# Writing > Personal Poetry >  The President will lie to us tonight

## PrinceMyshkin

*The President will lie to us tonight
on prime time tv. In his modest
blue suit, unremarkable tie
and, unseen beneath his desk,
expensive but well-worn shoes.

The First Lady will be 
elsewhere in the executive mansion
smiling proudly
out of habit.

Elsewhere in the country, things
will go on as things always have.
The poor will do as they have always done.
The cripples will limp, the hale
will run and skip and jump,
attend yoga and fitness classes, 
mind their diets.

In the forests, or what remains
of them, small and larger animals
will be hunted or 
will hunt each other.

This being Christmas,
minus however number of days,
the stores will remain open late,
their maws open wide
for the last few dollars.

The business of America,
said Calvin Coolidge, is business.
The business of the rest of us
nobody exactly knows.
*

Jerry Newman © 06Dec07

----------


## Granny5

> *The President will lie to us tonight
> on prime time tv. In his modest
> blue suit, unremarkable tie
> and, unseen beneath his desk,
> expensive but well-worn shoes.
> 
> The First Lady will be 
> elsewhere in the executive mansion
> smiling proudly
> ...


Jerry, surely you're not talking about the U.S. President, are you? Why would the U.S. President lie to a Canadian?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Jerry, surely you're not talking about the U.S. President, are you? Why would the U.S. President lie to a Canadian?


Why indeed? Or to an Iraqi, for that matter, or a Irishman?

But in terms of what influences our culture, our economics, our foreign policy &c., we are ALL more or less citizens of the USA. So if and when you vote in the next US presidential election, please have MY children and grandchildren in mind as well as your own!

----------


## Granny5

> Why indeed? Or to an Iraqi, for that matter, or a Irishman?
> 
> But in terms of what influences our culture, our economics, our foreign policy &c., we are ALL more or less citizens of the USA. So if and when you vote in the next US presidential election, please have MY children and grandchildren in mind as well as your own!


I ALWAYS vote correctly!
It's a nice poem, Jer. *{edit}*

----------


## grace86

Isn't this touching on politics a bit much?

----------


## Scheherazade

*This thread will remain open as long as it does not turn into a political debate.

Any such posts will be deleted or lead to thread closure.*

----------


## CdnReader

> *The President will lie to us tonight
> on prime time tv. In his modest
> blue suit, unremarkable tie
> and, unseen beneath his desk,
> expensive but well-worn shoes.
> 
> The First Lady will be 
> elsewhere in the executive mansion
> smiling proudly
> ...


I loved reading this. Brilliant!  :Smile:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> *This thread will remain open as long as it does not turn into a political debate.
> 
> Any such posts will be deleted or lead to thread closure.*


I appreciate this courtesy. I was aware that I was playing close to the edge, that the "President" would likely be seen as GWB and therefore evoke partisan responses but my hope is that "The President" would be understood as a type, or symbol. My intent is to say that there will ALWAYS be Presidents, Prime Ministers, &c., and they will always lie - on prime time tv or the largest most visible podiums they can get.

----------


## andave_ya

I enjoyed reading this. I always get in up in arms when people blatantly disrespect the President...ANY President...but this not disrespect but pointed query. Indeed brilliant.

----------


## Virgil

> I appreciate this courtesy. I was aware that I was playing close to the edge, that the "President" would likely be seen as GWB and therefore evoke partisan responses but my hope is that "The President" would be understood as a type, or symbol. My intent is to say that there will ALWAYS be Presidents, Prime Ministers, &c., and they will always lie - on prime time tv or the largest most visible podiums they can get.


I appreciate the fact that it was not a direct attack on any President Prince. I noticed. But you know I find political art sooooooo boring, whether I agree or disagree with the politics. The ideas are all stale, over used. Very rarely will you ever find an original twist. Look at your poem here. What in here is even remotely original?

----------


## jon1jt

> I appreciate the fact that it was not a direct attack on any President Prince. I noticed. But you know I find political art sooooooo boring, whether I agree or disagree with the politics. The ideas are all stale, over used. Very rarely will you ever find an original twist. Look at your poem here. What in here is even remotely original?


