Jan 21, 2009
Give her a break! On a popular level, being the inauguration’s poet must be near thankless.
Yesterday, Elizabeth Alexander submitted her creativity to millions of listeners, most of whom, if not downright antagonistic toward poetry, are decidedly indifferent.
* * * * *
Without going over the details of Elizabeth ALexander’s poem yesterday, I have two suggestions about the state of contemporary English poetry which might could guide this discussion:
[1] it is not great because it does not offend; instead it chooses to be effete and esoteric.
[2] it does not offend because it does not seek to do what art has always sought to do: speak truth powerfully and prophetically.
BTW, any of your father’s poems which I have heard in the last two or three years are 10,000 times more artistic and power than the inaugural poem made yesterday.
One man’s opinion.
Less windily: any poetry which does not operate “on the popular level” has missed the point.
I thought the poem was quite good.
good poem, a thundering sea of snapping fingers would have capped off the moment:)
I’ve heard oddly little public response to the poem. In fact, the station I was watching cut to commentary and were already analyzing the president’s speech, speaking right OVER the poet. I had to change channels to even hear the poem.
I agree with Mr. Turk above. I think I found Ms. Alexander’s poem unenjoyable because it was neither powerful nor lucid.
I had high hopes; she had a wonderful opportunity to be moving and weighty with her words and imagery.
It didn’t live up to the occasion.
I thought it was just me. I’ve enjoyed other inauguration poems…I can even remember Maya Angelou reading hers. But then I was captured by her reading of it. I wonder what someone else with a better delivery could have done with this one.
my daughter was at the inauguration and she said that as soon as the inaugural address was over the sea of people ran for the metros. So, I don’t know that the people left because of their aversion to the modern poet so much as they saw what they came for and… “Now get me a seat on that metro!” :)
While many poets are writers and not performers, poetry is something that (IMO) ought to linger. It’s okay (even right?) to hang on lines and words the way Ms. Alexander did.
The idea that popular poetry somehow misses the point seems a leeetle problematic. What’s unpopular about Robert Frost (generally speaking)?
initially, her poem left me unimpressed – but mainly because of her delivery.
then I realized . . . she is speaking through loud speakers to millions of people over a large area.
the only chance she had to be heard in that situation was to be really clear with her words . . . so I will cut her some slack on that.
For me, it was more an issue of delivery. While certainly not a stellar work of art, I found it enjoyable.
Occasional poetry, especially for performance at massive public occasions, is such a quixotic enterprise. If I had my druthers, the poet laureate (or one hand-picked by the president) would choose and recite a poem from the wealth of American poetry matched to the occasion. I’d love that.
This is what made Robert Frost’s reading at the Kennedy inaugural such a . (Sorry, couldn’t find audio or video of it yet.)
And Maya Angelou, Miller Williams, and Elizabeth Alexander are all better poets than they were inaugural poets.
KP
Oops, sorry! Messed up that hyperlink pretty good.
I will agree with many people: I think it was the delivery that got the best of her. Poetry, read it like you mean it, like it is alive to you, not just words on a page.
I don’t know. I don’t give her a break merely because she is a poet. I think the fact that people have opinions on the poem means they did pay attention to it (as opposed to the stations that spoke right over it… that was frustrating). I have an opinion on the poem. As I do on other works of art. I didn’t like it. Regardless of the delivery … it just wasn’t my style or preference. I suppose that’s okay?
KP –
The older I get, the more I am (begrudgingly) inclined to agree with you about Angelou.
I don’t think that gives contemporary American poetry a pass. You might not, either, but I am sort of disoriented right now that somebody in the comments here at Abraham’s blog agreed with me (even if it wasn’t you) (c:
I freely admit to being a Philistine. However, my Philistinism does not extend to a lack of appreciation for good delivery. Hers was not; and it was the sheer stiltedness of the delivery which made me turn off. If she was not going to be able to deliver it as though she meant it, she should have got someone else to read for her; as it was, the lack of ability to communicate meaning resulted in a lack of meaning being communicated.
However, it did make for a stark contrast with that dude they had talking about change and hope and stuff. What was he doing there again? ; )
KP- I agree. I liked that poem, but having read Alexander before, I thought this poem was not her best, and not well delivered. But I like some of her other poems. And it must be a very difficult task to have to compose an inaugural poem. It’s hard enough for me to compose my own pieces let alone ones that will be read before 2 million people. I think a thick skin is a requirement for a poet.
