The ballerina(s) present in the film all have a generic outfit, facial expression and location. Each part of the dance is skillfully and creatively accomplished. Ballet builds on years of tradition study, similar to the study of tradition for Eliot. In the video, there is no authorship or psychological biographies viewed through facial expressions or attire. When the dancer goes behind the curtain and the audience is left with a mere shadow- this is a visual of the formalist idea behind no authorship, merely the form and art itself.
The "reader" or viewer is called to admire the dance for the dance itself.

To Die By a Rose Thorn.

"poems are not...simply emotions..they are experiences. For the sake of a single poem, you must see many cities, many people and things...and know the gestures which small flowers make when they open in the morning..."
-Rilke
In Rilke's statement and his poetry alike, I find a tangible example of formalism present. Not only this, but I found solace as a reader in "not simply emotions". The idea Eliot and the Formalists preach causes me a degree of anxiety. Critiquing a poem changes shape with each explanation of the affective and intentional fallacies. What should I look at in a poem? Art for art's sake? How does one go about that? How does this affect me as a reader? How should I be a good reader under the formalist banner?
Rilke's explanation of poetry resembles Eliot who said that a poet must be a garbage disposal...collecting bits and pieces of the world around us and storing it in our creativity for later. To Rilke this collecting occurred watching the products of nature and humankind (cities). Here is where R.M. Rilke has captured the essence of critiquing formalist poetry- it is not the emotion or that the poem is emotional. Poetry is things and how things work and how they live and thrive. Things could be expanded upon to incorporate linguistic and structural purity.
As a writer, Rilke incorporates a bit of Romantic Theory into the formalism applied to readership. Rilke, from the above quote, acknowledges that he is in fact a slave to the "single poem". Emerson and the Romantics understood the poet to be "in tune" with the world around him or her in such a way that the poet served as interpreter and deciphered nature's signs to others. I understood the idea of describing the blooming flower as a means of perceiving the world at an elevated state from those that are not poets. Yet, Rilke was by NO means a Romantic as a friend of Rodin and modern thinker. In fact, he relates closely with the Formalists in style and attention to art over reader emotion.

I would be curious to find out who the modern day equivalent to Emerson would be. I asked my housemates- all hailing from various concentrations, but knowing who Emerson was. None of them could answer. Who do you think? Is there a modern adherence to romantic theory today and how has it changed/evolved?

comments please!!! (this movie is just the poem read again by brando--but complete and with other photos).

kurtz enjoys ts eliot (reading "Hollow Men").
is dennis hopper's viewpoint of love and hatred romantic in anyway?
thoughts would be lovely.

actors and actresses.

Eliot's theory of Formalism is what is required of viewers when they see an actor or actress in different movies. Watching "Blood Diamond" I must clear my mind of DiCaprio's character in "Titanic". Jack is still a memorable character that stands on his own. He cause emotions and scenes, brought about by his dialogue. In "Blood Diamond", Leonardo's character again creates emotions that are brought about by his character in the moment. Actors and actresses are receptacles for words, feelings and situational responses.

reading, writing....

Is it more important to be a reader or a writer?

From a preliminary standpoint, without having read much of what I have learned into the question or concept I would say that both are equal and necessary for each other to survive....even if one holds a diary, they must actively read over it on paper and in their psychs.
If I were a Romantic, specifically a follower of Emerson, I would ascribe to his beliefs of authorship. Reading as he explains in "The American Scholar" it takes away from the individual intuition.
If I followed Eliot's school of Formalism I would believe, in a sense, that reading is more important based on the ideas of tradition and the poem carrying it's own "weight", meaning and emotion.
I understand writing to be a form of bringing emotions and words together, allowing readers to experience what the poem presents. During class when we discussed the poem, "We Wear the Mask" it didn't bother or change the way I looked at the poem when I found out who the author was. I did not interpret it to be society or a large group of people as the subject, nor did I perceive it to be about slavery. I simply looked at the words used in the poem and the way they described the pain of being hidden or fake. In this sense, writing and reading took an equal amount of importance in regards to this poem.
So, the point that I am trying to get at-or at least scratch the surface of is both reading and writing require a certain amount of importance and caution. If you take on over the other they will suffer. Realizing that reading a piece will further your education and grasp of language will help you become a better writer. And writing is equally important because it allows for intellectual growth and interpretation of life and/or emotions. If writing were neglected, reading would suffer as the further intellectual growth and voice would falter.
While schools of poetry write whole essays on the importance of one over the other, my academic and postmodern training agrees that both cannot happen without the other. I would agree with Eliot as to the importance of history and tradition because what is "new" must be held accountable to what is old.