I was just thinking the same. The only word that comes to my mind to describe this poem stylistically and its content is, FLAT.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I appreciate the fact that it was not a direct attack on any President Prince. I noticed. But you know I find political art sooooooo boring, whether I agree or disagree with the politics. The ideas are all stale, over used. Very rarely will you ever find an original twist. Look at your poem here. What in here is even remotely original?


Since as you say you generally find political poetry boring, why would you bother to comment on my attempt at it?

Similarly, if it is to be assumed you avoid reading it, how would you know whether my poem is original or not? Or could you cite what you consider to be ones that _are_ original? For my part I would recommend Auden's brilliant poem re the period just preceding WWII or virtually anything by Brecht - not that I claim to be up to the standards of either of them.

----------


## Virgil

> Since as you say you generally find political poetry boring, why would you bother to comment on my attempt at it?


Well, why not. People may find the thought that political art is boring an insightful idea that they'll give some thought to. Plus I thought you were baiting me to jump into the discussion.  :Wink:  




> Similarly, if it is to be assumed you avoid reading it, how would you know whether my poem is original or not?


I never said I avoid reading it. I said this: "I find political art sooooooo boring, whether I agree or disagree with the politics." You even quote a much cited quote. How original is that?  :Smile:  




> Or could you cite what you consider to be ones that _are_ original? For my part I would recommend Auden's brilliant poem re the period just preceding WWII or virtually anything by Brecht - not that I claim to be up to the standards of either of them.


Not sure which poems you're talking about, but are you sure they're talking politics (i.e. the President) or social issues? However, I leave the possibility that one can write a good poem on politics, but I think it's rare. Plus unless one is interested in the same political view, one automatically pushes it aside. If I were to write a brilliant poem dealing with my politics, would you really care?

----------


## Logos

General Mod Note to All: 

As per *Forum Rule #6*, please do not get into current politics  :Smile:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

The thread has been re-opened! How grateful I am for that because whatever the merits or lack thereof of the finished product, I spent a lot of time working on it, trying to get away from anything too overt or specific re the current US administration but talking about politics in a general, philosophic way as the art of lying convincingly.

Here in Quebec we had a Premier (the provincial equivalent of a Prime Minister at the national level) whose primary political objective - the separation of Quebec from Canada - I disagreed with but whom I adored because he talked sense, he discussed ideas, he rarely (if ever) talked down to the electorate.

----------


## Pensive

Good job, PrinceMyshkin! I like it. It seems true and just fits.

----------


## Sweets America

Jerry, I have finally read this poem closely, and I love it! You know politics is (are?) not really my cup of tea, but this poem has a strong tone, and I recognize your voice so much in it! You have this kind of very personal voice, this way of expressing things, it just appeals to me.
I love the atmosphere of this poem, and the ending is excellent. Excellent!!  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Pendragon

Let us be at this time of year a bit generous,
And leave out the acrid taste of such a word as "lie".
The very word drips with formic acid, vile and bitter to the taste.
Oh. It comes from ants when you _will eat, believe me, if you get hungry enough!_
Let us choose to say there will be homespun variations on a theme--
You know where everyone is playing the same song and nobody is doing it correctly?
Then, of course there is the old game of what we used to call "smear!"
This is where everyone tries not to be the one holding the ball and whoever has it is wide open for the rest!
Davey Jones was spotted playing Liar's dice at a DC nightspot, details at 11:00.
There's even the mixing game, where what you leave out may be as important as what you leave in!
Sounds like the usual lineup of games.
How do these people ever get bored?

