lane-loving” because I think of lanes as wandery and out in the country, sure to go to interesting, happy places. 

Poets are usually taught no avoid adjectives as much as possible, but I like them.  That’s why I have two in my quotient (the top part) and three in my divisor (what goes into the dividend).   I do try for unusual ones, though, such as “stumbled-inert,” whose meaning I hope I don’t have to spell out.

I tried to make my poem visually appealing, but carried out very few visual poetry tricks,   “stum  
bled” does stumble, and the day is kind of pinched; I think the ripples ripple, and the grain of sand is packed tight.  

Diary for 19 November 2011, 6 P.M.: another okay day.  Tennis in the morning followed by a snack and conversation with my teammates at a MacDonald’s.  Back here, tired, but able after a short nap to take care of my blog and one item for my exhibition at the same time by working up a curriculum vitae for the exhibition which I could post as the day’s blog entry.  I already had one of these but it was a little out-of-date, and in need of a bit of revision.  It took more than on hour to take care of, for I improved it quite a bit.  Still tired, I had troube getting around to my book.  I spent some time, off and on, playing Civilization or reading the Tom Clancy novel I started a few days ago, to avoid the book.  I finally got to it, although I didn’t do too much work on it, just enough to feel I’d done my duty.  I made up a little for that by writing a good longish commentary on another of the poems that will be in my exhibit, “Mathemaku in Praise of Language.”  I may get a little more work done today, but I doubt it.

.

 

Entry 372 — Mathemaku Still in Progress

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

If I ever come to be seen worth wide critical attention as a poet, I should be easy to write about, locked into so few flourishes as I am, such as “the the” and–now in this piece, Basho’s “old pond.”  I was wondering whether I should go with “the bookshop’s mood or “a bookshop’s mood” when Basho struck.  I love it!

Just one word and a trivial re-arrangement of words, but I consider it major.  (At times like this I truly truly don’t care that how much less the world’s opinion of my work is than mine.)

We must add another allusion to my technalysis of this poem, describing it as solidifying the poem’s unifying principal (and archetypality), Basho’s “old pond” being, for one thing, a juxtaphor for eternity.  Strengthening its haiku-tone, as well.  But mainly (I hope) making the mood presented (and the mood built) a pond.  Water, quietude, sounds of nature . . .

Oh, “old” gives the poem another euphony/assonance, too.

It also now has a bit of ornamental pond-color.  Although the letters of the sub-dividend product are a much lighter gray on my other computer than they are on this one, the one I use to view my blog.

Entry 371 — My New Mathemaku, Updated

Monday, February 7th, 2011

Updated, but probably not finished, although I consider the dividend set:

Now to my pluraphrase of this poem I have to add that the dividend is a quotation from Wallace Stevens’s “On the Dump,” one of my all-time favorite poems, so brings that poem’s concern with the nature of metaphor, (sensual) fascination with the seasons and the final essence of existence to it.  It’s another fresh expression, too, because still a shock to most minds, and certainly unexpected in this poem.  It also provides the poem, I think, with a unifying principle, the idea of language’s being on the precipice or “soon” to (“:”) bring one to the the making, at least to me, enough sense for a poem.

Incidentally, one thing a pluraphrase should do that I neglected to mention is determine a poem’s level of archetypality.   Mine seems to me, with “the the” now in it, to do that at the highest level with the search for the meaning of existence.  Stars are archetypal.  The struggle to express oneself seems to me moderately archetypal.

Entry 370 — A New Mathemaku

Sunday, February 6th, 2011

It’ll be “Mathemaku Something-or-Other” when I figure out how many mathemaku I’ve now composed.  Close to a hundred, I’m sure.

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of this.  Whether I keep it or not will depend on what others say about it.  I made it as an improvisation using “soon:,” so as not to lose the latter due to my revision of the poem it was in.  The sub-dividend product is a fragment of my standard Poem poem semi-automatic imagerying.

It is, in fact, a near-perfect candidate for a pluraphrase.  Which I’ll add later today.