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-duncan,when_compassion_becomes_dissent.html

"Another bone I must pick with Bush's aim to "rid the world of evil" is with its authorship. As a novelist, I daily concoct speeches destined to emerge from the mouths of fictitious characters. This practice compels me to point out that, every time he speaks formally (which is to say, reads), the president is less himself than a fictitious construct pretending to think thoughts placed in his mouth by others. Thus we see, for example, Bush confusing the words "region" and "regime" as he stands before the U.N. pretending to think thoughts that necessitate war. I'm not making fun of these stumbles. It must be hard to enunciate or understand a daily stream of words you have not written, creatively struggled with, or reflected upon prior to pretending, with all the world watching, to think them. The good thing about this lack of authenticity is that Bush may not be such as fool as to believe he can "rid the world of evil"; the horrific thing about it is that our military might and foreign policy are being deployed as if he can. This massive pretense does not imply that Bush is a liar. It implies, far more seriously, that the U.S. presidency itself has become a pretense, hence a lie".
David James Duncan in an article bemoaning the current lack of
imagination and writing/speaking skills of our current government.

Interesting to think about in relation to Emerson's idea of reading. If we as students are not to dwell on books because they force us to think somone else's thoughts, Emerson would have disagreed with the idea of our governmental speech writing. Bush is not reading God's truth to a country of individualist speakers...and if we believed as Emerson did about the sacred act of "talking" to God we as Americans would ignore Bush's commands. The creativity present in the speech Duncan refered to stops after the first draft. Then it becomes someone else's work and the original emphasis on the imagination of man is lost.
These excerpts raise an interesting point concerning fiction too. I would be interested to find out what Emerson believes in regard to fiction. I understand that J.F. Cooper wrote of the "noble savage" and upheld many trascendental truths but Emerson as a poet and critic is who I want to fully understand (in regards to fiction). As he says in "The American Scholar"-only history and the sciences should be read as monotonous facts. So, in the realm of creative learning, where does the art of "making up" (essentially) fit into the idea that truth is conceived of and from God to an individual and therefore is truth. If it's truth-why do we call it "fiction"? If everything is truth, why would there even need to be that category?
In another direction, if Eliot got his hands on Bush's speech, not simply poetry, would he be able to construct an "emotionless" form of communication between a leader and the masses? It seems that much of what our government says is emotion charged hype.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This brings me back to the impossibility of teaching creative writing under the pretentious new National Security Strategy without seeming dissident. As a voluntary professional fiction writer and involuntary amateur liar, I'm here to tell you that fiction-making and lying are two different things. To write War and Peace required imaginative effort. To embezzle money from a bank does, too. It should not be necessary to explain even to Jesse Helms that this does not make Tolstoy a bank robber. War and Peace is an imaginative invention but also, from beginning to end, a truth-telling and a gift-giving. We know before reading a sentence that Tolstoy "made it all up," but this making is as altruistic and disciplined as the engineering of a cathedral. It uses mastery of language, spectacular acts of empathy, and meticulous insight into a web of individuals and a world to present a man's vast, haunted love for his Russian people. And we as readers get to recreate this love in ourselves. We get to reenter the cathedral.
A lie is also an imaginative invention, but only on the part of the liar. In hearing a lie we can't share in its creativity. Only the liar knows he's lying. The only "gift" a lie therefore gives anyone is belief in something that doesn't exist. This is the cruelty of all lies. There is no corresponding cruelty in fiction. To lie is to place upon the tongue, page, or television screen words designed to suppress or distort the truth, usually for the sake of some self-serving agenda."
-David James Duncan

When the class discussed the difference between a serial killer and an artist, we mentioned the narcissistic attitude behind the "art" of a kill or victim. I found this quote from Duncan interesting as he parallels the art of fiction and lying. One could argue the idea behind, "well it is expressing what his/her beliefs/emotions/interpretations are and therefore is a form of art", but as Duncan and our class emphasized-poetry/art is not meant to be cruel or to self-serve. Emerson and Duncan agree on this topic (writing to help the greater good, to give people words and expression).

