I Love You

[claudia84]

It's a beautiful day, and I'm
Feeling so alive, 'cause I
Got you by my side and there's nothing stopping me
Can't take the smile off my face, I'm so
In love with you, let's go
Explore the world..there's soo much to see
When I'm with you, I feel like I'm the most important thing
To you, you set my soul on fire
The things you do, impress me more and more
I love the way you hug me tight, this feels so right
I love you, you love me too
You're my fallen angel,
I promise I'll be good to you.. 'cause I will
You love me babe, and I love you too
Let's stay together always..
You promised you'll be good to me.. I believe..<3

[gilfers]

that's reaaaaal cute :)

[The Personist]

What of this did you not take from any given love song on the radio? Literally a litany of cliches.

[SilverWings]

What of this did you not take from any given love song on the radio? Literally a litany of cliches.QUITE.

[gilfers]

I know it's not very unique, but the idea is cute, though it worked for all the original writers too :|

[fightinirish217]

Nah.

[nkalldayyy]

It's cliche and a bit trite, but writing is all about how you feel.
as long as it's honest, that's really all that counts.

[The Personist]

^
Not true. Honesty doesn't make it good. It makes it honest.

[nkalldayyy]

^
Not true. Honesty doesn't make it good. It makes it honest.
you can be as articulate as you'd like, but it means absolutely nothing without any honest emotion behind it.

[The Personist]

you can be as articulate as you'd like, but it means absolutely nothing without any honest emotion behind it.
How do you know if there's honest emotion behind it or not?

[nkalldayyy]

How do you know if there's honest emotion behind it or not?
it's not something you know, it's something you feel.

how do you know there isn't?
stop treating it so analytically and read it.

not everyone writes with a dictionary at their side.

[The Personist]

it's not something you know, it's something you feel.

how do you know there isn't?
stop treating it so analytically and read it.

not everyone writes with a dictionary at their side.
If you can't quantify it, you can't use "honesty" and feeling as a means of judging art. I never said there wasn't; I'm a very emotional person, and I put a lot of that into my writing. However, you can't sit around and tell me it's there and that makes something good. It's a litany of cliches. I'd argue, based on that, that it's NOT heartfelt. It's a cheap cop-out involving every rehashed image imaginable. It's meaningless because it's been done before.

This is a forum for critique. I will read it as analytically and critically as is necessary to provide adequate feedback. IN this case, it didn't take much; the piece is as shallow as my ex-girlfriend.

I don't write with a dictionary at my side, either. I don't know where you get that.

[nkalldayyy]

If you can't quantify it, you can't use "honesty" and feeling as a means of judging art. I never said there wasn't; I'm a very emotional person, and I put a lot of that into my writing. However, you can't sit around and tell me it's there and that makes something good. It's a litany of cliches. I'd argue, based on that, that it's NOT heartfelt. It's a cheap cop-out involving every rehashed image imaginable. It's meaningless because it's been done before.

This is a forum for critique. I will read it as analytically and critically as is necessary to provide adequate feedback. IN this case, it didn't take much; the piece is as shallow as my ex-girlfriend.

I don't write with a dictionary at my side, either. I don't know where you get that.
she's writing about how she feels.

like I said, it may be trite and cliche but that doesn't make it acceptable for you to condescend upon it. poetry is about expressing yourself. it's not a science and if you ask me it's one of the most subjective art forms.

also, this is an open forum so technically, as long as it's not a racial slur, I CAN use any word I want. If I feel the need to use the word "honest" to provide "adequate feedback" I will.

lastly, you may know about writing and literature and believe me, I think it's great that you're trying to help the girl out, but you've just been plain rude. you're behind a little screen and you feel that you have some type of virtual immunity, but you don't.



