Dear Lawrence,
Thank you for the insightful and informative response. Yes, simple poems
idolising nature are indeed a risky business. And we are in agreement that
Palm's poem doesn't do that. Here's this reader's take on it:
* what's particular about the form here is the almost objective description
in the first part of someone observing a scenario from nature: it simply
describes in as matter-of-factly language as possible the poetic subject
looking at the ocean. This is the reason Palm's early poetry was seen
as key in introducing the tradition of *neo-simplictic* poetry into the
Swedish; no embellishments, no commentary, as close to objective
observation as possible;
* then we experience the contrast to the final verse: "like at the Louvre."
Here we have the only figure (trope) in the poem. The simile creates a
second layer of meaning, a domain and perspective beyond the objective;
* the unexpected comparison of an observation the ocean and being at the
Louvre generates reflection on what it is that these two situations share:
what is it that is similar in them? The answer *seems to be* the Kantian
disinterested observer, making us ask if it is possible to be disinterested
when we observe nature in the same sense as when we observe a cultural
artifact.
And , yes, the absurdity of the situation is well captured in your
commentary, Lawrence. The sense in which the structure of the poem seems to
undermine the possibility of such a disinterested perspective is brought
out by possibly the humorous acknowledgement. And yet, it is a poem, and
not a political manifesto (even though Palm had very distinct political
opinions): this fact, or textual positioning, if you wish, enables us to
hold open a variety of senses, and one possibility is of course that there
is potentially a subject who indeed *does* see the ocean as some kind of
artistic artifact. ("Those clouds mean fire," comes to mind.)
I think this is the point: as long as we speak of art we *cannot*
ulitmately arrest its meaning; and it is *this* that makes art so
dangerous.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld
https://torgeirfjeld.com/
*rock philosophy: meditations on art and desire *is now in paperback with
30% discount: order before June 8, 2019, with coupon code VEPNFTCEA30 from
https://vernonpress.com/book/770
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 18:39, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Torgeir,
One problem when reading the poem in English is its contrast to and vague
with Joyce Kilmer’s “I hope that I shall never see / A poem lovely as a
tree.” At some point early on, Joyce Kilmer was presented to us as an
example of the worst sort of poet. His poems were presented to us, and
while we were all invited to defend him if we had an academic death wish,
no one did. His poetry seemed demonstrably bad.
Havet, I must believe (on the evidence of this poem only) is far better
and more sophisticated than Kilmer. So what can he have in mind? I have
never been to the Louvre, but it seems safe to say that it is filled with
paintings of nature, many no doubt of the sea. The persona in Havet’s poem
is judging the sea by depictions by human painters of the sea. What sort
of person would judge the sea in that fashion? I think of Isaac Asimov’s
*Foundation
Series* in the (I believe) first volume wherein he depicts the planet
Trantor, the center of the galactic empire as having become so populated
that it is covered entirely by construction. The only nature that exists
is up on top of the outer structure where hardly anyone goes. Have any
of us grown so *homo sapiens* oriented that we judge all else by our own
standards? Clearly we have done that with theology, but shall we do it
with the sea as well? I can’t believe that Havet thinks so.
Lawrence
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Torgeir Fjeld
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2019 8:54 AM
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Exhibit: Ocean (was Re: The progress of poetry)
Lawrence,
Not sure. He might have commented on Kant's disinterested observer.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld
https://torgeirfjeld.com/
*rock philosophy: meditations on art and desire *is now in paperback with
30% discount: order before June 8, 2019, with coupon code VEPNFTCEA30 from
https://vernonpress.com/book/770
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 17:10, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Torgeir,
I trust that the poet is being ironic. ;-)
Lawrence
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Torgeir Fjeld
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2019 1:20 AM
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Exhibit: Ocean (was Re: The progress of poetry)
I stand before the ocean.
There it is.
There's the ocean.
I'm looking at it.
The ocean. I see.
It's like the Louvre.
Translation of *Havet* (*The Ocean*) by Göran Palm.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld
https://torgeirfjeld.com/
*rock philosophy: meditations on art and desire *is now in paperback with
30% discount: order before June 8, 2019, with coupon code VEPNFTCEA30 from
https://vernonpress.com/book/770
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 03:53, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Is it linear progress:
Kingdoms, democracies, a
Global identity, reactionary
Brexits notwithstanding?
Similarly is there progress
From Elizabethans to
Augustans on down to
Our Rock-Star lyrics?
I wondered if my task
Was to move poetry in
Another direction.
Chomsky told us we
Must enter anarchy
And I saw that we had.
Fatigued, appalled
I might be. It thundered,
Impervious to
change.
It seemed enough here
Watching her fade year
By year to find the means
To write a new Inferno.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virusfri. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