I also think that people didn’t like the poem much maybe because they might not understand Alexander as a poet. I had to think for a long time about the poem, and read a little bit about where she comes from in terms of her poetic influences to really see the poem in the light I think it deserved. And after I did that, it made sense to me. But I love poetry, and I enjoy doing things like that. Not everyone does.
But its perfectly alright not to enjoy a poem because it’s not one’s style. And some people don’t enjoy poetry at all, although I wish they did. And that’s OK, too.
I tend to agree with Frank and Brian.
And I like KP’s idea.
While I’m glad they included a poem in the festivities, I was disappointed by it, and not only because of the delivery.
My disappointment might be a little unfair, though, since while I was watching and listening, I was also sorting through some things in the living room and listening to my son’s comments on the occasion from time to time.
But from what I heard, it almost sounded like she was commissioned to write a poem that contained certain things and she had to be sure that she included them all.
On KP’s recommendation, I’ll be sure to read some of her other poems.
You guys use too many spiny words.
I wasn’t disappointed with the poem because I didn’t expect much.
Ha. Spiny words, that’s funny.
Would it reassure you, Frank, if I disagreed with what you’ve posted? In reverse order, then…
Whether contemporary American poetry gets a pass is neither here nor there to me, not anymore than whether contemporary American blogging, dinner conversation, roadside attractions, fashion sense, or editorial pages get a pass. Poetry’s a fertile morass, and I find it’s most rewarding to explore it with critical faculties but not a critical spirit.
Would you say this about music, scholarship, the plastic arts: any _____ which does not operate “on the popular level” has missed the point. I wouldn’t. There’s room for esoterica.
Finally, poets and other artists work best out of the courage of their truest convictions. This certainly means risking timely offense, a sometimes byproduct of artistic success, but that’s different than valuing, seeking or embracing offense as a measure of success.
As to whether art must *always* speak truth “powerfully and prophetically,” hmm. I’ll think about that, but I think the power and prophecy may vary.
I’ll stop now, lest you were simply baiting me all along, and I’ve bitten too hard already.
Reassuringly,
KP
You speak as if being indifferent or antagonistic to poetry is a bad thing…
Not trying to be offensive or anything, but the poem was just not good. Whatever it was trying to say (and I’ve listened to it 5 times now, and still don’t understand what she’s saying) coupled with the way it was read (like a woman’s voice on a GPS system) just made me scratch my head and laugh to myself thinking, “How did this lady get up there to read this piece of ‘poetry’?”
I mean, at least throw in a rhyme or two! That’s what makes poetry awesome!
Others have succeeded where she failed.
I can’t stand Maya Angelou on any level, but in spite of that, I remember very clearly (with some grudging appreciation!) the striking delivery, cadence and much of the content of the poem she delivered at Bill Clinton’s inaugural. She succeeded in her task that day with all of the same factors at play.
This one didn’t work so well. She really doesn’t need “a break” from me. Aren’t we pretty irrelevant to her world?
Yeah, I wasn’t too impressed. The poetry lacked integrity and unity… there was no unifying idea or device…
It just didn’t ring true to me, though the concept had loads of potential.
Hello
I’ll give her a break then. A few hundred years’.
Is there ever a time to say “Whatever that may have been, it was NOT a poem,” or has the definition of “poem” been too painfully stretched?
Because my initial reaction was “Whatever that may have been, it was NOT a poem.”
Man, I do agree with Emily.
i loved it. inspiring.
Give me Billy Collins.
Isn’t there a degree to which we all have to say the poem is “good”? I mean, she probably thought it was good, and she probably had somebody read it beforehand. I would assume then that the reader would have told her it was crappy. Even if no one pre-read it, I have a hard time believing she would read something in front of that many people on such a historical day that she thought less than worthy.
So what’s the basis of our criticism?
I don’t mean to be terribly relativistic, but if someone liked it and it communicated something to them, then it was a success. Who are we to say it was terrible just because we weren’t among those for whom it was meaningful?
I’m sorry to re-tread the same old ground, but what makes poetry different from prose besides superfluous line breaks and fragmented sentences?
Rhyming. Needed more rhyming. But then again, almost nothing rhymes with Obama.
What separates a poem from an essay?
I heard the poet read a preview of her poem prior to the inauguration, on CBS Sunday Morning (TivO’d), and she was just slightly less stilted and blah as she was on the dais on Tuesday.