EDIT: Oops! almost forgot to mention, I posted a thread of something I wrote in this forum. Thought you might want to tear it apart for me? Kay, Thanks :wave:

[The Personist]

she's writing about how she feels.
Wonderful. Why does that automatically make it good art?

like I said, it may be trite and cliche but that doesn't make it acceptable for you to condescend upon it. poetry is about expressing yourself. it's not a science and if you ask me it's one of the most subjective art forms.
Not all poetry is about self-expression. Imagism isn't at all about expressing feelings and emotion, and to diminish all poetry to a relatively small definition like that would exclude a LOT of classics. Not every Romantic poet wrote confessional/lyric verse. "The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner" is not at all about how Coleridge feels; however, it's also considered a staple of English poetry. There's more to poetry than just expressing emotions. A good poet expresses emotion in a new and interesting way. My favorite poets--both of whom are pictured in my avatar--were masters of abstraction and emotion. If you want to see brilliant self-expression, google "Mayakovsky" by Frank O'Hara. Amazing, amazing poem...it deals with an expression of emotion in an interesting and fresh way.

also, this is an open forum so technically, as long as it's not a racial slur, I CAN use any word I want. If I feel the need to use the word "honest" to provide "adequate feedback" I will.
Just because you can use it doesn't mean it's right. I was saying it's a vague and stupid term to use to critique art. I say again, this doesn't come across as "honest" to me because it's just a rehashing of a bunch of other people's cliches and trite imagery. It feels very fake, if anything. You've yet to make a case for its honesty, though, which is why I will continue to bash you for using that stupid word without supporting your argument. My argument for its DIShonesty has been stated.

lastly, you may know about writing and literature and believe me, I think it's great that you're trying to help the girl out, but you've just been plain rude. you're behind a little screen and you feel that you have some type of virtual immunity, but you don't.
I'm sorry that I said things that weren't reallllly nice about this sort of drivel. You were pretty unhelpful in your comment on my poem, where you were trying to make a point. (You failed, of course, to make this point, especially because "difficult to read" is hardly a valid criticism unless you can explain how it actually obscures the poem beyond approachability, an argument you'll be making with the intention not of helping me but with cutting me down because you disagree with me about this cliche nonsense)

I'm not immune; I'm just more correct than you are in this case.

[nkalldayyy]

Wonderful. Why does that automatically make it good art?


Not all poetry is about self-expression. Imagism isn't at all about expressing feelings and emotion, and to diminish all poetry to a relatively small definition like that would exclude a LOT of classics. Not every Romantic poet wrote confessional/lyric verse. "The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner" is not at all about how Coleridge feels; however, it's also considered a staple of English poetry. There's more to poetry than just expressing emotions. A good poet expresses emotion in a new and interesting way. My favorite poets--both of whom are pictured in my avatar--were masters of abstraction and emotion. If you want to see brilliant self-expression, google "Mayakovsky" by Frank O'Hara. Amazing, amazing poem...it deals with an expression of emotion in an interesting and fresh way.


Just because you can use it doesn't mean it's right. I was saying it's a vague and stupid term to use to critique art. I say again, this doesn't come across as "honest" to me because it's just a rehashing of a bunch of other people's cliches and trite imagery. It feels very fake, if anything. You've yet to make a case for its honesty, though, which is why I will continue to bash you for using that stupid word without supporting your argument. My argument for its DIShonesty has been stated.


I'm sorry that I said things that weren't reallllly nice about this sort of drivel. You were pretty unhelpful in your comment on my poem, where you were trying to make a point. (You failed, of course, to make this point, especially because "difficult to read" is hardly a valid criticism unless you can explain how it actually obscures the poem beyond approachability, an argument you'll be making with the intention not of helping me but with cutting me down because you disagree with me about this cliche nonsense)

I'm not immune; I'm just more correct than you are in this case.

Firstly: art doesn't have to be good to be art. Have you ever heard of Matisse? Seurat? Artist who were never taken seriously or "good" but none the less, it was art. This may not apply in the case of this piece, but when speaking generally, just because it's not what you perceive as art, doesn't mean it isn't.

