A face…

A face | with more secrets patched in than Bletchley Park |
in a street | a transient space to move from A-B | the jaundiced buildings
scuppered by draughts of salt & age | a broken egg resembling seagull shit

on the sea wall
“Among us | daytime is not failed night |
as much as night is not failed noon.”

Unless projected from its target | light | is of little use | “it blinds.”
Is fruit a burden on the branch or is the branch a burden on the fruit?
“Nobody ought to stop me from becoming God”

explains Professor Whatshisname
Ought implies can
— time’s a-ticking | crack on…

A roiling tundra of obsolete cell phones. Worn buttons loaded with thumbprints |
the lottery sized numbers of friends & family | selfies & holiday pics
inside— they all begin to ring at once as the earth thrums.

12 Comments Add yours

  1. kvennarad says:

    “Among us | daytime is not failed night |
    as much as night is not failed noon.”

    A good philosophical question is: when may something be taken as the base of something else? For example, we measure homosexuality against heterosexuality – why? There are plenty of reasons why we can, but do those equate to why we should? Would it make sense the other way round, or indeed to consider them wholly unrelated?

    I’m just jamming here. Pay no attention.

    1. i was aiming for an aphoristic expression of tolerance by using chiaroscuro. So i think your “philosophical question” is pertinent.
      i do this. i think there are differences that establish something as uniquely its own thing, but that those differences aren’t founded on a negative & a positive, but on qualities, which can be numerous & need to be explored before irrational judgements are made. For example, i think lyricism & poetry are entirely different & to call a lyricist poetic, isn’t so much wrong, but i don’t see what the problem is with just calling them a good lyricist. There are qualities to lyricism that makes it a discipline of its own that doesn’t need to have poetic qualities to give it substance. i say this because though i can sing (a bit) & i can create music (a bit), i cannot write lyrics for love nor money. & yet i write poetry constantly, which i can’t put to music, though i have tried. Nobody ever says your poems would make good lyrics. This, obviously isn’t as serious as the treatment of a minority, or the treatment of women, but it uses the same logical mechanics, essentially.

      1. kvennarad says:

        “Nobody ever says your poems would make good lyrics.”

        Except perhaps for the ones I write specifically to be set to music! 🙂

      2. Which are lyrics. Which is different. Haha. But i sense i am walking into the jaws of a joke here. i can see the dorsal parting water.
        Something else i don’t enjoy, even when Stravinsky does it with Thomas, is music set to poems. It just sounds awkward to me. One or the other. A poem is already so musical to me. The music actually interferes.

      3. kvennarad says:

        “Which are lyrics.”

        Except… well… ARE they? If they can stand alone (as indeed most of mine DO, because no one has volunteered to set them to music yet!), then surely one can argue that they challenge to be fitted into either/both category/ies. You see, we’re in the dangerous territory of taxonomy again, which is a process of exclusion, not of sorting.

        In the past I have written ballads (i.e. by the poetic definition) and have re-worked the structure, story, and language of Child Ballads and folk songs. I have written tongue-in-cheek ‘lyrics’ for at least one Country & Western song (‘I’m a Stand-By-Your-Woman Woman’), I have translated the Marseillaise and ‘La Carmagnole’, I have translated a sonnet by Gérard de Nerval that Donald Swann had set delightfully to music and it was the latter’s sung version that inspired me to do so. All these, because they CAN be sung, but ARE composed so that they look cogent, coherent, and in context on the page/screen, tax the taxonomist – and deliberately so! When you get (something presented as) a poem from me, you get something with as many lives and layers as it can possible contain/embody/suggest/be appropriated to. It’s what I do.

      4. i wasn’t questioning the validity of whether it can be done. It is just something i don’t personally enjoy that’s all. Up to yet, i haven’t really heard any i like. & though i haven’t heard anything & i may yet hear something i do like having heard many of Schubert’s songs & Tchaikovsky, some of Mahler’s & Stravinsky of course, i just don’t feel them & that is important for me in music, it is an emotional pull, which is how i play & perform & how i hear. It must physically affect me, i cannot think about music. It just doesn’t work that way. You could almost say i touch it & it reacts to my skin. i shit you not, some music, even though i heard it 100s of time still makes me horripilate & even weep with joy. The end of Mahler’s 2nd Symphony as an example. Janacek’s Glagolitic Mass, Scott Walker’s Two Ragged Soldiers & Such a Small Love & Nina Simone’s interpretation of Suzanne, the entirety of Mars Volta’s Amputecture, pretty much everything Robbie Basho did. i could go on.
        i don’t think this is a matter of taxonomy, but taste.

      5. kvennarad says:

        “Which are lyrics. Which is different.”

        “i don’t think this is a matter of taxonomy, but taste.”

        Just showing where you contradict yourself. 🙂

      6. i don’t know as i do. The first was said tongue in cheek. Your phrase “Except perhaps for the ones I write specifically to be set to music!” sounded very much like a definition of lyrics. i think i may have misunderstood.
        Maybe i should clarify that i don’t personally enjoy hearing music someone has written to a poem. i don’t hate it, that would be ludicrous. i don’t really like Ekphrasis either, for much the same reasons, it seems somewhat unnecessary. In both cases the separate arts don’t require each other to stand out. i don’t like sauce on my food either, simple seasoning is quite sufficient.
        My focus in both comments was always my personal taste, i still never said it wasn’t possible or it shouldn’t be done, but that it wasn’t to my liking. i sound defensive now, but i don’t mean to, i don’t want to be misunderstood though, i hope you understand.

      7. kvennarad says:

        Yes, I understand right enough. I think you know I tend to go around with a bladder on a stick, walloping my friends liberally. 😉

      8. i don’t mind at all. i actually like someone to keep me on my toes, i wouldn’t wish you to stop for anything. i don’t get offend on these matters, & i am open to change if i can see it. i am no Dadaist angered at being labelled a Surrealist. Your smiley faces defuse me anyhow.

  2. Your use of chiaroscuro here is telling. I detected the grayscale of a pencil drawing immediately. The jaundiced buildings / scuppered by draughts of salt & age | a broken egg resembling seagull shit / on the sea wall—nice vision that.

    1. i never seem to be done with light & dark, shade & sun, pretty much duality in its multifarious manifestations. It is an ongoing, problem, perhaps? No. More a continual reminder of oscillation & opposition.

a penny for your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s