Pendragon

----------


## AuntShecky

"Political art" is that not an oxymoron? (I'm not calling ANYONE a moron.) Truly, for all intents and purposes the artist should be apolitical.
Some artists of the past and present who would disagree: Martin Amis, the late Norman Mailer, even Hemingway("From Whom the Bell Tolls," "A Farewell to Arms.") I can remember how the plays and poems of Leroi Jones --who changed his name to Amari Baracka -- were so provocative in the 1960s and now seem a bit dated.
Art is ever at odds with Commerce, and thus current politics. Cf. the notorious "Cultural Revolution" in Chinese history, and both the Nazis and Soviets would "commission" paintings of tractors and factories in order to glorify the State. 
On the other hand -- a great artist could take a current political topic and create a TIMELESS work -- i.e. La Guernica. (I think that's what the piece which began this thread with his poem was attempting.) 
The pitfall of creative writing about political topics is that it is ephemeral. For instance, Bill Maher's monologues from 1998 or so were hysterically funny then but now they are only historically funny.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Let us be at this time of year a bit generous,
> And leave out the acrid taste of such a word as "lie".
> The very word drips with formic acid, vile and bitter to the taste.
> Oh. It comes from ants when you _will eat, believe me, if you get hungry enough!_
> Let us choose to say there will be homespun variations on a theme--
> You know where everyone is playing the same song and nobody is doing it correctly?
> Then, of course there is the old game of what we used to call "smear!"
> This is where everyone tries not to be the one holding the ball and whoever has it is wide open for the rest!
> Davey Jones was spotted playing Liar's dice at a DC nightspot, details at 11:00.
> ...


*Dear Brother Dale, if I might riff on your estimable poem:
Let us at this and every other time of year be both generous
and truthful, cleanse our lips and hearts from all that we know to be a lie.
There is of course only one sort of truth,
though many colour it with shades more pleasing to them,
but there are at least two sorts of sorts of lies:
those that we utter though we know them to be lies and those
that in German are called lebensüge: the lies
that we need in order to survive,
which are perhaps the worse of the two. For if I lie
to preserve or enhance my own life,
do I not risk murdering or at least diminishing yours ?

The President and the many presidentlets
assure us that practically everything is all right,
the economy is strong, the bad guys are on the run,
armoured Hummers and SUVS keep rolling off the assembly lines
while (they neglect to mention) the lines at the mortuary 
grow long. But even here
there is a bright side to things
since those who died of hunger
are light to carry to their paupers graves.
**

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> "Political art" is that not an oxymoron? (I'm not calling ANYONE a moron.) Truly, for all intents and purposes the artist should be apolitical.


Oh, Aunty, Aunty, Aunty! If the Communists and the Nazis and God only knows how many other regimes attempt to dictate what art SHOULD be and you here say what it should not be--

are not the lot of you really attempting to do the same thing, only you're wearing your uniform inside out?

Surely the one thing art should NOT be is insincere, derivative, pretentious, trivial, ego-driven to the exclusion of any larger aims? Politics is the study or the application of power - and when art eschews any overt reference to political issues, that in itself is a political stance of sorts, in favour of values other than power.

----------


## Etienne

> The thread has been re-opened! How grateful I am for that because whatever the merits or lack thereof of the finished product, I spent a lot of time working on it, trying to get away from anything too overt or specific re the current US administration but talking about politics in a general, philosophic way as the art of lying convincingly.
> 
> Here in Quebec we had a Premier (the provincial equivalent of a Prime Minister at the national level) whose primary political objective - the separation of Quebec from Canada - I disagreed with but whom I adored because he talked sense, he discussed ideas, he rarely (if ever) talked down to the electorate.


Are you referring to Lévesque or Parizeau?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Are you referring to Lévesque or Parizeau?


Excuse me, please, if I am coy about this for a little while. I challenge you to guess. 

Yes, it is one of those two men, and the only clue I will give you is that I admired one - as a person - the other I had little use for. From your name I assume that you are either French or Quebecois. I invite you to ask me any three questions about myself and use my answers to guess which of those two men it is!

Amusingly, I have a friend - a Quebec Jew - who is virtually the spitting image of Parizeau!

