i love this shit lol
>>24847852This eeCumMings?
joycean...
>>24847852>send this as code>the doors of Hell are open
>who as we look up now gathering to(?) a(?) the leaps arrving to rearrangingly become grasshopperOMG IT'S SO HECKING DEEP BECAUSE IF YOU REARRANGE "r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r" and "PPEGORHRASS" you get GRASSHOPPER!!!!!
>>24847852As much as I love modernist prose, I could never get into modernist poetry. I also love modernist music (minus Schoenberg) but hate modernist painting.
>>24847930This is not modernist poetry, it's barely postmodern. I don't know what one would categorise garbled characters set out as concrete poetry.
>>24847949>check E.E. Cummings' wikipedia page>He is associated with modernist free-form poetryEven if OP's pic isn't actually him, it reminds me of some of his poems. The same playfulness with whitespace and punctuation. I was also filtered by Pound and Eliot, not just Cummings.
>>24847949E.E. Cummings is literally the definition of modernist poetry. Please learn what words mean instead of just labeling everything you think is evil or ugly "postmodern". You're just embarrassing yourself. You're no better than Redditors who see a 110 year-old Malevich painting and decry how "contemporary art" has become a money laundering scheme.
>>24847924Some attempts at formal experimentation age better than others. But the only way to know which ones will age well is to try. Cummings was brave enough to try and risk getting made fun of by smug 4chan posters over half a century later, and that's what counts.
>>24847852Legit thought that was from RF Kuang or some other shit like that
>>24847930Do you not like Late Romantic composers generally?
>>24848157I do like them. Not as much as Bach (I love baroque even more than modernism) or Penderecki, but they're still great.
>>24847973I generally love postmodern poetry. There's nothing more reddit than sperging out over someone's minor mistake, however. I would rather embarrass myself through genuine error than through typing up a post like yours.I assumed this was a 4chan users attempt at experimental art...
>>24848176I apologize. I am prickly when it comes to defending modernist artists and poets. Philistines often like to attack and undermine them.
I feel like Calligrammes is a gimmick and I don't really get Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hasard
>>24848172What particularly do you dislike about Schoenberg? Does it extend to Berg and Webern also?
>>24847924Thanks I didnt have a clue
>>24848214His pieces sound just like chaos to me. No virtuosity, no texture, no structure, not interesting sonically, not haunting, no emotional depth. I tried getting into him several times, sometimes I even hear some faint echoes of beauty, but most of the time it just feels disorganised. And no, it doesn't extended to Berg and Webern, I like both of them.I have a similar dislike for Joyce's Penelope. After how musical the previous chapters were, especially Sirens (my favourite) and Circe, it just feels so... flat.It could be just me being a pleb, I changed my view on art many times throughout the years. He might just "click" for me one fateful day on an Nth listen, just like Trout Mask Replica did for me when I was a teen, leading me down the experimental music rabbit hole.
>>24848293I can understand how it might appear chaotic. One of the main problems people seem to encounter with it is the continuous and simultaneous development of multiple motifs, which is basically what his structure is. Even the "tonal" D minor quartet Op. 7 is a whirlwind of constantly developing ideas. I often think of the Große Fuge as proto-Schoenberg in a very direct sense.
>>24847930i think that schoenberg is an apt comparison
Listen to Boulez and Christine Schaeffer's recording of Pierrot Lunaire.
>>24847852Even if cleverly arranged, the random parenthesis are ugly to look at
>>24847852it does seem cooler when you realize they were writing this shit on typewriters
Carroll did it better
>>24848493both were great, not everything has to be a contest.
>>24848396How would that help someone who thinks Schoenberg is pure chaos?
>>24847973>Redditorssadly that is most /lit/tards too
Was François Rabelais a genius 400 years ahead of his time, or were the modernists merely a group of fart-sniffing autistic individuals?
>>24849257Rabelais could be thought of in similar terms to the composer Jean-Fery Rebel, they both anticipate features of the modern/postmodern futures of their respective arts, yet they arrive at them via a substantially different aesthetic philosophy.
>>24847865Joycesque...
>>24847852Text: :|Hard to read text: :D
>>24849156Schoenberg is not pure chaos. Serialism is a very regimented, rule-based form of music.
>>24849723>Hard to read text*fun to read text
>>24850167I know. I was responding to the recommendation of Pierrot to someone who doesn't see any order in Schoenberg (>>24848293), suggesting that it will not help to persuade them otherwise. In fact, the later 12-tone works may be of greater persuasiveness, the Piano Concerto for example.
s(he) be(lie)ve(d)
>>24851908sbeve?
>>24851917s beve*
s beves blow
Rom dom twelveSizzlemopHot hot hotRoid.
Here is my new poem "Balls"*ahem*Balls in her cuntBalls in his assBalls in my ballsBalls in your heart
BoobieYour mother's fucking favorATE :)Boobie
N I G G E R SI G G E R S NG G E R S N IG E R S N I GE R S N I G GR S N I G G ES N I G G E RN I G G E R S
>>24848503No the first one is objectively retarded.
>>24851908You might want to copyright that or publish it. Rupi Kaur might steal it from you.
>>24847852>slam face into keyboard >boomers call you the greatest poet of all time
>>24855438Kind of lucky he managed to smash anagrams of grasshoper more than three times, and it's also very lucky he managed to smash the words "rearrangingly become grasshopper" so that the reader could figure out the gibberish bits are anagrams of grasshopper.
>>24847852for me; its pound or eliot. But i like the language thing others had going on later on.
>>24847852based
>>24851908S(he) s(hit)s (her)self
