On Monday, I had to write a work statement to submit, along with some photographs, to the senior art show. It was about how there are some emotions the words just can’t express accurately on their own. After turning that in, I started my reading for my Theory and Critique of 20th Century Art class. It was Gotthold Ephriam Lessing’s Loacoon: An Essay upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry. I got up to the point where, coincidentally, Lessing finds peotry superior to painting because of its ability to express emotions more clearly. I obviously had an issue with this. Because right off the bat I can think of one emotion that reading, poetry or otherwise, has never caused in me. The feeling of awe; jaw dropping, overwhelming, sublime, awe. Never has a poem been able to take my breath away. I’ve never temporarly forgotten everything around me when I turned a corner and was confronted with a poem. James Turrel has given my that feeling. Dan Flavin has given me that feeling. Donald judd has given me that feeling. I could go on and on. But poetry? I’m not so sure. But luckily that’s the subject of class today.
I think poetry and literature can create an amazing feeling of awe, but perhaps not in the same way painting and visual art can. You won’t turn a corner and just be struck by it, but it can still catch your breath and amaze you.
If my brain was working I’d think of a specific example, but it’s way too early for that.
Aren’t paintings and great works of art poetry in themselves? Try reading a great piece of imagery and think about the skill the writer used to string words together and evoke strong images for the reader. The painter does the same thing.
I agree with both of you. But Lessing has an obvious bias towards poetry. Not surprising, considering he was a poet himself.
Also, turns out he was kind of a jerk.