----------


## Etienne

> Excuse me, please, if I am coy about this for a little while. I challenge you to guess. 
> 
> Yes, it is one of those two men, and the only clue I will give you is that I admired one - as a person - the other I had little use for. From your name I assume that you are either French or Quebecois. I invite you to ask me any three questions about myself and use my answers to guess which of those two men it is!
> 
> Amusingly, I have a friend - a Quebec Jew - who is virtually the spitting image of Parizeau!


Is english your first language? If yes, do you also speak french?

Do you have drinking habits, if not does it influence negatively your view on a person?

Journalist or economist?


But in the end my guess is that it's Lévesque.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Is english your first language? If yes, do you also speak french?


 Yes, to the first, oui, mais pas façilement to the second.




> Do you have drinking habits, if not does it influence negatively your view on a person?


Virtually not at all the first, only if they become boorish or violent when under the influence to the second.[/QUOTE]




> Journalist or economist?


Neither





> But in the end my guess is that it's Lévesque.


 Absolutely! Surely he and Tommy Douglas are the only Canadian political figures one would welcome to marry one's sister!

----------


## Etienne

If you want your sister to be cheated on, of course  :Tongue: 

Personally one of the political figures I admire the most is Pierre Bourgault, personally, again not necessarily because I embrace all his political views. But a great orator, a smart man, an artist and among the most honest politicians there probably ever was, which was probably also why his political career wasn't what it could have been. But hey that's getting off-topic isn't it?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> If you want your sister to be cheated on, of course


Well, I managed to hold back on this until now, but I briefly went out with a woman who had been his mistress (or one of them?). All I can say is this, he had good taste!

----------


## APEist

great read prince. all the stanza's are powerful but i like the last the most i think.

----------


## Pendragon

> *But even here
> there is a bright side to things
> since those who died of hunger
> are light to carry to their paupers graves.
> **


Those sad lines say it all, my friend. All that could or needs to be said.

To parody part of American Pie:

The three great things I admired the best,
Freedom, Truth, and Justice--
They rode off into a cloud of smoke in the sunset...
The Day My Trust Finally Died

They were singing...

Bye, bye to mom and American Pie,
Why stand for the Truth when we can make up a lie...
You got to remember the hand is quicker than the eye,
You'll never figure us out so don't try...

----------


## AuntShecky

Re to Prince M. on this quotation:
Surely the one thing art should NOT be is insincere, derivative, pretentious, trivial, ego-driven to the exclusion of any larger aims? Politics is the study or the application of power - and when art eschews any overt reference to political issues, that in itself is a political stance of sorts, in favour of values other than power.

Actually, that's 5 things that art should NOT be, but let's take 'em one by one
--"insincere" --Hmm. I'm old enough to remember the
lectures by Lenny Bernstein and one of his topics was
just that-- "Is it Sincere?" Bernstein analyzed some works of post-modern music, such as Charles Ives, and found plenty o' instances of irony, which can be many things, but
the word "sincere" doesn't come to mind.

--"derivative" Ah, It's hard to find a piece these days that isn't derivative in some way. Cf. Harold Bloom on the "Anxiety of Influence" and "belatedness."

--"trivial" Triviality is in the mind of the beholder.

--"ego-driven" so much for Mailer's _Advertisments for_
_Myself_, Whitman's "Song of Myself" etc., etc.

So even if it is important to avoid such things in art, it's truly difficult to find a work that manages to eschew all five pitfalls.

----------


## Etienne

> Well, I managed to hold back on this until now, but I briefly went out with a woman who had been his mistress (or one of them?). All I can say is this, he had good taste!


Hey don't be shy, that's something to brag about!

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Hey don't be shy, that's something to brag about!


Well, I would brag about the way I struck up a conversation with her while we waited in line to pay at Le Patisserie Gascoigne, and as smooth as Brian Mulrooney laying his pseudo-Irish charm on a group of journalists, I got her to meet me for an espresso, then a visit to her home and then - well, she didn't even drop me, really.... she just stopped taking my calls or responding to my voice-mail messages.

----------


## blp

> "Political art" is that not an oxymoron?


If it is, then I'm for it.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> If it is, then I'm for it.


