Archive for March 2nd, 2007

Poems of the week: rediscovered Plath; Keats’ worst poem ever

Anna Journey, a VCU graduate student, recently discovered a previously unpublished poem by Sylvia Plath. That venerable arbiter of literary taste, Jane Magazine, calls it “a gorgeous sonnet about feeling blah”.

If you’ve read AS Byatt’s Possession (or seen its lightweight film adaptation), you know that finding an unpublished text by a significant literary figure is a career-making, or at least publication-making, stroke of luck. Indeed, Journey has an essay forthcoming in Notes on Contemporary Literature about the poem, and she deserves congratulations for not only finding it, but recognizing its significance.

Before I give my opinion about it, here’s the link to read the poem:

“Ennui”
Sylvia Plath
Blackbird, an online journal of literature and the arts


Personally, I’m on the fence about this poem’s publication. It was an early work. Plath had time to publish it if she chose - but she never did. There is no record of its submission. It’s not that posthumous publication is wrong. Literary executors saved and published important works by many important writers, most notably Emily Dickinson. I don’t care if Emily wanted her poems kept private; I’m selfishly glad we have them. However, I don’t think “Ennui” lives up to Plath’s standard of published work, and if Plath chose to leave this one out of her body of work, I respect her decision.

On the other hand, it’s data. As a scientist, I abhor the waste of useful data. If this poem gives insight into Plath’s career and writing process, it’s valuable. So I guess I do want it published: as data, not art. But that distinction seems too subjective to be remotely valid.

The editors of Blackbird (and Plath’s estate, which gave publication rights) also considered Plath’s intent. In their Introduction, the editors suggest Plath may have intended to publish “Ennui”, because she labeled it with her contact information - evidence I think is pretty weak. The editors also justify their decision in terms of Plath’s legacy and reputation:

Few poets in the English language have been more widely read, or more wildly misinterpreted, than Sylvia Plath. Alternating waves of readers have seen her as a writer of courage, then as a figure of self-absorbed weakness. The meanings of her poetry and of her life too often have been evaluated solely in the light of her death. Some readers have even subscribed to the familiar notion that it was madness that drove her to create her most memorable work, madness that made it possible, a notion that is as anti-intellectual and anti-feminist as it is inaccurate. No poet of the twentieth century worked harder to acquire the craft, skill, and knowledge necessary to create poetry, and the triumph of the later work can be fully appreciated only in light of those early efforts in educating herself and the ambitious writing program which she set for herself when she was young. . .

In publishing Sylvia Plath’s “Ennui,” Blackbird wishes to recognize and celebrate the disciplined hard work she put into her early writing, work that made possible the astonishing achievement of her later poems, such as those in Ariel.

I do respect that. What I don’t get is the following:

Another, entirely different poem titled “Ennui,” less polished and rather slight compared to the poem published in Blackbird, is also included in the archive at the Lilly Library and labeled as “Ennui (II),” but we’ve not reproduced that work here, as it seems Plath had wisely rejected the idea of publishing it herself.

So basically, they released the unpublished poem they liked better as “art,” but preserved both as “data.” Hm. Maybe my gut instinct wasn’t so far off after all.

Regardless, “Ennui” is a solid poem. Many well-anthologized poets have done much worse in their early years. My (least) favorite example is Keats’s ghastly drivel below. I wish we could un-publish it. What was he thinking?

“Woman! when I behold thee flippant, vain”
John Keats

WOMAN! when I behold thee flippant, vain,
Inconstant, childish, proud, and full of fancies;
Without that modest softening that enhances
The downcast eye, repentant of the pain
That its mild light creates to heal again:
E’en then, elate, my spirit leaps, and prances,
E’en then my soul with exultation dances
For that to love, so long, I’ve dormant lain:
But when I see thee meek, and kind, and tender,
Heavens! how desperately do I adore
Thy winning graces;—to be thy defender
I hotly burn—to be a Calidore—
A very Red Cross Knight—a stout Leander—
Might I be loved by thee like these of yore.

Light feet, dark violet eyes, and parted hair;
Soft dimpled hands, white neck, and creamy breast,
Are things on which the dazzled senses rest
Till the fond, fixed eyes, forget they stare.
From such fine pictures, heavens! I cannot dare
To turn my admiration, though unpossess’d
They be of what is worthy,—though not drest
In lovely modesty, and virtues rare.
Yet these I leave as thoughtless as a lark;
These lures I straight forget—e’en ere I dine,
Or thrice my palate moisten: but when I mark
Such charms with mild intelligences shine,
My ear is open like a greedy shark,
To catch the tunings of a voice divine.