The questions raised in class over whether or not the ideals concerning poetry Emerson and Shelley believed in relate and/or can save the world, related to my situation as a student of psychology. I hope in the future to attend graduate school as a phsychology student, ultimately becoming a substance abuse counselor. This "line" of work tends to deal with people and lifestyles at their worst, with many addicts simply staying alive my sheer will power and distractions/programs. In some instances, poetry might be able to work as a type of therapy. BUT, if I were to read a poem or discuss beauty (Emerson and Shelley) to a heroin addict, who sold his/her own fillings for a fix, was kicked out of his/her house and divorced/children taken away--they would potentially look at me as if I was crazy. Now, I may be taking their words too literally and not fully understanding their meaning, but I have serious issues with this idea that poets are gods sent to reveal and display beauty and help people understand what they are thinking in relation to counseling and humanity in general.
Psychology has expanded in the past century and new understandings and treatment are brought to the field on a regular basis. I respect the work many phsychologists are doing, including my profs here at Messiah. They convinced me to look into the issue of the human psych more intimately. I started out an English major and then picked up Psychology because I grew disgusted with the attitude flaunted by students and profs that believed they were in fact "better" than the "common" man and they understood life on a deeper level than anyone else. Instead of attending family get-togethers or holidays, they holed themselves into rooms, alone, slaving through an entire poem only to come out when coffee was served with dessert--hoping for admiration concerning their dedication to words. THIS is what was talked about before class began in many of my classes. They say "Educated", I say "craving recognition"--a common enough flaw in anyone, but a flaw nonetheless. People attend couseling for much less.
People have problems/concerns that poetry will not be able to "solve" and will need higher treatment for. This is why I lost my faith in the wholistic power of the poem. There's no one "common" enough to face humanity in the face and offer solice, inspiration or beauty to those in the sciences or even teh tax lady down the street. It's all original wording, admirable, but filled with "English-major" jokes and puns related to Ovid's "Metamorphosis". I only know these two majors and cannot attest for any other concentration, but if we, the poets, are really called to be revealers and saviors of mankind then shouldn't we come back to earth, since that's where we're stuck anyways? And if we're called to make men fly or hear the nightingale, stop being unable to speak and communicate in a way that makes asking friends or aquaintances to lunch an uncomfortable situation. This may appear like an emotional tirade and it is. But it's erked me enough to make me direct my life in another direction. And I don't feel like they need to be separated.
Poetry and counseling could work so well together if we were able to destroy the emersonian stereotype- "I am not higher than you. I simply want to reveal to you...(blank)". I believe poetry does reveal beauty and maintains and expands our minds and helps reveal more of reality than we are actually aware. In a sense, a shadow of what people really feel, understand, experience, and believe. I don't believe facts and formulas can solve/explain humanity. Poetry has a purpose in that resspect. It's just the attitude that accompanies this way of thought and diction...it MIGHT not mean we're at fault, but we might try and examine why. I'm still trying to figure that out and try and merge the two together, while not loosing site of the importance and necessity of both.

Kerouc's Rocking Chair.