Without meaning to put words in the mouth of AuntShecky or others who think that art and politics don't/shouldn't mix, I imagine that the argument runs something like this:

art deals with the finer conceptions of the human mind, the interesting, inventive, witty use of language or colour and line or movement or sound, whereas

politics is a grubby, messy, often dishonest, self-interested business...

(which is, however, to my mind, one reason why art _ought_ to tackle politics, to offer a critique of it either in its particular manifestation or its general preoccupation with power, who wields it and its arrogant assumption that it is the major or the most realistic force in the human project...)

To my way of thinking "political art" is no more an oxymoron than is religious art; erotic art; philosophical or metaphyical art...

The attempt to shackle, define or legislate art is possibly _the_ least artistic enterprise there is.

----------


## blp

That might be what she means, but it also might be something to do with poetry being that which does not have a palpable design on us.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> That might be what she means, but it also might be something to do with poetry being that which does not have a palpable design on us.


I've always tried to be guided by that Keatsian observation but...religious poetry has no palpable design on us? Or even romantic or erotic poetry? 

BAD poltical art is bad art... as is BAD religous art &c. &c.

----------


## firefangled

> The attempt to shackle, define or legislate art is possibly _the_ least artistic enterprise there is.


First of all, I agree with the above statement wholeheartedly. 

Art is like free speech, you either give it an open universe of expression or forget about it remaining alive. Because it encompasses the entire range of human experience, which is an open field itself, there can be no exceptions to the realms where it can operate. 

Ironically, science has blown open the known and potential limitations of human experience (although Eastern philosophy and religion had a similar perspective) and with that the limits and associations of art. Politics is a subtle human activity that we practice daily in our association with love, family, pets, friends, etc, and we do so almost seamlessly. Much of the poetry here subtly includes politics. To not include the baser form practiced by "politicians" in public office is a dangerous precedent. To not include it here on Lit-Net is a necessary requirement for other reasons than keeping art "refined."

----------


## blp

> I've always tried to be guided by that Keatsian observation but...religious poetry has no palpable design on us? Or even romantic or erotic poetry? 
> 
> BAD poltical art is bad art... as is BAD religous art &c. &c.


Well, I hear if it's supposed to turn you on it's pornography. And if it's supposed to inspire love, it's very often advertising...and people are still arguing about Dante, Milton, Blake and the Bible. Gah, I don't know. That's why I went for a sort of glib paradox. But seriously, actually, you can't really read Dante and say art can't be political _and_ good, can you? 

My favourite political artworks are Godard's late sixties films _La Chinoise_, _One Plus One_ and (expecially) _Weekend_. Godard believed he was working towards the complete overthrow of the capitalist system and that it was imminent, but the films won't sit still for that reading. The atrocities of radical chic militants are horrifying and at one point, one of them is warned off her murderous project by a former Algerian resistance fighter who could have graduated from Ponte Corvo's 'Battle of Algiers'. Undeterred, she goes off and totally cocks up the assassination. Still, the attacks on consumerism in _Weekend_ are satisfyingly blunt and unambiguous. When the bourgeois anti-hero couple are involved in a horrific car wreck, the woman climbs from the car screaming 'Aieee! My Hermes handbag!' Later, finding the corpse of of another car wreck victim, she's sufficiently impressed by her trousers ('Look! Trousers from Chez Lilly!') to pull them off and wear them herself.

----------


## Etienne

> Well, I hear if it's supposed to turn you on it's pornography.


I do think that "pornography" is a form of art, although most of what there is (and I'd say pretty much all I've seen with a few exceptions) is like Rambo (for example) to the art of cinema... if you know what I mean...

----------


## blp

> I do think that "pornography" is a form of art, although most of what there is (and I'd say pretty much all I've seen with a few exceptions) is like Rambo (for example) to the art of cinema... if you know what I mean...


I'm sure you're right. These kinds of taxonomic questions make me feel close to madness with surprising speed, so, um...OK.

----------


## Etienne

> I'm sure you're right. These kinds of taxonomic questions make me feel close to madness with surprising speed, so, um...OK.