Ah! who can e’er forget so fair a being?
Who can forget her half retiring sweets?
God! she is like a milk-white lamb that bleats
For man’s protection. Surely the All-seeing,
Who joys to see us with his gifts agreeing,
Will never give him pinions, who intreats
Such innocence to ruin,—who vilely cheats
A dove-like bosom. In truth there is no freeing
One’s thoughts from such a beauty; when I hear
A lay that once I saw her hand awake,
Her form seems floating palpable, and near;
Had I e’er seen her from an arbour take
A dewy flower, oft would that hand appear,
And o’er my eyes the trembling moisture shake.

A greedy shark? A lamb that bleats for man’s protection? Gag!

I need to go read some Plath as an antidote.

2 comments March 2nd, 2007

Not Pleistocene, Not a Skeleton

pleist.JPG

Pleistocene Skeleton
Steel, wax, marble dust, and acrylic
Nancy Graves, 1970
Smithsonian Museum of American Art

Last fall I visited the newly renovated Smithsonian Museum of American Art. One of my favorite pieces was this sculpture by Nancy Graves. It’s made of steel, but coated and painted to resemble excavated bone.

It’s hard to explain why I singled this piece out - after all, it resembles any old skeleton in any number of natural history museums. But unlike the typical frenzied, kid-thronged dinosaur exhibit, the Graves sculpture was alone, at one end of a completely vacant gallery (except for myself and one of the Smithsonian’s many silent guards). It felt like I was discovering something for the first time. Yet it wasn’t authentic. It was neither “pleistocene” nor a “skeleton.” It had never been alive, and it wasn’t a history of anything, except the artist’s own imagination.

pleist2.JPG

Pleistocene Skeleton
Steel, wax, marble dust, and acrylic
Nancy Graves, 1970
Smithsonian Museum of American Art

Apparently Graves’ contemporaries weren’t sure what to make of her work either. They knew she was good: in 1969, at the age of 28, she held a solo show at the Whitney (the first woman to do so). It consisted of three life-sized camels - built from the inside out, of acrylic, hair, wool, and paint over wood and steel armatures. According to the Time review,

More than a few museumgoers suspected that Nancy Graves’ camels were part of an ingenious put-on, particularly since the Whitney was handing out extraordinarily pretentious brochures in which Miss Graves was quoted as proclaiming that “these camels do not find their organization in the real world but are the result of my experience. I cannot imagine or perceive a camel until it is completed.” It sounded rather as though she were kidding the highbrows who insist that great art must be abstract. Since the abstract artist—by definition—depicts shapes for which no exact models exist in the visible world, he sometimes refers to his work as “not perceived until completed.”

Miss Graves, however, when approached directly, maintains that all she cares about is camels. “There’s as much possibility for fresh invention in making a camel as in making a human figure,” she says. Come to think of it, since nobody else has done much using the camel as a subject, there is probably more. (Time, “The Camel As Art,” 1969)

3camels.gif

Camel VI, VII, VIII
wood, steel, burlap, polyurethane, animal skin, wax, oil paint
Nancy Graves, 1968-69

Graves worked continuously until her death in 1995, and her output was bewilderingly diverse. Prior to encountering “Pleistocene Skeleton,” I had never seen her earliest pieces. Her sculptures from the eighties look radically different - brightly colored abstract assemblages hardly reminiscent of natural history museums. So I was surprised to discover that one of her key influences was Clemente Susini, whose work she encountered at La Specola while on a Fulbright. (See my previous post on Susini here).

From an interview between Graves and Emily Wasserman:

The Museum of Natural History in Florence, Italy (where I lived and worked during 1966) contains the wax-works of an 18th-century anatomist, named Susini. What I saw there was a man whose total obsession was circumscribed within a very academic situation. That is, he was trying to define human anatomy in terms of drawings, and their reproduction in wax. The results were art, even in terms of that socio-historical period, although they were not recognized as such–they were not just copied cadavers. Visually, it’s the most emphatic thing–the attempt to be rigorous about whatever the problem was, was much more thorough and complete than most artists usually are…the significance of this for me was that Susini had produced a complex body of work from a single point of origin. (Artforum, 1970)

I love Graves’ description of Susini’s work. It reflects the central tension in scientific art (or art inspired by science) between accuracy and interpretation. Is it art or not? And why? “Pleistocene Skeleton” invokes that question, but doesn’t answer it.

Graves would continue to draw from natural history throughout her career. The fossil theme continues in her sculptures “Variability of Similar Forms,” “Fossils Incorrectly Placed,” and “Inside-Outside;” she would also create paintings based on geologic maps of the sea, moon, and Mars, and even her abstract sculptures included casts of natural materials. According to Michael Brenson, “while late American modernists were trying to build toward a future that would erase the past, Ms. Graves was involved in a wilder artistic project no less radical in its implications. She was re-creating evolution” (NYT, “Sculptures by Nancy Graves at the Brooklyn Museum,” 1987).

More on Nancy Graves:

Nancy Graves Foundation
National Gallery
Article at Answers.com

4 comments March 2nd, 2007


Calendar

March 2007
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category