* * * * *

Okay, here’s my pluraphrase (with thanks to Conrad Didiodato, whom made a comment to my entry for yesterday that I ought to “flesh out” my description of the pluraphrase by demonstrating its operation on some classical poem.  That didn’t appeal to me, classical poems having been more than sufficiently discussed, but doing it for a poem I’d just been working on did.  It ought to test as well as demonstrate the procedure–and maybe help me with my poem, which it may well have, it turns out.  Time to start it.

After a note to the fore: what follows is to be taken as an attempt, an intelligent attempt, to prove a definitive pluraphrase of the poem treated, not a claim to do so.

1. According to this poem, if you divide “nowhere” by “language,” you’ll get “soon:,” with a remainder of “stars,  eternally listened-to.”  The poem also indicates that multiplying “language” by “soon:” equals “lavender streets slowly asked further and further into the depths of the bookshop’s near-holy mood.”

2. “soon” is an adjective indicating an event that has not yet occurred, a what-will-happen in the near future.  An expectation of something interesting to come is thus connoted, a connotation emphasized by the use of the colon, a punctuation mark indicating something to follow.  “Language” is the main human means of expression, communicated expression, so the metaphor, “language” times “soon:” suggests some sort message of consequence that is on the threshold of appearing.  The arithmetic of the poem  equates this message-to-come with “lavender streets,” or a path not likely to be real because of its color so a fairyland or dream path–through a town or city because a “street,” which has urban connotations, and because entering in some way a bookshop’s mood, which places it in a center of trade.

The street does not go in the mood but is “slowly asked” into it, “asked” serving as a metaphor for “go.”  We are not told who or what is doing the asking, ever.  A feature of many of the best poems is details left to puzzle the reader into subjective but potentially intriguing never quite sure answers.  For instance, that here the draw of the books in the shop is strong enough to invite a street, and those on it, into the shop.  It’s subtle, though, or so its slowness suggests.  And a production is being made of the asking, since ordinarily to ask something takes but a moment.  It’s important.

The personification of the bookshop as a creature capable of experiencing a mood clearly makes “mood” a metaphor” for “ambiance.”  This ambiance is “near-holy” for some unspecified reason, probably having something to do with language, books, literature, the word.  Something complex since the street apparently goes quite deeply into the mood–and, as I’ve just pointed out, slowly.  With perhaps deliberation.  Not on whim.

In keeping with “soonness,” the street reaches no final point, it is in the process of going somewhere.  Something is building.

If “stars,  eternally listened-to” is added (and the addition needn’t be metaphors since additions are not confined to mathematics) to the image of the street descending into the bookshop (or bookshop’s “mood”), we somehow get “nowhere.”  Or so the arithmetic requires us to accept.  Stars are (effectually, for human beings) eternal, and ‘listened-to” must be a metaphor for attended to or the like.  Or a reference to the music of the spheres, making what’s going on a mystically experience.  It would seem to be intended to be awe- inspiring.  Hence, for it to contribute, with a perhaps questing street, perhaps questioning street, to nowhere seems a severe anticlimax, or a joke.  Nothing makes sense except that the view expressed is that our greatest efforts lead nowhere.  Which I don’t like.  If I can improve the poem, from my point of view, by changing the dividend, which I may well do, it will demonstrate the value for a poet of a close reading of his work.

My pluraphrase is far from finished, though.  We have the technalysis to get through–and, in passing, I have to say that that is a beautiful term, I must say, even if no one but I will ever use it.  Melodation?  Well, the euphony of “nowhere,” “slowly,” “holy,” “soon:,” “into,” “shop’s” “mood,” “to” and “star,” with the first two carrying off an assonance, and the long-u ones possibly assonant with each other, too.  The “uhr”-rhymes, and backward rhyme of “lang” with “lav.”  A few instances of assonance, alliteration and consonance, but no more than you’d get in a prose passage of comparable length.  I would say that the pleasant sound of the sub-dividend product’s text adds nicely to its fairy-flow, but that melodation is not important in the poem.  No visio-aesthetic effects are present, or anything else unusual except, obviously, the matheasthetic effects.