Well, I am not even talking about any kind of taxonomy, strict categories or anything, it's not about giving a name to something. It's simply that pornography can be treated as a form of art, and should not be excluded from artistic value. Let's agree not to call the common pornography art though, so in that sense you were right.

----------


## blp

> Well, I am not even talking about any kind of taxonomy, strict categories or anything, it's not about giving a name to something. It's simply that pornography can be treated as a form of art, and should not be excluded from artistic value. Let's agree not to call the common pornography art though, so in that sense you were right.


No, it's OK, my whole point was I don't even know if I'm right. It would be easy to say, well, if it's art and there's sex in it then it's erotica, but, hey, in the end, it is what it is and I don't mind.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

The problem seems to me to be that we are talking about two different things as if they were one and the same. The first is art, by which is meant the use and or manipulation of words, images, sounds or movements to produce some sort of effect on the viewer/reader/listener.

The second is art-as-I-and-my-buddies-and-the-people-who-taught-me-and-the-magazines-I-read-and-programmes-I-listen-to-define-it...

See? Two different things.

----------


## Etienne

> The problem seems to me to be that we are talking about two different things as if they were one and the same. The first is “art,” by which is meant the use and or manipulation of words, images, sounds or movements to produce some sort of effect on the viewer/reader/listener.
> 
> The second is “art-as-I-and-my-buddies-and-the-people-who-taught-me-and-the-magazines-I-read-and-programmes-I-listen-to-define-it...
> 
> See? Two different things.


Are you implying that pornography cannot be art by your first definition? I'm not sure I follow where you are leading to.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Are you implying that pornography cannot be art by your first definition? I'm not sure I follow where you are leading to.


No, no - according to my first definition it clearly is a form of art. For the most part, insofar as I am aware of it, somewhat degraded art, a unidimensional art. The art I think that most of us accord the term Art to usually has more nuance to it, more complexity and, often, some and possibly deep ambiguity. 

In even the highest form of art, there may be a complex relationship between the creator of it and his/her intended audience. In pornography, I sense, the relationship is not so complex: it is an exploitative one, a condescending and at times a contemptuous one. The audience is the impossibly delicious, coy or unwilling maiden; the creator is the one wielding the immense, priapic, punitive or vindictive phallus.

----------


## Etienne

> No, no - according to my first definition it clearly is a form of art. For the most part, insofar as I am aware of it, somewhat degraded art, a unidimensional art. The art I think that most of us accord the term Art to usually has more nuance to it, more complexity and, often, some and possibly deep ambiguity. 
> 
> In even the highest form of art, there may be a complex relationship between the creator of it and his/her intended audience. In pornography, I sense, the relationship is not so complex: it is an exploitative one, a condescending and at times a contemptuous one. The audience is the impossibly delicious, coy or unwilling maiden; the creator is the one wielding the immense, priapic, punitive or vindictive phallus.


Yes yes, we agree completely then. I also agree with the second part of your statement, but I think pornography can be treated in an honest and complex art form, although maybe it's been done plentifully under the "term" of erotic art? I don't know about that really...

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Yes yes, we agree completely then. I also agree with the second part of your statement, but I think pornography can be treated in an honest and complex art form, although maybe it's been done plentifully under the "term" of erotic art? I don't know about that really...


Once you've used the term "pornography" surely you've closed the books on evaluating one example of it versus another - except possibly that the mammaries of the female lead in the one was size X while in another it was X+ or the phallus of the male lead was so long and thus thick, and there were these many instances of vaginal, anal penetration &c., &c., so many acts of cunnilingus, fellatio &c.

----------


## firefangled

I'm going out to get getting some popcorn and 
Snow Caps and watch a VHS tape I have 
(Fellini Satyricon, its my fave.)
I shan't be gone long.You come too.

----------


## Virgil

> Yes yes, we agree completely then. I also agree with the second part of your statement, but I think pornography can be treated in an honest and complex art form, although maybe it's been done plentifully under the "term" of erotic art? I don't know about that really...