(Scene: Emerson has stopped by for tea at Kerouac's current residence. Kerouac, barefoot sits in a rocking chair. Recognizing Emerson, Kerouac smiles and pulls out a crate, and calls out "pine woods!").
"But never can any advantage be taken of nature by a trick The spirit of the world, the great calm presence of the Creator, comes not forth to the sorceries of opium or of wine. The sublime vision comes to the pure and simple soul in a clean and chaste body" (p.733).
Having recently read "The Dharma Bums" by Jack Kerouac I was greatly impressed with his respect and admiration of nature and the simple and serene. Kerouac, while traveling throughout the West, maintained this simplicity, taking to the mountains, living outside or in a shack (consistent with Emerson's belief that a poet should live "so low" on page 734) and writing all the while. His writing reveals a belief in the interconectedness of people and nature. When he camps with Japhy and hikes in California, Kerouac writes of "Buddha" and "Dharma", which conects all things.
While Emerson and Kerouac share a similar love for nature, their styles and religious beliefs are differing...however, Emerson accentuated content over form...so maybe he would be forgiving of that. And Emerson references a higher power on frequent occasions. So he could forgive that as well. What I find Emerson would frown upon was Kerouac's drug use that ultimately affected his writing. These two writers wrote ENTIRELY different genres (and generally wouldn't be compared against one another), but the first person I thought of was Kerouac when Emerson discussed what he called "tricks".
Kerouac would meditate in the woods for days, seeking communion with his suroundings and Buddha. He sought truth and on many different occasions tried to convince his family and acquaintances about this truth through his writings and verbally. Emerson would find his "wisdom" superficial because truth cannot be found without a pure/natural soul. Thus, Kerouac's writings as a whole could not be perceived as truth through Emerson's viewpoint.

Clip.

http://rossovermouth.com/vermouth_concord.html

Thoreau vs. Emerson Smackdown?

this is an interesting little clip about the old haunts of emerson and thoreau. quick watch. quaint setting.

(unfortunatley, didn't get to finish that last one)....I wanted to conclude the previous post by stating that Emerson exemplified what I understood of Romanticism with his different points and his explanations of what he percieved as important.

Romanticism, Emerson, and the onslaught of emo.

Emerson's opening paragraph juxtaposes the Romantic poets from "those with esteemed umpires of taste." From my previous understanding of Romantic ideals, Romantics believe in emotion, the "wildness" of nature, no real truth and a preoccupation with the idea of beauty.
It appears in the first paragraphs that Emerson dissaproves of the lack of integrity present in those that admire art, yet have corrupted souls. It's one thing to KNOW art, to feel it in your existence and to simply admire the concrete "rules" (if you will) of the art piece. This is the general idea behind Emerson's view of beauty. Drawing upon emotion (again, a main pillar of Romanticism), Emerson parallels this idea with the lifestyle of the poet. The poet must suffer to explain and invent new explanations for the human experience. The poet must liberate his own nature as well as his readership and the object he is seeking to describe, "The poet, by an ulterior intellectual perception, gives them a power which makes their old use forgotten, and puts eyes and a tongue into every dumb and inanimate object" (p.730). The poet has a balanced understanding of what beauty is and how to interpret nature. And he or she also possesses "virtue of being", which alows them to stay in touch with the piney wood, instead of preoccupation with fashion and fine wine.
The poet, in his or her calling to handle dreams, experience everything and represent man, cannot lose touch with the virtue of a simple existence. The poet should not be discontent, yet want to keep the soul simple and joyful. True joy comes from nature and its pure existence. Emerson argues that when nature is used as a poetic tool, there is no distinction between opposing entities (good and not good). Nature in this puristic state represents the universal and the supernatural. To the Romantic, not only does it bring true contentment, nature has a universal quality--beyond simply drawing the soul into nature and vice-versa--becasue it does not symbolize one set things...like the wind signifying turmoil or faith. To a Romantic the wind could something very specific for each individual who attempts to interpret the wind. Beauty cannot be transfixed or it will become stagnant, therefore; not real beauty.
Real beauty is expereinced when the observer feels it in his or her inner soul and delights in the emotions and reactions resulting from a sunset, starry sky or a rush of excitement or terror. Beauty is perfect as Emerson concludes on page 739. And perfect that only the poet-god can handle. The writer is infact god-like with a pious soul kept pure through nature and the invention and transformation of words. Through words we as readers and poet only "scratch the surface" of what could be understood..."The poet pours out verses in every solitude. Most of the things he says are conventional, no doubt; but by and by he says something which is original and beautiful" (page 737)

"The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism"