he
thinks
his palette is a toss
beside a row of jars,
dripping brushes and spent turps
that hold him up or down
with ether-easled thoughts
but how I sense the scent of something more
as if he views each graze to cheek as plant-to-seed
and draws that shadowed maze across his brow
to untie the tone of tendrilled silence by its lines
beyond his nose-to-canvas view that carries weight
when seen from sixty feet away
or more
and
perhaps
he is the east
of each self portrait he exhales,
his singular conception
tapped within a hundred more
and guided by a languaged light
towards an open door of spoken verse
that cuts across
another time,
another hush,
across another how
but
into
which
he
flows
another
now
The morose eyelid - where the chimera was broken,
you were keeping watch. But, from my darkness
miraculously won, for my sheets, now you are coming
to lick me from outside, still naive, still hesitant:
the kid and the young cavalier, he girl and the sun,
the rose and the boy, the moon and death - at
every instant another metamorphosis..."
(Jean Genet, Fragments of the Artwork)
"If only I were outside the room
so I could see myself seeing myself in it."
(Jean Genet, Fragments of the Artwork)
posted by name of the rose at 4:25 p.m.
15 Comments:
the second quote has gone missing ... like so many other things, recently; it seems that you drew inspiration from both? or, perhaps thought of both, after the inspiration?
on this, my inspiration came from somewhere other than these quotes (which serve to supplement the idea contained within my words) and thinking how I always value your impressions...I removed the first quote since it is an odd statement, rendered more so by being out of its particular context and so I was not sure it would make sense...and hence the second quote, that is sometimes hard to see things for what they are, when in their midst, the writer lost within a sea of thought...does that make sense?
the second quote has gone missing ... like so many other things, recently; it seems that you drew inspiration from both? or, perhaps thought of both, after the inspiration?
[hard to see things for what they are, when in their midst, the writer lost within a sea of thought]
and
[beyond his nose-to-canvas view that carries weight when seen from sixty feet away]
yes, these make sense.
[and so I was not sure it would make sense]
to whom? there must hav been an idea contained in your text that made you think of the first, no? something significant to you alone?
huh...this is funny...I am talking (so to speak) to the source and he is asking who or what the inspiration is...oh the veils of verse
but to answer your question about my choice of (the first) quote, the notion of keeping watch, someone keeping watch (not in a threatening voyeuristic way, but something gentler) and also the idea of trying to figure someone out, to gain insight, but in so doing, realizing that there is a potential metamorphosis in every moment, which makes it near impossible to ever know someone in totality...just vague thoughts about that rare kind of person who somehow makes or marks a different kind of now, outstanding in that sense of it
right ... I suppose that the question is whether, knowing that each reader derives his own meaning from a given text, you weren't happy with what the first quote 'said', or didn't know if it would complement as you'd hoped for the casual reader?
[potential metamorphosis in every moment, which makes it near impossible to ever know someone in totality]
yes, this is how I read it - and an interesting notion, as well.
yes, for the casual reader, to be sure,
but also because I liked the passage out of context
...but also because Genet uses it to begin a chapter titled Fragments of a Discourse...he is working out the notion that death plumbs, marks, one's every step and as a poet, he questions whether it is better to live on the surface of the world or to connect to the meaning of an obsession that devours him...either way it is his funeral chant...all this and its implied morbidity caught up in "should I post it or not"...
[right ... I suppose that the question is whether, knowing that each reader derives his own meaning from a given text, you weren't happy with what the first quote 'said', or didn't know if it would complement as you'd hoped for the casual reader?]
"The most frivolous opinion, that death doubles each event, had sensed it already. Each gesture is woven from it. Knowing as inevitable the flight of everything from everything, we pursue the mistake itself. My adventure will be funereal in that every act is resolutely lived and thought not so it will engender the act that comes, but so that it will be reflected in itself, burst forth, explode, and win the most rigorous definition of itself, all the way to annihilation."
His way of saying death as the ultimate metamorphosis, that there is a little death in every moment, that "...nothing interupts except the borders required by the order of the poem" ...
...how I perhaps wanted to avoid associating this topic with my text and how I hope you are not sorry that you asked
[...how I perhaps wanted to avoid associating this topic with my text and how I hope you are not sorry that you asked]
to the contrary; it's interesting to find the thoughts that create a foundation or influence, if only in passing, a text like yours ... not to mention the ideas that may be alluded to, if only to yourself, as you read and re-read it - things that you mentally reference that may not at all be associated with the text; it's more of a window into 'your' world.
[the meaning of an obsession that devours him] presumably death by his own hand, is that it?
