If literature is an art and poetry is literature, in what - generally - does the art of poetry reside?

Also...when we say that a poem is `inspired`...Inspired to effect what?

I'm not sure if I'm totally following your chain of thought here Harry.

I'd say that poetry sits within the arts - another branch of literature, like prose or plays. Of course there are some who would say that performance poetry sits more within light entertaiment rather than art, but let's just ignore them for now...

When I talk about inspired - I mean affected by something - prompted by something. A poem might be inspired by someone else, or personal experience, or piece of thought or a mood.

If it affected something or someone else, it would then be inspiring.

Poetry is an art-form, and like all art forms, it has a very wide spread. If visual art can include Tracy Emin's unmade bed and John Constable, poetry can include everything from concrete poetry to Sapphic odes. Visual art includes performance art, which is somehow different from drama for instance. So performance poetry is a part of the poetry mix.

The boundaries of all the art forms are often places where interesting things happen; but lots of really interesting things also happen firmly in the middle.

Nobody likes everything that can be called poetry, anymore that anyone can like all music, all visual art or all drama. If it inspires us then it's inspiring; but it's not going to inspire everyone. Sometimes a lot of people will be inspired by something, sometimes only a few. That's OK.

We write what we write because we ourselves are inspired by something. Even the most 'light entertainment' poet isn't just writing to entertain, though that's not a bad aim in itself. We find things interesting, and we want to share them. That's why we write.

Art is: possibly the use of the imagination to make something of aesthtic value.
To raise a voice or two I could say: Art is the picture insert in the top corner of the other bit of printed stuff that we call poetry or poetic Art.
Inpiration is from two stances: from inside the artist - what has drawn out the muse. From outside the artist - that intangible X factor to which others cling for enjoyment, pleasure, empathy, sympathy, relief (that they are not alone with the subject/issue on offer), or indeed any other personal reason.
Apart from that, multiple techniques and varieties can often be grouped under the same umbrella, genre. Apples, pears, oranges and bananas are all different and yet all come under the 'fruit' umbrella. (to keep them out of the sun, I suppose! Silly boy)

Sometimes I write because I am 'inspired' by a topic, sometimes because I am challenged to do so but sometimes my 'inspiration' is because a phrase or words swim into my head and they sound and feel right so I have to wrap them up in a poem in the way that feels right at that time.

Maybe professional poets have to keep a weather eye on their 'public' and on current trends whereas 'amateurs' can point their pen in any direction. . The written/ spoken word is a pretty direct form of communication and if used accurately and punctiliously should convey its meaning clearly and unmistakably.
The skill of the poet elevates this by means of intricate weavings of all the poetic disciplines at his/her command to an art form to be interpreted in many different ways. But indeed one size does not fit all. I have my own likes and dislikes in the field of poetry but I am happy to accept all types under the umbrella of Poetry.
The big questions then are do we need to subdivide poetry further and can we look at some pieces of work offered up as poetry and reject them because to say 'anything goes ' would detract from the skill and effort of true wordsmiths?

"Professional poet..." nope, does not compute...

You mean there are poets who make money from this lark?

Indeed there are Steven and they make it in spadefuls. From what I've heard, there are even poetry divas...

good questions, and interesting answers too. When I look at the work of a powerful artist I emerge from the gallery and see the world in new ways, responding to the close observation of colour, light, form which the artist has endeavoured to convey. When I read Hardy's poems, the night has a different quality as I watch bats dart, or hear an owl. A writer is focused on exploring the world and expressing how it appears to him or her, or how it feels to be him or her, or maybe analysing some aspect we have not considered until the writer explores it for us.
But the material of this art is language, and in poetry language can be made to work in subtle ways, with metaphor and imagery, sound patterns and rhythms, to evoke impressions, emotions, or to surprise us with associations we have not thought of.

I think poetry is everywhere, in everything - the slightest flash of eye - or mind - that sees a fascinating relationship, ie. ART. Everyone experiences these moments. It's the poet who is driven to find language of expression; we are never satisfied with the 'tuition' itself. Poetry is a very arrogant.

difficult one to answer this. all of my writing nowadays tends to be fragments of my own memories mixed often with historical topics that interest me.. for example, i saw somebody who i used to know some years back begging on the streets a few weeks back...

my inspiration to effect there i guess is to show people what this has brought up in my own emotions and memories etc.