The mpoem’s being in the form of a long division example, the chief of these, allow the metaphors of multiplication and addition already described in the close reading–but also the over-all metaphor of a “long-division machine” chugging along to produce the full meaning of the poem.  This provides a tone of inevitability, of certainty, of this is the way things truly are.  The ambiance of mathematics caused by the remainder line, and what I call the dividend-shed, is in what should be a stimulating tension with the ambience of the poem’s verbal appearance–as a poem.  Extreme abstraction versus the concreteness of the poetic details, science versus art, reason versus intuition.  All of which makes an enormous contribution to the poem’s freshness, since very few poems are mathematical.

The final function of an artwork is to cause a person to experience the familiar unexpectedly, here with long division yielding an emotional image-complex some engagents of the poem will find familiar.  Too much unfamiliarity for those without some experience of poems like this one.  Which reminds me that since this poem has a standard form, at least for this poet’s work, a long-division example–and, more generally, an equation, it alludes to other poems of its kind.  No other allusions seem present.

Part of the poem’s freshification, too, are “lavender street” since few streets are lavender, the idea of a street’s being “asked” into something, the idea of stars as “listened-to,” or a bookshop’s having a mood.  The breaking up of the poem into five discrete images is easy enough to follow but different enough to be fresh.

That’s it for the pluraphrase.  I think I’ll make the dividend “the the.”  The only thing I have against that is that I’ve used that before more than once.  I’ll probably do more with the look of the thing, add colors.  I’ve had thoughts from the beginning of giving it a background, with words.

Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase

Saturday, February 5th, 2011

In his kind blog entry on me the other day, Geof Huth pointed out a difference between the two of us that got me thinking.  It was that I need to know the meaning of each of my poems, whereas he doesn’t mind not knowing what a particular poem of his means, and sometimes doesn’t.  As is often the case, he was half right.  Certainly, I have a greater need to know the meaning of my poems than he has to know the meaning of his.  Never do I expect fully to know the meaning of a poem of mine, however.  Indeed, if I too quickly maxolutely grasp a poem’s meaning, I feel pretty certain it isn’t very good.

If by “understanding the meaning” we mean understanding the verbal meaning.  I mean far more than that by the term, though, for one can have only a very hazy verbal understanding of some poems but a visceral understanding of them that more than makes up for it.  Which I suspect Geof needs.  Does a poem make sense as an arrangement of elements?  Does it sound or look aesthetically pleasing in some important manner?

Zogwog.  I played tennis this morning.  On the way back on my bike I thought of how I was going to soar through this entry.  I had what I was going to say all figured out.  The result would be a description of something I call “the pluraphrase,” that I came up with twenty years or so ago.  It’s basically an analysis of a poem so full that, if carried out with skill, should permanently nail a poem.  I think no poem can be considered effective if no one can come up with a pluraphrase of it a reasonable number of others agree is sound and reasonably complete.   Effective as a poem, I mean.

For some reason, I’m swigging every whose where, not sure why.  Will try to get a grip on mineself and concentrate.

First there’s the paraphrase, which is a summary of what the poem’s words and graphics, if any, mainly denote,  connote and clearly allude to via quotations, symbols or other “advertances,” as I call them.  If you can’t make one for a given poem, either you or it is defective.  But there is much more to a poem than what a paraphrase tells you about it.

One thing is what a close reading uncovers.  Which should be everything a poem’s words and graphics, if any, denote,  connote and allude to.