Also, as an artist and an avid writer and reader, there are a lot of ways that you can do things "artistically" that might not be completely original. We all derive from our influences just as your described poems and poets that you admire and probably are influenced by. My point is: everyone has to start somewhere. This may not be the world's greatest poem, but it's a start. Would it hurt to give some positive feedback? Even the smallest amount? Everyone needs a jumping off point and whether or not you think it's original it's expressionism and yes, it's subjective.

As for my comment on your writing, I'm not that immature. I genuinely did not understand what you were trying to say in that piece. IMO, it was messy and difficult to understand. It felt unstructured.

[The Personist]

Firstly: art doesn't have to be good to be art. Have you ever heard of Matisse? Seurat? Artist who were never taken seriously or "good" but none the less, it was art. This may not apply in the case of this piece, but when speaking generally, just because it's not what you perceive as art, doesn't mean it isn't.
Never said it had to be good. In fact, this is very, very, very bad art. How are Matisse and Seurat bad?

Also, as an artist and an avid writer and reader, there are a lot of ways that you can do things "artistically" that might not be completely original. We all derive from our influences just as your described poems and poets that you admire and probably are influenced by. My point is: everyone has to start somewhere. This may not be the world's greatest poem, but it's a start. Would it hurt to give some positive feedback? Even the smallest amount? Everyone needs a jumping off point and whether or not you think it's original it's expressionism and yes, it's subjective. Of course everyone has to start someone. If you validate every awful poem by saying "it's honest, at least," people won't know what they're doing wrong. I'd rather be told I suck (as I have been in the past) than told it was nice that I was honest, at least. Basically, you're mad that I wasn't considerate of someone else's feelings. To be perfectly honest, sparing someone's feeligns shouldn't matter when it comes to art. If you worry too much about the feelings of the artist, you'll never be able to be as objective as possible about the work in question.

As for my comment on your writing, I'm not that immature. I genuinely did not understand what you were trying to say in that piece. IMO, it was messy and difficult to understand. It felt unstructured. Be more specific and I will take you moderately seriously.

EDIT: Also, I'm fairly certain I stated point blank in the piece what I wanted to say.

[nkalldayyy]

Never said it had to be good. In fact, this is very, very, very bad art. How are Matisse and Seurat bad?


Of course everyone has to start someone. If you validate every awful poem by saying "it's honest, at least," people won't know what they're doing wrong. I'd rather be told I suck (as I have been in the past) than told it was nice that I was honest, at least. Basically, you're mad that I wasn't considerate of someone else's feelings. To be perfectly honest, sparing someone's feeligns shouldn't matter when it comes to art. If you worry too much about the feelings of the artist, you'll never be able to be as objective as possible about the work in question.


Be more specific and I will take you moderately seriously.


ONE: Yes, at the time, Matisse and Seurat were considered "bad" or lesser forms of art.

TWO: The artists' feelings shouldn't matter? Are you sure? Because I can truthfully say that 90% of almost all art is about something the artist feels or thinks. So, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this one.

Also, I truly believe what she wrote was honest. I can't explain to you how to interpret honesty. That's something you have to figure out for yourself.

THREE: I don't need you to take me seriously. If you want a more specific interpretation of my feelings on what you wrote, you're gonna have to ask nicely. otherwise, good luck being your rude little self.


EDIT: I'm pretty sure your piece had no direction.

[The Personist]

ONE: Yes, at the time, Matisse and Seurat were considered "bad" or lesser forms of art.

TWO: The artists' feelings shouldn't matter? Are you sure? Because I can truthfully say that 90% of almost all art is about something the artist feels or thinks. So, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this one.

Also, I truly believe what she wrote was honest. I can't explain to you how to interpret honesty. That's something you have to figure out for yourself.