I completely agree with both Sharon and Robert above. Her delivery was very like a GPS, and while I don’t care much at all for Angelou, the reasons she succeeded in her inaugural poem are her delivery, which was majestic and the actual content, which I remember finding disagreeable, but…I _remember_ it at least. I literally turned her off both times, because she was so stilted, not because of her poem.
I’m glad Mr. Obama appreciates poetry. I am not so glad for the “poetry” he apparently appreciates.
Hello, who she was reading to…masses of people who didn’t have the class not to boo the outgoing President and his wife after he kept them safe for 7 years. So are they the types who really want to hear some Yale professor recite prose that has no rhyme or cadence? I think that poem was awful, especially considering the audience. Who could relate to that? Does she not know that 9 out of 10 people who heard that would have no idea what she said or have any idea of the literary meaning to her chosen words. Not many people read her work, certainly not the masses. At least Maya and Robert Frost were more commonly known. I guess the thought going forward is…no more poems at the inauguration.
Wow dude –
I would say that any art which fails the popular test is a failure. After that, I’m sorry if you got baited. I was trying to be funny.
I think I failed the esoteric test … :-)
I liked the poem. But it would have rocked if Kanye West delivered it.
So, Elizabeth…(and anyone else who liked the poem). What specifically did you like about it?
The poem is actually better on second and third readings. However, it suffers from its strained political myopia, as if people only died to bring us this day, and not also lived for it.
You have to stretch the lines about cotton- and lettuce-picking and bricklaying to see anyone who has enjoyed the fruits of their labors as fellow citizens, rather than masters and oppressors.
The other imagery is almost at the level of prose, rather than poetry. It’s not horrifically bad in itself, imho. It truly was her delivery that failed it. There’s a YouTube video response from a young woman who, after defending the poem weakly, reinterprets it far more powerfully than it was delivered to the nation by its author.
Frank: any art which fails the popular test is a failure?
Not true.
Some true artists are not appreciated in their own time. This does not make them a failure.
Bill: some imagery that was beautiful in its simplicity. But the delivery killed it.
Like I said, Kanye?
I’d love to talk through that one, Elizabeth. I think that’s an interesting issue you bring up, but I also think you misread what I am saying.
I’m not saying the artist had to be popular in her lifetime: I’m saying that when her work comes to light — whether she is alive or not — it operates inside enough levels to engage both the populist tastes (which will be at least more “pragmatic” or basic in its objectives) as well as the specialist’s tastes (i.e. — the critic or a smaller artistic community).
Hope that helps.
I think I misread you, too, Frank, and I apologize for any snideness or pugilism in my earlier comment. (Smileys might have helped, but to me they taste too much like watermelon Jolly Ranchers.)
I think it’s an interesting question, too. But I feel strongly that there is a valuable place in every field for work that lies beyond what will ever be appreciated at a popular level. Not most work, to be sure, and not the greatest either. But any work that benefits those who can/do interact with it is hardly a failure.
I suppose a healthy curve might have inaccessible-but-brilliant art approaching zero but never reaching it.
What do you think?
I hate it when we use math as a metaphor for art.
:-) <- sour Skittles punch flavor
When I was in Grad school, KP, I used to fancy myself a budding artist — and I got over it, so consider me an apostate to art circles. Part of my apostasy was over the high-brow provincialism of the various art scenes. You know: it’s not art unless you’ve never heard of it before, and you’re not an artist unless you’re sufficiently obscure. blech.
And that’s from me who loves William Carlos WIlliams and Wallace Stevens — who are mostly pretty obscure. I think at some point, the artist has to be talking to someone else, and one hopes he doesn’t see his audience as so small that one needs the equivalent of an Apache code-talker to understand what he has said.
Frank: Williams and Stevens rock. Good taste, man.
Frank: I get what you’re saying. My sister (a bonafide, true artist) has this joke about going into a gallery and seeing an “artist” hammering a 2×4 into the wall and then taking pictures of it and calling it art. Except this is a true story.
So we have the 2×4 types–extremely obscure at–and then we have the Thomas Kinkades of the world–ubiquitously commercial art.
I think Elizabeth Alexander falls somewhere in the middle.
To be fair, you shouldn’t judge her on delivery alone.
For a great example of awesome poetry delivered awesomely—try T.S. Eliot’s “Ash Wednesday” delivered by the poet himself.
That’ll blow yer socks off.
And I guarantee there’s a bunch of people out there who don’t know T.S. Eliot from ee cummings.
Or Will.i.am.
and I don’t know where you studied, but William Carlos Williams is pretty standard fare in college Lit courses.