Finally, and in my view most important, is the pluraphrase.  That’s the close reading plus the . . . technalysis, my new-today term for an analysis of what a poem does technically.  To wit: its melodation, or everything regarding what it does with sound–rhyme, meter, auditory shaping–and anything that contributes to the poem’s connotational or allusional ability (which can be great–for instance, what the sonnet-shape does as an advertance to the history of the sonnet in the West); its visio-aesthetic effects, or what its visual elements beyond the conventional shape of its letters, punctuation marks and other textemes do for it decoratively or visiopoetically; its audio-aesthetic effects, or what its auditory elements beyond the conventional sound of its syllables do for it decoratively or beyond that to make it a sound poem, if that’s what it is; its linguitechnics or its appropriate misuse of grammar for aesthetically meaningful language poetry effects; its freshification (I know, I need a better term for this, but I’m ad hoccing at the moment), which in conventional poetry is primarily its use of fresh diction or  subject matter–particularly in the case of surrealistic and jump-cut poetry, of fresh juxtapositions of images; mathaesthetic effects, or the use of mathematical operations on non-mathematical terms as in my mathemaku; miscaesthetic (miscellaneous aesthetic) effects or the contribution of its gustatory, olfactory, tactile, or the like in some aesthetically meaningful way.

No doubt there are elements of poetry I’ve overlooked.  Let me know about them, please.  I truly want to be complete.

My view, as stated, is that no poem that cannot be given a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase can be effective.  My only evaluative uncertainty is whether or not a poem for which no reasonably full and coherent close reading exists can be considered effective–as a poem.  Such a text may prove sufficiently audio-aesthetically or visio-aesthetically pleasing to be considered effective as music (textual music) or visimagery (textual visimagery), but not as poetry, which needs to be verbo-aesthetically compelling to qualify as an effective poem.  For instance, Gertrude Stein’s buttons, which are not poems but short pieces of evocature, would be effective as prose if they could be shown to make verbal sense.  Stephen-Paul Martin did that for one of them to my satisfaction in a book whose title escapes me, and someone else did the same for another, I vaguely recall.  Marjory Perloff failed to do it for a number of them.  As is, the most you can say for them is that they may be somewhat effective pieces of music.

Getting back to how much a poet should know about his own poems, I don’t think he ought to make a pluraphrase of everyone of them.  I haven’t of mine.  But he ought to have some feel for whether a poem of his could be pluraphrased, and whether at least some of its elements were superior.  I’m sure that most poets know these things in some way.  Sometimes intense analysis is necessary, I think.  Unless a single pleasing effect is enough for you, and you don’t care about the unifying principle I believe every poem needs to make it to the top.

My temperament is such that I enjoy analysis.  I find it almost always useful.  True, sometimes one’s analysis can lead one astry.  More often it helps, I believe.  I now believe it has with regard to the mathemaku Geof posted of mine in his little celebration of my birthday the other day.  The version he posted almost convinced me I should have “soon:” as its quotient instead of “Persephone.”  Last night, thanks to analysis, to trying to fathom the full meaning of the poem, I concluded I was wrong.  “Persephone” is definitely better.  The quotient times “mystery” is supposed to equal the springlike effect of language on the world, according to my analysis, so multiplying it by “Persephone,” the goddess of spring, will clearly allow this while multiplying it by “soon:” will not clearly do it.  The idea of soon something will follow won’t suggest it to many, I don’t think.  And although I tried hard to think of how language could be thought to have anything to do with “soonness,” I couldn’t.  Nor did mystery.  If it had, then “soon:” wouldn’t have had to.  “Persephone” may be a tick too overt, but I’d rather be too clear than unclear.  Besides, it’s “Persephone” in its sole hard copy publication.

* * *

On my bike, I imagined I’d be able to make this entry a wonderful source for students of poetry that no college could be without.  It didn’t work out that way.  I do hope to return to it sometime and improve it.

Entry 386 — 4 Mathemaku from c. 2005 « POETICKS

Entry 386 — 4 Mathemaku from c. 2005

As of part of my continuing neurotic habit of adding small projects to my over-extendedness, I began going through my old blog entries to find out when I made various mathemaku of mine, for I posted all of them at my blog, I think, as I finished them (and even when sketching some of them, as well as when revising them).  I’m now up to my 600th entry.   I was happily reminded of the many frames I’ve done for my Long Division of Poetry sequence: around thirty, I’m pretty sure.  I found one sub-sequence that I quite like and don’t think I’ve ever posted as a sequence:

.

.

.