THREE: I don't need you to take me seriously. If you want a more specific interpretation of my feelings on what you wrote, you're gonna have to ask nicely. otherwise, good luck being your rude little self.
ONE: At the time doesn't matter. They are not bad or lesser in any way. They are different. Different things generally aren't accepted readily. This is not "different" at all.

TWO: Once you create a work of art, it is its own entity. What i say about a poem has nothing to do with my feelings for the poet. If you can't separate the work of art from the artist, then you have to throw out Eliot (anti-Semite), Pound (anti-Semite fascist), Stevens (Racist), William Carlos Williams (racist), Hart Crane (racist), Wagner (anti-Semite), Bob Dylan (sexist), Charles Bukowski (sexist), and, well, most art before 1900. Art and artist are two separate things. There is a piece of the artist in his work, yes, but ultimately they are to be judged and assessed separately. Otherwise critique is meaningless.

THREE: Considering the fact that I am inviting you to tell me why I am bad and you cannot beyond your vague, insipid comments about structure, I'll just assume you're too afraid to try to actually substantiate your claims about my poem and that, in fact, you are admitting that you were wrong.

Stop defending bad art.

EDIT: Another unsubstantiated claim about my work. If you would SUBSTANTIATE IT, I might take your criticism mildly seriously. Instead, though, you're just being petty.

[nkalldayyy]

ONE: At the time doesn't matter. They are not bad or lesser in any way. They are different. Different things generally aren't accepted readily. This is not "different" at all.

TWO: Once you create a work of art, it is its own entity. What i say about a poem has nothing to do with my feelings for the poet. If you can't separate the work of art from the artist, then you have to throw out Eliot (anti-Semite), Pound (anti-Semite fascist), Stevens (Racist), William Carlos Williams (racist), Hart Crane (racist), Wagner (anti-Semite), Bob Dylan (sexist), Charles Bukowski (sexist), and, well, most art before 1900. Art and artist are two separate things. There is a piece of the artist in his work, yes, but ultimately they are to be judged and assessed separately. Otherwise critique is meaningless.

THREE: Considering the fact that I am inviting you to tell me why I am bad and you cannot beyond your vague, insipid comments about structure, I'll just assume you're too afraid to try to actually substantiate your claims about my poem and that, in fact, you are admitting that you were wrong.

Stop defending bad art.

EDIT: Another unsubstantiated claim about my work. If you would SUBSTANTIATE IT, I might take your criticism mildly seriously. Instead, though, you're just being petty.
ONE: exactly why I said "This may not apply in the case of this piece, but when speaking generally, just because it's not what you perceive as art, doesn't mean it isn't." in the post before my last.

TWO: The work of art has just about everything to do with the artist and with interpreting their art. how could we know anything about a piece without knowing about the artist first? A good artist delivers themselves fully into their art. Art is a representation of one's thoughts and ideas. You basically HAVE TO know about an artist to understand their work. If not, you'll never fully understand it.

THREE: It's not about being wrong, I just don't understand that sad excuse for a poem. It's indirect, fragmented thoughts, that amount to no fully thought out concept or distinguishable emotion. It's empty. You're trying too hard, hun. It's pretty obvious.
^ There's your analysis.

I'm peacin'.
night, kid.

[The Personist]

ONE: exactly why I said "This may not apply in the case of this piece, but when speaking generally, just because it's not what you perceive as art, doesn't mean it isn't." in the post before my last.

TWO: The work of art has just about everything to do with the artist and with interpreting their art. how could we know anything about a piece without knowing about the artist first? A good artist delivers themselves fully into their art. Art is a representation of one's thoughts and ideas. You basically HAVE TO know about an artist to understand their work. If not, you'll never fully understand it.

THREE: It's not about being wrong, I just don't understand that sad excuse for a poem. It's indirect, fragmented thoughts, that amount to no fully thought out concept or distinguishable emotion. It's empty. You're trying too hard, hun. It's pretty obvious.
^ There's your analysis.

