Archive for February 9th, 2007

Poem of the Week: For all this, nature is never spent

Poor Gerard Manley Hopkins. He’s frequently anthologized, yet I get the feeling people read his poems and go “Wha. . . .?”

So he was a manic-depressive repressed Jesuit who invented his own words, rhythm and poetic theory. So his overt religious agenda can be a bit preachy. If you get through that, his poems are refreshingly short, sweet, and downright fun to recite.

Yesterday’s talk of birds got me thinking of this Hopkins poem, which must take the prize for most over-the-top poetic bird metaphor (unless his “Windhover” did first). I memorized it almost ten years ago, and still remember the whole thing. Ah, the mnemonic power of sprung rhythm and alliteration. Definitely read this one aloud.

(And let’s hope he was right that “nature is never spent” - because our species is pushing it.)

God’s Grandeur
Gerard Manley Hopkins

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

2 comments February 9th, 2007

Beauty, Art and Fantasy

bressane.jpg

Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon posted yesterday about a photography firm that offers photo retouching. Their portfolio is yet another reminder that nothing you see in a fashion magazine is real - even beautiful, waif-thin models get the airbrush treatment. Lord knows what they’d do to the rest of us.

Are these photos more attractive after the retouching? If so, are they more attractive in an aesthetic way, or in a sexual way? Why is there a difference between these two questions?

I think the example above was definitely more interesting, and had more personality, before retouching. But that doesn’t mean stylized glamour shots can’t be striking works of art. Many iconic fashion photographs portray completely unrealistic ideals of female beauty. If I object to a photo because it promotes such an unrealistic ideal, must I also reject it as art? Or should art be judged without regard for its social impact? I’m honestly not sure about this one. All I know is, excessive airbrushing creeps me out. And makes me want to eat Cheetos.

Add comment February 9th, 2007


Calendar

February 2007
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category