Poetry is an adornment to life, allowing us to see or experience things we might never have done otherwise. It is one of the great arts and its importance cannot be underestimated albeit that it is continually undervalued...perhaps because as kids we all knew nursery rhymes and the adult in many of us never got beyond that easy "can do" level of understanding and appreciation. But, in a general sense, it's apparent that when there is something important to commemorate, it is our old friend "poetry" that often comes to the rescue: this wonderful, truly portable art that we lucky souls carry around and can call on whenever we - or others - are in need of it.

Poetry must be inspired by genius or madness. Some experts blame the liberality of the performance arts for the excessive, psychotic ranting that often masquerades as poetry today, some accuse the rap scene for adulterating what progress might have been made had we not been exposed to the Afro-McGonagle of extreme adherence to rhyme which to the unenlightened constitutes an aesthetic result. Or perhaps the messianic hip hop tradition that breaks all rules and aims largely to shock the audience through sheer audacity and conceit. Whatever the case I remain unconvinced that their contribution to modern literature will not outgrow that of Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Eliot.

Leonidas - you confuse this versifier with your two negatives at the end of your entertaining blog.
"Unconvinced" leading to "will not outgrow"
Is this:
"unconvinced...will outgrow..." OR
"convinced...will not outgrow..." OR
"convinced...will outgrow..."?
Cheers - and thanks.

Okay, I am convinced (although grammatically confused:0)that a new terminology would put experimental narrative and innovative rhetoric or flambouyant prose or even prosaic thoughts as far away from the definition of poetry as possible-then they need not call themselves poets anymore!

I'm with you - in more than one sense!
Thanks.

I started this discussion so I suppose I should make another contribution.

Looking at what`s been blogged I`m led to the question: Is art - and by inference poetry - a spiritual thing?

(as distinct from what we would call a
material thing)

Or do we recognise such a distinction in our present age?

To take a stab at examples:

`The world sits silent round the eastern stair`

`The sun came up in the east`

What`s the difference (poetically)?

And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
The Sultan's turret in a noose of light.

"Poetry must be inspired by genius or madness" is the kind of nonsense that one would hope that Ezra Pound would snigger derisively at. It's also elitist and individualistic, as if poetry only ever comes as a kind of lightning bolt from above.

Poetry comes out of life, it's not magic and it's not only open to 'geniuses' (who defines what a genius is anyway? Teachers? The middle/upper class?)

Freda's contribution is most apt in
context: words that evoke a magical
image far removed from "the sun has
risen". It is where poetry can become "art" without pretension or
flummery.

Thank you M.C. Steven and I disagree in some ways. Art, including art made with words can be magic in the sense that it can be an experience that strongly affects us, which we cannot immediately untangle and explain. Poetry comes out of life - yes, in that people produce it with language and experience and emotion. As I do not believe in any other world than this one, magic is part of this life.
Who was it said 'Even men who are idols have reasons for what they have done.' Genius is accessible to anyone prepared to make the effort to combine skill, imagination, knowledge, emotion, and yes, Steven, inspiration, which may really be another word for motivation.

I have to agree with the gist of Steven statement.

The word spiritual has been mentioned. I think that word would certainly need to be pinned down in terms of its chosen definition in this setting/context.

I greatly doubt its application as catch-all explanation for poetry. But in a very, very wide context/reading it maybe said to be a source for a great deal of poetry; including that of agnostics and atheists.

Certainly it must be said that religion or more particularly religiosity absolutely has no ownership of poetry.

Why?

Because it just doesn't!

Poems may be born out of many things; religiosity being just one of those things, of a multitude.

I am a humanist and atheist and the idea that my poems stem from religiosity clearly would be as absurd as it would be false. And you only need a case of one to disprove any all encompasing claim.

None of which is to say that religiosity is not the source of poetry for many people; I am very much sure that it is. Indeed I have enjoyed a lot of religious poetry, just as I have enjoyed poetry that comes from other places.

If pinning poetry down to one source I would say;

Evolution.

Why?

Because no other species has consciousness, reason, the ability to deal in abstract etc.

Evolution and religion are not contradictory for those taking their religion allegorically.

For such people I would have thought evolution and the allegory of the garden of Eden are relevant (or relevant creation allegory of your world view/religion).

For those that do take their religion literally?

Well I guess poetry for you could arguably be said to emanate from tasting the tree of knowledge (or relevant religious txt to which you attribute man his conscious mind).

For what would poetry be without knowledge, without self knowledge, without the double edged gift and bain of consciousness, without death and the understanding of our own lot?

I don't see how poetry could exist without (take your pick);

a) Evolution

b) Evolution and allegorical interpretation of your chosen world view

or

c) Tasting of the tree of knowledge (caveat- other literal readings of other religions/texts).

Which one of the above is down to the mind of the individual. All are thought to be true in the minds of differing people.

Maybe it is like an electron in quantum physics in that; there is no universal truth. That the truth like the electron maybe said to be in many places. At least this is an idea that allows each his own truth.

P.S

If you believe in the any of the aformentioned or indeed any other view, you have to conceed respect to others who hold a differing view.

You can disagree and say as much, but respect of the right of an individual to hold and speak their view...that is key to the friends of Voltaire statement and a cornerstone of liberty).

P.S to the P.S

If you don't think that poetry stems from the unique nature of mankinds mind;

Do you have any evidence of so much as a single jotted poem from a dog, cat, dolphin, jaguar, apple, beetle or star? lol.

I think I was really objecting to the idea that you have to be some kind of special person to be a poet. Or to be somehow 'visited by angels'. Not really that isn't something passing strange about the writing of it.

Poets are - first of all - human.
And - taking the last couple of lines from Chris` blog -If we`re all supposed to have `evolved` what the `eck happened to all those beings or things on his list (including chimps and apes) along the way?...Why this enormous, gigantic, colossal, vast, Herculean, utterly out of sight unbridgable distance between what humans can understand and do, and all these other creatures?
However `modest`all us want to be (atheists or believers) we must accept that there is something very strange happened along our respective ways.

I - personally - don`t think that the theory of Evolution even begins to give us a hint of what may have happened. Things like the multi-spacial
location of electrons that Chris speaks of and some of the other partical experiments are begining to make the younger scientists question some of their tenets even now.

I agree that science should `keep its nose to the ground` (so to speak) but it`s up to poets to direct its eyes up to the sky...The long-accepted usual name for this process is called the spiritual (secular or religious).

Sniggering is what schoolchildren do in class when in actual fact the joke is on them-their sheer ignorance which masquerades as knowledge. It's easy to deride and chide others (and even to mock them)when you know that all you have is a fallacious argument which is difficult to defend under ordinary circumstances?

Harry quote
Poets are - first of all – human
unquote

I agree with that Harry :)

Harry quote
And - taking the last couple of lines from Chris` blog -If we`re all supposed to have `evolved` what the `eck happened to all those beings or things on his list (including chimps and apes) along the way?...Why this enormous, gigantic, colossal, vast, Herculean, utterly out of sight unbridgable distance between what humans can understand and do, and all these other creatures?
Unquote

The evidence for evolution is scientifically overwhelming and the label ‘theory’ is nothing more than a historical moniker.

The discovery of DNA, genetics and the human genome project amongst mountains of other evidence; has (in science) put to bed any serious notion that evolution did not occur. The DNA of Homo Sapien Sapiens has been compared to that of many other animals and many common ancestors have been ascertained as a result.

The separation from the great apes and chimpanzees occurred between 8-5 million years ago. human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms. Australopithecus evolved around 4 million years ago, becoming extinct around 2 million years ago; many other hominid links follow. I could name them, but see little point.

As for where are the ‘beings’ that occurred along the way? Simple; they became extinct along the way due to various factors all of which relate to competition with other species and the survival of the fittest when considering the environment. 99.9% of species that have ever existed have become extinct. It is thought in some quarters that the average life-span of most species is 10 million years.

But I don’t know maybe you dispute the existence of dinosaurs, the Dodo or even the existence of the entire fossil record?

As for your questioning, it represents is a classic;

‘God of the gaps argument’

I do not need to cover ground that has been covered thousands of times when hundreds of text books and even youtube clips amply cover this ground with sure footed and detailed explanations. But I have given a little bit in the way of factual information above and that alone hammers a stake through the heart of the God of the gaps argument.

If you want to consider the ‘God of the gaps’ argument, you might want to consider the irony of the fact that intelligent design has the greatest, GOD of ALL GAPS given intelligent design proponents;

failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed research or data. The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.

In other words Intelligent Design is NOT science and has ZERO scientific evidence. An Almight gap- one might say.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.

----------------------------------------

None of the above relates to the main thread and is a clear off-shoot response. None of the above means that an individual has to agree with evolution. The prerogative of individuals is to believe and voice what they choose is a cornerstone of liberty (a principle worth defending).

Many people (nearly all scientists) take evolution to be a fact; atheists, agnostics and religious believers. Popes and Arch Bishops have accepted evolution for instance. But if you as an individual prefer to think of religion in the literal sense that is fine (so long as it doesn’t make its way into a science class).

Poetry is clearly not science and there is no contradiction in a literal interpretation of scripture and enjoying poetry and believing poetry is part of your world view. If you literally interpret the bible, like I said one argument could be that your view on poetry should be affected by the scripture of Genesis and the tasting of the tree of knowledge, for without;

Knowledge, self knowledge, consciousness, understanding of ones mortality, a finite life etc, then would mankind even write poetry, would it even be possible? I don’t follow such a world view, but I do read religious text with interest and also for their literary value which is significant.

P.S

***
some of the other partical experiments are begining to make the younger scientists question some of their tenets even now.
***

This is not true when considering evolution- very few leading scientists would concur with the above.

Below is an interesting and sometimes humorous lecture by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1te01rfEF0g

“Let the long contentions cease
Geese are swans and swans are geese…”
Personally, I’m struggling to see meaningful connections in this discussion with so many oblique threads being thrown into the pot. It began I think with the suggestion
“If literature is an art and poetry is literature, in what - generally - does the art of poetry reside?”

Also...when we say that a poem is `inspired`...Inspired to effect what?

I responded With Madness and Genius….as a possible cause….and quote:

Much madness is divinest Sense
To a discerning eye.
Much Sense - the starkest Madness
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail.
Assent and you are sane,
Demur - you're straightway dangerous
And handled with a chain.

Then it went onto the proposition that poetry was a spiritual preoccupation that is the poet merely a spiritualist? Hardly, there is political and humanitarian POETRY. So, perhaps this notion should have been the subject of a new thread?
Then Peter’s absurd, if not indeterminate explanation that “poetry comes out of life” is meaningless or at best misleading-suggesting that if we put a few cells on a dish and await the outcome, bearing in mind that we have sufficient patience to wait a few billion years then worms will be reciting poetry!
It is probably as ridiculous as the idea that there are muses:
Although ‘tis said that Muses nine
Place words on poet’s tongues,
And warbling minstrels echo thine;
To crown their mundane songs.
There lies no surrogate, no substitute
On Earth or Heaven above
In brass and drum or stringéd lute
For this transcendent and enduring love;
-The praise belongs to you!

I realise of course that Peter’s views are those of the cynical pragmatist, to him poetry is neither magical, mystical, metaphysical or spiritual. But does poetry really have a solely zoetropic, material or natural origin? Surely the faculty of poetic inspiration comes first which suggests some degree of self-consciousness and this in itself is a human quality if not spiritual?

Having seen real madness, I'm afraid I find the pseudo-romantic claim that poetry is a form of madness not just absurd, but positively immoral.

That doesn't mean poetry should always be 'logical' - or that it should just accept the status quo, nor that it doesn't involve 'inspiration.' Or that it doesn't involve those big indefinables 'soul' or 'spirit.'

But I find a lot of self-advertised 'spiritual' poetry incredibly unspiritual, in fact, often so full of 'soulful' cliches and divine afflatus that they just seem like a lot of hot air. A poem like George Oppen's Psalm, however, which celebrates the simple 'isness' of a herd of deer, I find incredibly spiritual.

The thing is, I really do believe that poetry is for everyone. Talk of the 'muses', or of genius, puts poetry on a pedestal that it doesn't need; and makes it inaccessible to all but the 'special' people. You may need to think less straight-forwardly to appreciate poetry, but it's not a special priesthood that only the elite can join. 'Magic' is practised by 'magicians': poetry is practised by people.

Psalm (George Oppen)

Veritas sequitur ...

In the small beauty of the forest
The wild deer bedding down—
That they are there!

Their eyes
Effortless, the soft lips
Nuzzle and the alien small teeth
Tear at the grass

The roots of it
Dangle from their mouths
Scattering earth in the strange woods.
They who are there.

Their paths
Nibbled thru the fields, the leaves that shade them
Hang in the distances
Of sun

The small nouns
Crying faith
In this in which the wild deer
Startle, and stare out.

Thanks for responding clearly to my consternation and perplexity and my apologies for calling you Peter? Nevertheless, I think you are still being obscure, nonchalant or evasive about your critical preferences in poetry. If you take every myth and legend literally then yes you are a fool but if you cannot see the allegory and metaphor behind the literal then perhaps you won't go round at Christmas time telling all the children that Santa Claus doesn't exist! They might surprise you with a good response!
Now you think that everyone is capable of this type of mental or dare I say metaphysical leap? That anyone can and does appreciate poetry. Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with my assertions as I never said that a poet was someone special or that poetry was magical or metaphysical-you just assumed I'd said that or taken that position unconsciously. Which is not to say of course that even an uneducated person may respond subconsciously or instinctively to good poetry without the slightest strain of intellectual effort or response. It may well be that our minds have literary appreciation “hard-wired” into us so that even when we do not understand what, how or why the poet is trying to say something we might still shed a tear of empathy and a smile of appreciation.

In my view poetic inspiration often stems from a subtle or peculiar awareness of paradox, incongruence, ambivalence, ambiguity, congruence, equivalence, and logical absurdity. Sometimes this is achieved through imbibing some alcohol/drug and many poets in the late 18th to early 19th century experimented with drugs such as laudanum or opium to alter their conscious state. However, there are many other incidents that evoke the poetic consciousness; it may be the death of a loved one and the unspoken grief it evokes, the loss of a lover or some other romantic prelude. It might be a sense of outrage or shock at some unremitting injustice or some event that causes anger and disgust. All these negative or positive feelings can be and often are the source of inspiration for an aspiring poet. Some poets have insisted that a state of deepest remorse, loss, sadness or regret have some bearing on the impulse to write in verse. For many other poets it might be the indignity of their status or position in society that inspires them to collect their thoughts in a riposte worthy of acclaim or public attention.
Often it might be that a particular incident, however small and insignificant, although psychologically loaded or tainted with the same unconscious hues that the poet is struggling to declare could be the main source of their inspiration. In my view The poet is not striving for meaning or direct communication in the conventional sense but renders his words with polysemantic traits through abstraction, symbolism, metaphor and allusion. Neither is the poet speaking to the rational or logical portion of our mental apparatus, he may be appealing to or attempting to engage our heart, our soul or our spirit. That's why he is special or otherworldly and worthy of respect or admiration unless of course you live on a utopian island where everyone is "equal" (a popular western myth), who think the same and have the same material and spiritual values. Doh! I don't think so......
The rhyme, metre and tonal patterning which you dislike so much generally are merely embroidery on the main garment although it would be true to say, like any other element in poetry, that they remain an intrinsic element that cannot be separated, altered or removed without damage to the whole. Objective critical analysis rather than derision as for example in a discussion of poetry may be useful for identifying what makes poetry work or what universal or subjective meaning we might construe from it. Aside from that good criticism and analysis should enable us to enjoy and appreciate good poetry even more and develop our intuitive and discriminative mind in terms of understanding what it means, or why we take such pleasure in it.
Try reading Lu Chi's Art of Writing for a clearer definition by an articulate and respectful man.

This is more of a ten minute lecture thread than a discussion thread. I find myself agreeing with some of Leonidas' points and some of Steven's, but whoa!
"unless of course you live on a utopian island where everyone is "equal" (a popular western myth), who think the same and have the same material and spiritual values. Doh! I don't think so......"
Leonidas, perhaps you don't realise that deeming everyone to be equal is a central value for some people. This is a cheap shot, to say that it means everyone thinks the same and has the same material and spiritual values. No no no. It means to me that every person has equal value as a human being, and should not be ignored or treated as less than human. Are you suggesting that it is only in the West that this is 'a truth that is self evident'? What is the purpose of people fighting for freedom from oppression if their right to live a free life is 'a western myth'?
Any opposing view to this has to be elitist, I think.

Fascinating stuff. I think the perception that we are all equal(e.g. of equal "worth" as humans, let alone in financial or social terms) might be more widely upheld in the West than in some other parts of the world. For example - a certain North African country has only recently officially declared slavery (the antithesis of equality) to be illegal! I wonder if poetry is encouraged or even available there? Somehow, I doubt it.