I'm peacin'.
night, kid.
ONE: Fair enough. Your examples of Matisse and Seurat were stupid and made you look utterly ridiculous.

TWO: I had this argument with someone else not too long ago. Allow me to rehash it:

I believe we've had this discussion before, when you mentioned Barthes. I'm still a literary fascist who believes that the only correct interpretation is that which is intended by the author. But this is a digression from the actual point; being that an intimate association with a work of art's content brings a more actualized and richer interpretation.

That's just plain wrong though, and I"m sorry for saying that, but it's based on such flimsy/fallacious artistic premises that it's laughable. You assume that an artist has ONE point to get across, that there is ONE way they want to be interpreted, and thus they have made this such that we see it that way. But that ignores all we know now about perception, and is like pretending that Modern art never happened. That whole school was concerned with the problem of the representation of reality. the Impressionists, Expressionists, and basically every major school of modern painting that came thereafter eschewed realism and naturalism because they were more concerned with their art as being autonomous and existing as art rather than as a mimetic reproduction of what they saw as reality. This can also be found in poets like Eliot and Stevens, who were obsessed with the nature of perception and representation. The Waste Land, in fact, is impossible to interpret in one way. It has no hegemonic, clear, indicated theme. It invokes and evokes all sorts of moods and themes, but ultimately does not make one cohesive, inalienable point. Similarly, since then (and granted most of what I know about this is in poetry/literature), postmodern theory has further rejected overarching singularity of meaning in art. Derrida blasted that notion with deconstruction, and Barthes discussed the death of the author, etc. Most important, though, is the fact that artists have been influenced by this perspectivism. They don't write (or create) with a single point in mind. Art is, as I've said many times, a conversation, not a monologue. Furthermore, good art shouldn't tell you what to believe or think. IN theater, for instance, the best and most powerful plays are those that are debates between ideas (rather than those with clear-cut morals at the end). the author may believe one of the ideas is correct, but he doesn't present it so that one wins out without any sort of grey area (life is full of that sort of thing) because if he does, he's telling the audience what to believe. Good art raises questions and doesn't necessarily answer them; therefore, multiple interpretations and ambiguity are good things.

That doesn't mean, of course, that my saying IARB is an allegory of the story of the Passion of the Christ is correct. We have to remember that just because people have different perspectives doesn't make them all equally valid. For Nietzsche, this means the strongest person is right; for literary/art critics, this means the ones with actual evidence/basis in the text are more correct than those who grasp at straws. Basically, your view is myopic and ignores the beautiful nature of art that's come about...well, basically you ignore modern art and miss its point if you go on your definition.

^
That is why your TWO is so wrong it hurts.

THREE: I'm assuming you read my poem maybe once or twice and made a snap judgment based not on what I've actually written (because I can objectively prove this analysis wrong citing examples from my own work) but on what you perceive a poem SHOULD be and based on your personal disdain for me. I'd say the emotion is fairly distinguishable because I say it explicitly in the poem what it is I am feeling. Furthermore, it seems to me that your critique is something that would also render "The Waste Land" as a "sad excuse for a poem," something that just ain't true.

Your conception of poetry seems to be one that is far from well-developed or intelligent. I'm not some conceited classicist trying to stifle expression and creativity; no, rather, I'm trying to preserve an art form that is already generally not well lauded in society because it is something that means a lot to me. I'd like to know what you consider good poetry, because I certainly don't think most good poetry from the last 50 years is as "direct" as you say a good poem should be. Charles Bukowski, Frank O'Hara, John Ashbery, Sylvia Plath, Kenneth Koch, and Yusef Komunyakaa all dabble in artful and brilliant abstraction. But, by your definition, none would be particularly "good" poets because they're "trying too hard" and not presenting one conceit for the audience to "get." It seems to me that you are simply not well-read in poetry or on the subject (essays on poetics are abound on the internet) and are waxing philosophical on the nature of art without thinking about the discourse on it prior to our little AP.net spat. Don't condescend or call me "kid" when you yourself know not of what you speak.