I’m not sure whether or not the following frame should be considered at extension of this little sequence.  Originally, I added it simply because I thought it nice, but not worth an entry to itself.  Now I begin to see how it may connect to the other two. . . .

.

Not that any woman ever drove me to drink.  Wait, women were the reason I drank: I only went to bars for the strippers, except the few times I wanted to watch Lakers’ games before I had a television.  I drank more beers (always beers though I never liked the taste of beer) than needed to cover the cost of being there mainly to make the strippers look good.

3 Responses to “Entry 386 — 4 Mathemaku from c. 2005”

  1. Kevin Kelly says:

    You’re going to upset the feminists with that last comment, mister. By the way, the copy editor in me tells me there is some grammatical hell going on in your opening graph for this entry — i.e. “now” disguised as “not,” and read the first sentence out loud to yourself. Regarding the mathemaku, I think the first one is perfect already, and the others are unnecessary.

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Well, thanks for the copy editing, Kevin. As for your literary criticism, I’m afraid I have over 30 other divisions of “poetry” logic would require you to say were unnecessary. But no problem: now that you’re a Californian, your literary opinions don’t count no more.

    Note, despite your comment, I have approved you as a commenter here. Just shows what kind of person I am, right?

    –Robbit

  3. Kevin Kelly says:

    You seem to be implying that you can outperfect perfection. That’s so Grummanly of you.

Leave a Reply

Entry 610 — Three Days Away! « POETICKS

Entry 610 — Three Days Away!

I expect everyone reading this to come visit.

 Diary Entry

Friday, 30 December 2011, 4 P.M.  Early in the morning I ran another horrendous mile.  I had to push jiust to keep going nearly every step of the way.  Later I printed twenty hand-outs (in full color!) for my show, and printed copies of the agreement for my exhibition I have to sign.  I listed the works I’ll be showing.  I need to add their measurements and how much I’m selling them for.  I keep changing my mind about that.  I believe I’ll probably take $100 for most of the 8.5 by 11 ones.  $600 for “Mathemaku for Ezra Pound” and “Mathemaku for Scott Helmes.”  Not that I’d get even $100 for them.  I’m thinking signed prints of my “Long Division Valentine, No. 1″ for $20.  I found a loose-leaf binder to hold my explanations.  Then, amazingly, I found my hole-puncher.  Easily.  I figured I’d have to buy one the way things vanish around here, expecially things I haven’t used for over a year.  I don’t think I’ve used the hole puncher for ten years.  I’ve also spent a lot of time putting two old essays from Comprepoetica into the “Pages” of this blog.  I’ve been busy, just not very effectively.

.

Leave a Reply

Aesthetics « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Aesthetics’ Category

Entry 491 — Rough Sketch of Another Poem

Saturday, September 3rd, 2011

This one I call “Cursive Mathemaku No. 3.”

 

This is another one that, so far, I like a lot.  I even think it should be popular!  In any event, there’s a lot more work I have to do–color the writing (I’m pretty sure) and work out background.  The latter will be a combination, I think, of what I did with my preceding poem, and what I’ve done with my other two cursive mathemaku.  I’m looking forward to playing with it, but also fearing to. 

Entry 457 — Off to the Hospital

Wednesday, June 1st, 2011

I’ll be off to the hospital in another half hour or so.  I feel good.  Things should go well.  If everything works out maximally well, I’ll be able to make a blog entry from the hospital tomorrow.  Don’t bank on that, though.

 

Entry 448 — Another Terminological Change

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

.

Although many of my coinages sound pretentious, I always aim for ordinariness.  It’s not that easy to achieve.  Hence, “xenological poetry” as one of my main categories of poetry.  Well, I suddenly saw yesterday that “dislocational poetry” could takes its place.  Ironically, that was the very first name I gave such poetry–surrealistic and jump-cut poetry–thirty or forty years ago.  I don’t know why I dropped it.  I see no reason not to use it now, though, so will.

Meanwhile, I also realized that “vaudevillic” as a term for all varieties of jump-cut poems is unfair since some of them cohere quite nicely.  So I’m bringing back “jump-cut” to its previous position, and demoting “vaudevillic” to a secondary position as an adjective describing one kind of jump-cut poems, the other kind being, “convergent jump-cut poems.”  Be sure to update your copies of A Preliminary Taxonomy of Poetry,” students.

I’ve made a change in what constitutes aesthetic pleasure, too: one of two things, fundaesthetic pleasure or pleasure due to fundaceptual stimuli, and anthraesthetic pleasure, or pleasure due to anthroceptual stimuli.  Then there’s a sort of new word, “osmoticism,” for the ability to learn osmotically, and its antonym, “unosmoticism,” which I use to represent one of the many intellectual dysfunctions of people who don’t believe in Shakespeare.

Last, and close to least is, “lifage,” my word for anything a person uses to trade when attempting to  increase the pleasure-to-pain ratio of his life.  An economics term.  There are two kinds of lifage, “inborn” and “acquired,” the latter of which is a person’s private property.  I came up with it because I needed some such term for what one trades to another when one rents a house to the latter in return for (the lifage) of money.  It’s not the lifage of the house (assuming for the sake of argument that it is as good after the rental period as it was before it) but the actual hours of life the landlord gives up, hours he could have used enjoying the house himself and which are permanently lost.  In other words, the term, “unearned income,” is nonsense.

Entry 419 — Philosobumblery

Monday, April 11th, 2011

“If you have to ask what jazz is, you’ll never know.”  Louise Armstrong.

“If you can’t define something, either you are lacking in analytical ability or it doesn’t exist.”  Bob Grumman.

By “define” I mean describing something not perfectly but intelligently enough for others to use your definition to find and use what you’ve defined.  For instance: to say that Bob Grumman’s residence is “the house with green walls at the southeast corner of Midway Boulevard and Hayworth Road in Port Charlotte, Florida, USA,” is to define it more than sufficiently for most purposes.  Ways can be found, in my view, for you to define it (or anything else) in any greater details required for whatever your purpose is.  Eventually.  To not yet have sufficient data to define something well does not make it undefinable.

I’m writing all this because of another stupid passage in Nordlinger’s New Criterion music review: “. . . a Carnegie Hall booklet featured an interview with James Taylor, the folk-rock-pop legend.  He said, ‘A trick that I seem to have used over and over again is to juxtapose a cheerful musical style with a grave or heavy lyrical content.  These things are so beyond description and analysis.’”  Sure, for someone not blessed with a good reducticeptual awareness (and most people in the arts are not, although Taylor seems to me to have given a helpful, partial description of his art).   I don’t fault Taylor for his off-hand remark about description and analysis, but Nordlinger for using it to support his belief in things that are beyond analysis, in this case a piece of unconventional music Nordlinger quoted a terrible attempt at an analysis of–in his mind to show, I gather, the futility of analysis, not that analysis, like anything else, can be poorly done.

Only initial premises are beyond analysis, and they are very few, one of mine being “The Universe is an eternal collection of matter and at least one urwareness occupying infinite space.”  (An “urwareness” is a person’s final eternal conscious-of-existence self; I know I have one and have no way of knowing whether anyone else does or not.)  My final definition of matter, if I had one, would be my only other unanalyzable premise, I believe.  My definition of space is simply “everywhere that matter isn’t.”  I recognize that this definition is considered obsolete by certified scientists, but hold to it, anyway.  Indeed, I recognize that I’m not saying anything certain philosophers now considered hopelessly out of it weren’t saying 200 or more years ago.

Entry 418 — How Philistines Think

Sunday, April 10th, 2011

Here’s Jay Nordlinger,  the music critic I think must be the world’s worst, in his latest column for The New Criterion: “Shortly before he left the music directorship of the New York Philharmonic, I did an interview with Lorin Maazel.  I asked him about conducting very familiar music.  Take Tchaikovsky’s Fifth: Was it still glorious and thrilling to him?  He said ‘It’s as glorious and thrilling as the day it was written.’ And ‘if you become jaded because of overexposure, the problem is yours, not the composer’s.’”

