The Future of LIfe.

I was reading through a textbook for my Environmental Issues course and saw this wonderful quote that resembled what we as a class have been talking about in Literary Criticism.
"Looking at the totality of life, the POET asks, 'Who are Gaia's children?' The Ecologist responds, 'They are the species. We must know the role each one plays in the whole in order to manage Earth wisely.' The Systematist adds, 'Then let's get started. How many species exist? Where are they in the world? Who are their genetic kin?'
The poet in this quote is someone who asks the questions. The questions create a dialogue where real global problems may be solved. Not only does this quote imply the importance of collective intelligence, but it also implies at the importance of the poet and the question. The question as we have learned in class is what the author seeks to ask and answer in each paragraph of prose or line of poetry. In this case, the poet asks and those that are systematic take over from there. But, we know that the poet hasn't stopped asking and answering life questions. If someone were to use this as an argument against the usefullness of poetry, I would say that they must not take the order of the quote lightly. The author himself appears to put meaning and thought into his writing, therefore we cannot assume that he is casting the poet, ultimately, in a negative light. The poet is necessary for the question.

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.