Like all art poetry resides in the unnameable.Each poem that is written is both a triumph and a failure. Each time a poem is written this is repeated.
As a poet one has to be able to write in someone else's voice, not just one's own.In doing so one pushes one's talent to the very edge of where it lies.

Me: I speak the truth whatever voices I articulate.

As Margaret Atwood wrote in her poem True Stories... 'The truth is lost on the way down to the beach.'

It is lost whilst we're doing something else.

Wow, have you ever been sorry you started something?(never mind press on)

On evolution: I don`t care who else believes it - Pope, Arch-bishop scientist,or full-blooded, friendly and hearty atheist...I`m not convinced. The one thing I have studied at some level is reading, and having read much and considered conclusions I don`t believe the case has been made.

I suggest keying up `The present state of the evolution theory` on google to make up your own minds.

I keyed up the lecture you suggested Chris with no effect whatsoever (His `humour` was mainly him laughing at his own jokes)

To get back to the thread: By spiritual I mean those many things about us which cannot be described as material. (recognising that, because we all come `as a set`, that they can not be separated from each other)

Perhaps instead of `art` I should have said `artistry` - but fear that this might have caused trouble.

As regards `inspiration`: this is much harder to describe. I hope to blog a poem later that makes some attempt to demonstrate it.

There is no such thing as god-

Apes and humans share 96% of the same genes-

And as for -''Why this enormous,...out of sight unbridgable distance between what humans can understand and do, and all these other creatures?''(Harry O'Neill)my edit:
-ever tried taking two wrong turns in a strange town and see where that gets you.

Why do you need to know Harry? It's what John Berger called... 'a hole in the fabric.'

It doesn't matter that you don't know. No one else knows either.

Take risks with your work and your life. What else is there?

Have a look at this Harry, it's very interesting and it is the de facto position when (evolution that is) taken by the scientific world (accepting paradigm shift of course).

It probably won't change your views, but it should interest nevertheless.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bxRYbDEmrjQ

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAZW1Ayh68

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ioZErc7wJc

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5PzQi6W0o

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1WiKlfWNCSI

Relatively little is out of date here despite the age of the program, the essential information remains the same; remarkable and a testament to Carl Sagan (he was a great man).

P.S

I don't think the world soul or the world spiritual are the preserve of old organised religions anymore. Certainly they are words that have a broader scope when considering the modern world...so I think it was important that you clarified the word spiritual as you did. The definition you have applied is not one that sits well with me when trying to make a claim for what poetry is in essence, or where it comes from.

I cannot agree with your position here.

I can agree that it may well be the right answer for you individually and that it may be or may form part of the answer for others; whether they take their religion allegorically or literally.

But many, many other people like me will utterly disagree with this claim if you mean it to be all encompassing and be a singular answer for ALL..

In short it is unequivocally Not THE answer if meaning singular for all people. Again I would refer you to my quantum physics/ electron analogy; the electron is here and there and over there and over that way lol. It is correct to say that the electron is at a, b, c etc. Likewise the answers to your question are also correctly found in many places and this I would argue is not contradictory.

You are right for you...

Hope you enjoy the video links.

I'll stay with Harry's use of the word "art" - and add "craft". Yah-boo-sucks to any accusation of elitism. Flights of fancy aside, I believe poetry to be the art of taking something mundane and making it memorable (see Hardy"s "The Darkling Thrush"). The tools arts & crafts require are available and it's how they are used that makes the difference between "so-so" and "so right" - assuming the heart is in the right place and we are not faking feeling! The challenge is
in the actual content and how to make it special - and
therein lies the "art".

'sacred' and 'secular' are non-words for non-realities, coined artificially by the few to create targetted divisiveness and mind control. Poetry cuts through such non-sense.

@Cynthia: Guillaume de Machaut :o)

Sorry to sound pedantic Cynthia but 'sacred' and 'secular' are words (as defined in all English language dictionaries). And they clearly Do describe realities.

e.g

X is a secular society as opposed to religious state.

The words concerned absolutely are not simply coined to control people's minds.

Furthermore they are not opposites or diametrically opposed.

e.g

Freedom of speech is sacred in modern, secular democratic countries.