It’s a variation on one of the few stupid things Keats said, “A thing of beauty is a joy forever,” that Philistines, particularly in music, use to defend their resistance to anything unfamiliar.   But even the worst mediocrities don’t perform Tchaikovsky’s fifth three times during one concert.  Boredom with the over-familiar is what keeps a species from extinction.  Performances of Tchaikovsky’s symphonies (which I loved when I first heard them in my teens) should be banned until 2040.

Entry 408 — The Pleasure of a Poem

Saturday, March 26th, 2011

One experiences the main pleasure of a poem the moment one recognizes the truth it is a misrepresentation of.

This may be my best saying about poetry.  It came to me yesterday in response to a thread at New-Poetry.  (Without “main,” which I just now added, remembering the simpler pleasures poetry can give one.

One experiences the main pleasure of a musical composition the moment one recognizes the old music it is a misrepresentation of.   The statement’s logic holds for “a non-representational visimage,” too.  And “a work of narrative art.”

Entry 405 — Happy St. Patrick’s Day

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

.

Because I’m one-quarter Irish (due in part to the O’Meara family of County Cork), one of whom came here to fight in the Civil War.

I’m not really back.  I just thought of a summa of my thinking about art and science that I thought I should make public in case I drop dead before my vacation from my blog is over.

A verosopher’s duty is to attain as good a systematic understanding of existence as he can, and then express it as clearly as he can, which is by far the harder job.  An artist’s duty is to attain as good a systematic understanding of existence as he can, and then express it as unclearly as he can so long as he is just clear enough for his most serious engagents to connect to.

I’m not saying anything I haven’t been saying for fifty years, just saying it better, maybe.

Oh, I have an announcement, too: Jake Berry has been kind enough to use six of my poems to inaugarate the Otherstream Unlimited Blog here.   They’ve all been here before, except the last.  I happen to consider them all major, even the one at the top, which I rate that high because of its cheerful accessibility.  Really, in some ways it’s as good as anything I’ve done.

Okay, only the pair just below the top one are major.  (I really can’t understand how I was able to make such terrific poems.  They sum up just about everything I’ve managed to master of infraverbal, visual and mathematical poetry over the years.)   The others are pretty damned good, though.

Entry 251 — “Homage to Shakespeare”

Monday, October 11th, 2010

I keep directing my Shakespeare authorship friends and enemies to this poem, but none has commented on it, that I recall.   I tend to think Shakespeare fans rarely are much interested in newer forms of poetry.   I made it around twenty years ago.  It was the first of my visual poems to get accepted for Kaldron, the leading American visual poetry magazine of the time (but international in scope).  Unfortu- nately, I can’t show it large enough for the small print to be visible her.

Here’s an annotated detail of it showing what the small print says.

Entry 250 — Going in Reverse

Monday, October 11th, 2010

I now know more about pleasure and pain than I understand.   My problem, I think, is that what I know seems right, but I can’t organize it into any kind of neat, accessible package.  The thing bothering me is what beauty is.  I once pegged it as simply the right ratio of pleasure to pain a stimulus produces.  Then I remembered something obvious to almost everyone but me: that there are stimuli that are automatically perceived by healthy minds as beautiful.  Nothing wrong with two kinds of beauty, but the two seemed to me too different from one another to share a name.  Next thing you know, I’d have to accept an elegant mathematical proof as beautiful.  Okay in bull sessions, but not if one is concerned with useful serious communication since a term loses its linguistic value to the degree that it can be applied to significantly different things.

So, how about calling the stimulus with the proper familiarity to unfamiliarity ratio . . . ?  I can’t think of anything.  There’s the beauty our instincts are sensitive to, and the truth our instincts about what contradicts, what harmonizes, are sensitive to.  Empathy would be what our instincts derive pleasure from when interacting with others–that which is anthroceptually pleasurable, in terms of knowlecular psychology.  There’s good, too, or the pleasure–instinctive in many cases–we feel when we, or others, act in a manner we consider moral.