[he
thinks
his palette is a toss
beside a row of jars]
other than the above, I wouldn't have read any of that into your text, which is why it becomes that much more interesting.
[presumably death by his own hand, is that it?]
it is the obsesion with all the little deaths contained within the strained stream of his life...he does not commit suicide, although tries to (unsuccessfully) in reaction to the suicide of his long time lover
[to the contrary; it's interesting to find the thoughts that create a foundation or influence] and of course there is your deleted text from last night which I htought had something to do with my (now deleted) text and so it cascades into the text, works the sub text
[other than the above, I wouldn't have read any of that into your text, which is why it becomes that much more interesting.]...and that is right since all of this 'Genet', the stuff of his quote, came after my writing, his words an extraneous supplement of sorts, a suffix
[cascades into the text, works the sub text] yes, I can appreciate this; the (deleted) text had everything to do with yours and more - an (un)explainable absurdity, of sorts, as I unravel and question my own motives.
this - and more - is what makes it interesting; it's the context in which it's written, that it can be as subtle or obvious as the author 'reads' it or the reader interprets it, in function of the writer's foundation etc
[his words an extraneous supplement of sorts, a suffix]
and this is what's interesting, as well ... it's the [suffix] or supplement, in addition to the text, the things that the author thinks of that aren't included, relevant or not ... the nuance that guitar and guattari may or may not have been a pun ... opening a door to any number of other things - for better or worse.
[yes, I can appreciate this; the (deleted) text had everything to do with yours and more - an (un)explainable absurdity, of sorts, as I unravel and question my own motives.]
...then I am glad! I deleted my text...it was not intended to offend (you) and I appreciate your honesty in this, even if I don't quite understand what I inadvetently 'said'...but nonetheless, it bothered me all day
[this - and more - is what makes it interesting; it's the context in which it's written, that it can be as subtle or obvious as the author 'reads' it or the reader interprets it, in function of the writer's foundation etc]
... yes... and that this medium is without eyes, the thought that i f I could just see (your) eyes, then I might learn a little more and perhaps see the nuanced meaning that in-a-glance contains in between the words we speak (or write)
[his words an extraneous supplement of sorts, a suffix]
[and this is what's interesting, as well ... it's the [suffix] or supplement, in addition to the text, the things that the author thinks of that aren't included, relevant or not ... the nuance that guitar and guattari may or may not have been a pun ... opening a door to any number of other things - for better or worse.]
yes again ... that no matter what the authorial intent, the text takes on a reader's cloak and morphs into something else, a text-becoming-reader, born anew with new eyes, that there is no fixity of meaning as Derrida would say and oh the endless stream of interpretations
I am sorry that it caused such a reaction
[...then I am glad! I deleted my text...it was not intended to offend (you) and I appreciate your honesty in this, even if I don't quite understand what I inadvetently 'said'...but nonetheless, it bothered me all day.]
it's not the text as such - nor is it offensive, I should add; rather, it was the realization that came when reading and responding to the text, almost independent of the content. here's where things are going to get weird: it bothered me because I wanted a way to respond to what you'd written, yes, but also, and probably more significantly, a way - anyway, really - to engage you - 'to get at you, somehow'; this 'engagement' is what struck me as being 'off', for any number of reasons, but I wanted to do it nonetheless and my motives to me alone were and are disturbing.
so, you see, you didn't 'say' anything; it's a good text and it's unfortunate that it's gone, as it's another creation and [confluence] of ideas.
[... yes... and that this medium is without eyes]
curiously and contrary to my posts, I don't speak alot; I do listen though, and speak when there's something of interest to say. I've been told more than once that I speak with my eyes, which is both blessing and curse, I suppose.
[the nuanced meaning that in-a-glance contains in between the words we speak (or write)]
and I suspect that there are a few.
although is very late here, I want to reply to some part of this, but please forgive any lack of lucidity on my part...
what you speak of is just the natural progression of (any kind of communiciation) once set into motion, to engage a risk... and I understand why you are conflicted ... just know that all things have a time and place to them, always, and what will be will be, saying these things in a public space, knowing how Borges' idea to "get at you somehow' is a beautiful thought, his notion to "bribe you with uncertainty", his joy of dark hemisphere
[so, you see, you didn't 'say' anything; it's a good text and it's unfortunate that it's gone, as it's another creation and [confluence] of ideas.]
... thank you for saying this, although I don't think I will repost it
[curiously and contrary to my posts, I don't speak alot; I do listen though, and speak when there's something of interest to say. I've been told more than once that I speak with my eyes, which is both blessing and curse, I suppose.] ... this is nice
[and I suspect that there are a few.] ... yes... a few
Post a Comment
<< Home