You don't have to agree with the above statement, but you should acknowledge that the two words are not opposed/contradictory and are contextually in harmony given the statement.

Not sure if you were commenting upon the part of the discussion that involved Harry and myself or not or just generally?

Maybe you are making a more veiled point as by quote? If this is the case and you do not wish to be taken literally you have my apology, but would need to elucidate.

I should like to add that part of our discussion that concerned evolution;

It is NOT a divisive religion versus science dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to be both religious and accept evolution as scientific fact.. Something most ably demonstrated by Francis Collins (Christian, scientist and head of the human genome project).

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and have no need to oppose one another. Again most leading theologians, arch bishops etc accept evolution. Popes and Mullahs etc have accepted evolution; without it adversely impacting upon their faith.

Strangely this discussion thread is focussing on beliefs, evolution and religion, which was not how I understood the question at all. We all may believe a wide range of ideas but that has little bearing on inspiration, or the art of poetry. I think the art and craft of poetry are to do with words, and how we use them to convey whatever matters to us, whether mundane or extraordinary - paradise Lost or Howl. I suppose you could say our beliefs inspire us, but it is not the ideas, rather the importance of them to us, that drives us to find the best words and best forms to express them. One thing that inspires me to write is a feeling that I am trying to say something that has not been expressed before. Of course often it turns out others have expressed it better than me. But having made the effort to put my thoughts into words helps me to get what others are reaching for too.

Back to the original question. To my mind literature (prose?)and poetry are both the Art of Communication. I consider Any skill to be art, even bricklaying or shovelling shit).
I write poetry 'cos it is the only way I can communicate effectively, being totally tongue-tied.

Religion, like poetry, is something cerebral rather than concrete. For me that is. Others may consider religion to be in how you behave and so something tangible and physical. Can poetry be physical, be touched - I think not.

Both must be born in the same part of our extraordinary brains, brains that may or may not have been created by a supreme being.

Read liturgy and you will find much is great poetry. Read poetry and some will give you a 'religious' uplift.

Enough from me - I am not one for all the intellectual angels and pinheads stuff.

Since it was me who started this I should say something.

I was just trying to get us all to think about two words that we use often: `Art` and `inspiration`. Neither have exclusive relation to religion as such. M.C. rightly talks of Hardy`s `The Darkling Thrush` which is both artistic and inspired (and is generally considered to be anti - or at least non - religious).

My mistake (I think) was in using the word `spiritual` (which, I agree, has religious connotations) I was actually trying to use the word to mean something more akin to what we mean when we say that something is `spirited` in the sense of strength from within...this,(I feel)has to do with where `inspiration` comes from.

Although, as I said, we come as (inseparable) sets the terms we are talking about are what are normally distinguished as spirit...I just wondered how people regarded them these days.

Comments have been robust (and civil)I agree with Isobel,let`s keep them that way.

I have a problem with the word spiritual because it often seems to get in the way of clear thinking; but I do think great poetry has an element of otherness about it; something indefinable that grasps for what can't be quite expressed in words.

But the spiritual, to me, is all around us, and not (just?) in some vague place apart from the world. A haiku about a frog jumping in a pond can be as spiritual as a poem about the life of Christ - in fact, sometimes more so, because it doesn't advertise its spirituality on its sleeve.

Maybe some poets write mainly to entertain; and don't think much beyond that. Or some have a message they're eager to get across. But the best poetry, for me, is poetry that reaches out to the ungraspable strangeness of being human.

Though that search is not always expressed in obvious ways: I find it at times in the seemingly quotidian verse of Frank O'Hara. Poetry that is more obviously religious often leaves me cold because I almost know where it's going to from the start.

Okay let's try to keep it simple and within the context of the question which Harry has clarified (art & Inspiration). Human beings experienced the passion or inspiration to be creative before words were invented, in fact musical instruments as well as song or painting probably predate written poetry or formalised religion. Phonetic scripts denote by sign the sound of the language bearing in mind the dialectical and vocal range of any human utterance and how that sound was emitted. To represent every sound that the human voice could make would take more than 26 letters. Linguistic experts have identified as many as 44 different phonemes in use within the English language alone. However,poetry is composed in the mind, written on paper and when complete is usually performed aloud to an attentive audience or read to oneself in silence. Whether poetry is an art is clearly open to deeper debate, and Art is a "big word" with a great deal of connotation and association. I think Harry must be concerned with what is known as numina? (Numina: a spiritual force or influence often identified with a natural object, phenomenon, or place.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numen
I still identify trauma, madness or genius as the source of poetic inspiration.