Okay, folks, I have to turn to neologization, again.  “Assimlatry.”  That is now my term for any stimulus causes that has the right r/f ratio (or “resolution/frustration” ratio, resolution being what happens when a psychevent leads to the familiar, frustration being what happens when it leads to  unfamiliarity).  “Assimlatrous” is the adjectival form.  Yes, grotesque terms, but naming is the first step toward understanding, and essential.

There’s also the need for the instinctive pleasure one feels when achieving a goal.  “Triumph” may be sufficient.  No, I think “success” better.  And “resolution” for “assimilatry.”  No, no” “comprehension” is the perfect name for it!  So, I have the following pairing on my list of kinds of pleasure and pain (with which of my theory’s awareness’s is involved in each case):

instinct-based evaluception

beauty/ ugliness: fundaceptual evaluception
empathy/ hostility: personal anthroceptual evaluception
good/ bad: moral anthroceptual evaluception
success/ failure: sagaceptual evaluception

logic-based evaluception

truth/ error: reducticeptual evaluception

experience-based evaluception

comprehension/ perplexity: combiceptual evaluception

I think I may be getting somewhere, after all. And, wow, a list of terms none of which is a coinage!  (I mean aside from the names of my awarenesses.)

Entry 247 — Still Trying to Get Terms Right

Saturday, October 9th, 2010

I now propose that the three human emotional responses are instinct-based, assimilation-based and logic-based.  And I’m back to naming the three evaluceptual (or emotion-evaluational) types dionysian, apollonian and hermesian, with the claim that dionysian and apollonian have much in common with Nietzsche’s two personality types but aren’t identical to them.  It’s true that when introducing my theory I have to spend time explaining my types, but that would be the case whatever I named them.  So why not go with interesting names?

In any case, the dionysian’s primary emotional reaction to stimuli will be on the basis of his innate instinctive evaluation of them as painful, pleasurable or neutral.  A wound will be painful, a smiling face pleasurable, a nondescript meadow neutral.  Near-universal direct emotional responses to commonplace realities.  He will thus generally be one of the crowd, and instinctively enjoy the feeling of oneness with others that fusing with a crowd can give one, as is true of Nietzsche’s dionysian.  His enjoyments will be mainly sensual, unreflective.

The apollonian’s primary emotional reaction to stimuli will be on the basis of his evaluation of them, mostly instinctive, as to whether or not they lead to contradictions.  If they harmonize with his other relevant understandings, he will find them pleasurable.  If they contradict those understandings, they will pain him to the degree that they contradict them.  If they lead to neither significant agreements or disagreements, as will most often be the case, they will cause no emotional reaction.  The apollonian’s enjoyments will tend to be abstract, austere, thoughtful.  He will feel himself above the masses, as is the case with Nietzsche’s apollonian.

The hermesian’s emotional reaction is similar to the apollonian’s inasmuch as it is determined in the cerebrum rather than coming already tagged the way the dionysian’s does.  However, whereas the apollonian is concerned with unchanging contradictions, the hermesian is concerned with how familiar a situation comes about, which is constantly in flux.  That is, if a psychevent leads to contradiction X, it will always cause pain, but if a psychevent leads to situation Y, the result may be pain on Tuesday but pleasure on Thursday, or even later on Tuesday, since what is familiar is a matter of one’s constantly growing knownledge of existence, while what is contradictory will always be contradictory.

Ergo, the hermesian’s response will tend to be the most sophisticated of the three.  It will be due to the hermesian’s long-term, cummulative experience of life, whereas the apollonian’s will be due to his innate, permanent sense of consistency, and the dionysian’s to his unchanging instinctive attraction-to/repulsion-from his immediate experience of life.

Still, the dionysian response will be the most natural, the generally most rich. the most unarguably valid of the emotional responses.  The apollonian’s the most scorned but probably the one most important for establishing the final value of an artwork, with the hermesian’s irrelevant if concerned with stimuli of not instinctual resonance or logic.

Okay, I’m still fumbling for my take.  I’m getting close to it, though.