> Once you've used the term "pornography" surely you've closed the books on evaluating one example of it versus another - except possibly that the mammaries of the female lead in the one was size X while in another it was X+ or the phallus of the male lead was so long and thus thick, and there were these many instances of vaginal, anal penetration &c., &c., so many acts of cunnilingus, fellatio &c.





> I'm going out to get getting some popcorn and 
> Snow Caps and watch a VHS tape I have 
> (Fellini Satyricon, its my fave.)
> I shan't be gone long.You come too.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Sometimes I just have to crack up. Pornography is not art, as I think Prince is saying. And before you blow a gasket, Ettienne, art can have sexuality. There's a distinction. I'm not going to explain it.

----------


## AuntShecky

Geez! All these postings are provocative, but how in the name of heaven did a perfectly earnest poem start a thread that morphed into a discussion of pornography! Mirabile dictu -- the mystique of the World Wide Web!

----------


## Etienne

> Sometimes I just have to crack up. Pornography is not art, as I think Prince is saying. And before you blow a gasket, Ettienne, art can have sexuality. There's a distinction. I'm not going to explain it.


Well I'd like to hear what you have to say about the distinction, why wouldn't you explain it?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Sometimes I just have to crack up. Pornography is not art, as I think Prince is saying. And before you blow a gasket, Ettienne, art can have sexuality. There's a distinction. I'm not going to explain it.


No, I assuredly didn't mean to say pornography is art and certainly not that it is Art! I can imagine, however, that within what I take to be its very narrow band objectives, some might practice it more artfully than others.




> Geez! All these postings are provocative, but how in the name of heaven did a perfectly earnest poem start a thread that morphed into a discussion of pornography! Mirabile dictu -- the mystique of the World Wide Web!


Given that my poem came dangerously close to being political in violation of the 
rules here, it may be that you need to read the subsequent responses with a Cabalistic eye, understanding that the references to pornography vs erotic art vs High Art is actually a closet discussion of US foreign policy? :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> Well I'd like to hear what you have to say about the distinction, why wouldn't you explain it?


Ponder what Prince says here and perhaps you will get it:




> Once you've used the term "pornography" surely you've closed the books on evaluating one example of it versus another - except possibly that the mammaries of the female lead in the one was size X while in another it was X+ or the phallus of the male lead was so long and thus thick, and there were these many instances of vaginal, anal penetration &c., &c., so many acts of cunnilingus, fellatio &c.


Prince - I meant to imply that you didn't think porn was art. Sorry if that got jumbled.

----------


## CdnReader

> I'm going out to get getting some popcorn and 
> Snow Caps and watch a VHS tape I have 
> (Fellini Satyricon, it’s my fave.)
> I shan't be gone long.—You come too.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Etienne

> Ponder what Prince says here and perhaps you will get it


What he says are pretty much my thoughts, although I do think pornography could be treated in a way to be Art (unless taxonomy would make it fall under the category of erotic art?) but that still doesn't explain your "cracking up".

----------


## Virgil

> What he says are pretty much my thoughts, although I do think pornography could be treated in a way to be Art (unless taxonomy would make it fall under the category of erotic art?) but that still doesn't explain your "cracking up".


I was cracking up to firefangle's reply.

----------


## blp

> I'm going out to get getting some popcorn and 
> Snow Caps and watch a VHS tape I have 
> (Fellini Satyricon, its my fave.)
> I shan't be gone long.You come too.



Yes, I'd join you, but I'm just sitting down to watch Borowczyk's _The Beast_.

----------


## firefangled

> Yes, I'd join you, but I'm just sitting down to watch Borowczyk's _The Beast_.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  If you liked that, try Marian Engel's novel, The Bear. I have been waiting anxiously for 25 years for the movie to be made.  :FRlol:

----------


## amuse

Gorgeous. Both the style and sentiment.

'Of' on the second-to-last line threw me off; I thought perhaps 'that' would work slightly better, then realized when I took my presentiment out of the reading, that you were saying that people are unknown, though business isn't.

Lovely contribution.

----------