"The origin of numbers resembles that of myth. Primitive Man elevates indefinable nature-impressions into deities (numina), at the same time capturing and impounding them." - Oswald Spengler.

In an attempt to discover the driving forces and principles that affect the production of artworks by numerous artists it seems expedient to examine and analyse further the whole of the creative process. Much has already been written, largely of an intellectual nature, of what the artist is attempting to convey or express, although many artists themselves are often unaware or directly conscious of the modus operandi permeating their creations. However, until quite recently, very little has been written on the subject concerning the laws and principles, tools, devices and mediums that involve the production of works of art. In many cases the whole of human rational and logic is often abandoned in favour of more intuitive and instinctive approaches. The morphology of the creative process in art is often influenced by a language which can only be truly understood through the cognitive principles and in-depth analysis found in gestalt psychology. Much more could of course be comprehended by examining the life and mind of the artists concerned - this being the conventional role of art criticism. However, many of these critical judgements might just as easily be applied to the work of a chimpanzee or an untrained amateur and still give rise to extensive intellectual acrobatics and perambulations. It is insufficient to merely examine the created works of artists without recourse to a deeper analysis of the creative process itself and the impetus of images underlying the artists intent.
To me there are three types of art or artist:

Instinctive - Expressionist:
Here self-awareness on behalf of the artist is absent or rather beyond any real conscious control and the desire to create arises quite spontaneously and instinctively. The real purpose or intention of the artwork is actually hidden from its creator, but on reflection or retrospect it may become clearer.

Intuitive - Symbolic:
Here an emotional rapport with numerous mediums or elements appears or rather develops out of some formal education or training in terms of acquired skills. The artist tends to express their inner feelings in terms of whatever tool or medium they employ. The over all form of expression therefore tends to follow along with the idea that they are the pen, brush or whatever means or tools they employ to express themselves.

Conscious - Abstract:
Here self-awareness is more apparent and consciously directed or controlled. In this instance the purpose or intention of the artwork is not hidden from its creator. The role of the artist as Magus or Magician working consciously yet invisibly.

Madness tends to produce incomprehensible tosh.

Trauma most often produces self-pitying tosh.

Most often, all both conditions produce is silence. When you're mad and/or deeply traumatised you can't produce a thing.

Experience of madness and trauma may lead, when you're sane or away from the trauma, to some great writing but not when you're in it. When you're in it, you can't do a thing.

Genius is the result of hard work, study and being able to make/see connections that others can't by intuitive leaps. But without the first two it doesn't exist.

Poets are not mad. Odd, I'll grant you. Difficult and sometimes troubled, I'll grant you. But not mad. They may have been mad, and got out of it (1 in 4 of us experience periods of mental distress, so it wouldn't be surprising.)

Having seen real madness I know what it looks like: and it's not pretty. This romanticisation of real distress is not a good thing to do.

I do know a few people who are bipolar, and I've worked with people with schizophrenia. Some of them are writers; but they can only work when they are relatively sane. It's romantic afflatus to attribute their writing to 'madness'.

the ungraspable strangeness of being human. good words Steven. And part of that strangeness is the long battle between Romantic ideas and idealistic ones. We can live with Leonidas embracing romantic beliefs, as we live with the harsh cynicism that sometimes comes in reaction to romance. I do think some of the best poetry comes from that ungraspable strangeness.

in what - generally - does the art of poetry reside?

I wonder if art is something created - crafted? - that evokes effects in others: viewers, readers, audience. The effects may be intentional or not. Inspiration is a desire to communicate something that has occurred to us, a thought or feeling, the craft is the slip twixt the cup of inspiration and the lip of the finished poem?
Perhaps we write poetry in an attempt to share the thoughts or feelings, either with others or with ourselves, that stem from inspiration.

It is perhaps an attempt to grasp at an understanding of that strangeness of which you write, Freda?
You live with Leonidas if you want to, this gentleman's not for turning.

A combination of inspiration, skill and craft can produce great art. This is apparent in the works of the Italian Renaissance, with Michelangelo and Da Vinci to the fore. Why should the same not apply to music and literature?