The idea of robot poetry.

We can all agree that technology is improving at a rapid pace. What does this mean for the arts, mainly poetry(since we are studying it)? Well let us take a look at some other forms of art first to get an idea. Not too long ago there was something created call "Emi". This was a program written by David Cope to imitate music styles and create it's own adaption. Now he's working on something he's calling "Emily Howell", and this is said to create it's own original, modern music. One could say, "Sure that's possible, music is a system of rules anyways,..." Well,... I will post 2 links below that will show the difference between program constructed music and an actual piece. One is a Bach Invention, and the other is an imitation of a Bach invention. I was a piano student for about 6 years and I couldn't tell the difference between the two, and I even studied Bach Inventions for a time. I'd like to think a more experienced pianist would only know the difference because there is a finite number of Bach inventions, and if they never heard it before, it's likely to be the fake. But I don't really want to go any further into that. The real issue is if there is computer generated poetry, is this to be considered art or even poetry for that matter? I certainly think so, I mean I don't think poetry has to be created from human hands to be significant. There are many cases when people see sunsets, they consider that to be beautiful, and even art, we didn't create that. Poets choose their words for their own purposes, much like how one could think of as a set of rules. On this premise, I extend this out to programs. Programs will create their poetry, based on their own set of rules, or their own set of purposes. If you don't think machines can create such a thing, I could make a relation to such things as God. God created mankind and we are creating something that we consider as art, while God "programmed" us. Why in this case would we consider what we create poetry and not what the programs create poetry. Also, another way one could look at it is that the person who wrote the program is still the poet, and he is just using the program as the medium as to which to write his poetry. My thoughts on this could could go on, but I just wanted to put this idea out there and see how's it taken from outside the computer science department. Oh, I didn't mention that my initial search of poetry writing robots are coming up as nil, but so did my search of music creating robots. I only found this because we happened to discuss this in my ethics class recently, and this was a pretty hot topic.

Inventions

EMI -  http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ear/ugs302/invention.mp3

BACH - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjbqCDdj75g&feature=related

Rags

EMI -  http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ear/ugs302/joplin.mp3

JOPLIN

Mazurkas

EMI - http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ear/ugs302/joplin.mp3

CHOPIN - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8PJsjO1u5w

Some other links to check out if you're interested in the music stuff:
Emily Howell - http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/

The Altar

After discussing the poem, The Altar, in class, I felt the urge to continue to look at it and make a blog post on it. As a Christian, I can relate to the tensions Herbert feels between being unworthy of God, while at the same time being sanctified and atoned by Him. We are fallen and all we can offer to Him is something that is broken. However, as Herbert notes, while we may only rear a broken altar cemented with tears, we have still been sanctified by the power of God. As the Bible says, “For it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:8)

At this point in the poem, we realize that close reading is not enough in allowing us to fully understand and grasp the true meaning and effect of this poem. The importance of looking at poetry in its historical context is apparent when discussing The Altar. By realizing that Herbert wrote the poem in 16^th and 17^th century during the Protestant Reformation, the reader can better appreciate and understand why this poem is so important. In using the altar as a metaphor for the human heart, Herbert illuminates the essence of poetry. By not changing the end line to “sanctifie this HEART to be thine,” Herbert keeps the poem from becoming just another paragraph or string of sentences. The poem begins and ends with the metaphor of the altar. While at first it was broken and worthless, in the end it has been sanctified and made whole by the work of the Lord.

Likewise, his use of the rhyme scheme reflects his efforts to present something of value and worth before God. Knowing God has sanctified us allows us to try and live a life worthy of Him, and Herbert reflects this belief in the use of his rhyme scheme in the poem. In the same way, Herbert uses the form of the poem to reveal the separation between God and man and how the altar serves to connect the distance. Rejecting the ideas of the Catholic Church of the time, Herbert claims that the connection between the two is done not out of human will or effort but instead through the sanctifying power of the Lord.

Thoughts on THE FIGURE OF THE YOUTH AS VIRILE POET by Wallace Stevens

As readers of poetry, we often struggle with the seemingly unanswerable question: What is poetry.

It's the sort of question that stops us dead in our tracks. We may think we know the answer, then inevitably someone asks it. That's when you realize that you have no idea.

The good thing is that no one really does.

In Wallace Steven's essay The Figure of the Youth as the Virile Poet, Stevens addresses this question, among other notions and misconceptions surrounding poetry.

A bulk of the essay deals with the differentiation between poetry and philosophy. From one perspective, they seem to be the same. Both work towards a higher reality. They are some dreamt up idea expressed in a way as to draw others to the same conclusion. Philosophy is truth over reason. Poetry is the same, but goes a step further.

Philosophy satisfies reason or imagination. It can rarely combine the two. Poetry however epitomizes both. It is a creative expression of truth. Good poetry satisfies both reason and imagination.

Another interesting topic brought up in the essay is the egocentric nature of poetry. The poet is ever present in his or her work. This is, in Steven's opinion, what makes poetry timeless. Philosophy changes and evolves with the poet. It is expanded upon, proven wrong, proven correct, fine tuned and manipulated until new philosophy becomes old philosophy and even newer versions take hold. Poetry, however, is the perfect expression of the poet's reality. It can't get any better. At least it can't be expanded upon. It simply is what it is in that moment, and it's permanence depends not on its perfection but on its level of connectivity. Stevens addresses this topic again when explaining the downsides of metaphysical poetry. The extremely abstract genre does not really allow for connectivity, and the poet is less connected. If the connection is present, it is intangible and thus subconsciously frustrating for the reader. In many cases, these are the poems that do not stay. The connection is not there. If engagement with the imagination is the aim of a poem, there still must be some level of connectivity, which is a fact often forgotten by metaphysic poets.

Steven's point in this essay is not to define poetry. In fact he argues that this is a fruitless ambition. What can, however, be defined is what makes a poem successful.