[nkalldayyy]

ONE: Fair enough. Your examples of Matisse and Seurat were stupid and made you look utterly ridiculous.

TWO: I had this argument with someone else not too long ago. Allow me to rehash it:




^
That is why your TWO is so wrong it hurts.

THREE: I'm assuming you read my poem maybe once or twice and made a snap judgment based not on what I've actually written (because I can objectively prove this analysis wrong citing examples from my own work) but on what you perceive a poem SHOULD be and based on your personal disdain for me. I'd say the emotion is fairly distinguishable because I say it explicitly in the poem what it is I am feeling. Furthermore, it seems to me that your critique is something that would also render "The Waste Land" as a "sad excuse for a poem," something that just ain't true.

Your conception of poetry seems to be one that is far from well-developed or intelligent. I'm not some conceited classicist trying to stifle expression and creativity; no, rather, I'm trying to preserve an art form that is already generally not well lauded in society because it is something that means a lot to me. I'd like to know what you consider good poetry, because I certainly don't think most good poetry from the last 50 years is as "direct" as you say a good poem should be. Charles Bukowski, Frank O'Hara, John Ashbery, Sylvia Plath, Kenneth Koch, and Yusef Komunyakaa all dabble in artful and brilliant abstraction. But, by your definition, none would be particularly "good" poets because they're "trying too hard" and not presenting one conceit for the audience to "get." It seems to me that you are simply not well-read in poetry or on the subject (essays on poetics are abound on the internet) and are waxing philosophical on the nature of art without thinking about the discourse on it prior to our little AP.net spat. Don't condescend or call me "kid" when you yourself know not of what you speak.
I'm pretty sure you're just pissed off that I said you're poem sucks, which it does. whatevs.


I don't care what you know about writing and poetry, at least I'm not a rude little asshole.

/thread.

[The Personist]

I'm pretty sure you're just pissed off that I said you're poem sucks, which it does. whatevs.


I don't care what you know about writing and poetry, at least I'm not a rude little asshole.

/thread.
You know absolutely nothing about art. That would be what is making me upset. Your ignorance, rather than my own pretense, is the cause for frustration. If you weren't an idiot, perhaps I would be more inclined to be pleasant. Grow up.

[tommy's ghost]

I was brought into this because I shared a similar point of view with some nitwit who says "I'm peacin'?"

For fuck's sake, David, give our argument the respect it deserves.

To truly, fully, and entirely understand a work of art, to completely appreciate its absolute intrinsic value, you must know the context in which it was made.

[The Personist]

I was brought into this because I shared a similar point of view with some nitwit who says "I'm peacin'?"

For fuck's sake, David, give our argument the respect it deserves.

To truly, fully, and entirely understand a work of art, to completely appreciate its absolute intrinsic value, you must know the context in which it was made.
I have no idea how you can substantiate this, which is why you're still wrong about it.

[tommy's ghost]

I have no idea how you can substantiate this, which is why you're still wrong about it.

Because you can't determine something's true meaning. The mere fact that you interpreted it a specific way, does not make your interpretation factual.

It's purely subjective until you have evidence to support your analysis.

[The Personist]

Because you can't determine something's true meaning. The mere fact that you interpreted it a specific way, does not make it factual.

It's purely subjective until you have evidence to support your analysis.
Knowing the author's perspective is like knowing one subjective interpretation. The author's intentions are important in that they are one way to interpret it, but you can't reject other things people get out of the text simply because the author said it wasn't supposed to mean that. You can never truly know a work of art, anyways, so it's ludicrous to say something like that anyways.

[tommy's ghost]

Knowing the author's perspective is like knowing one subjective interpretation. The author's intentions are important in that they are one way to interpret it, but you can't reject other things people get out of the text simply because the author said it wasn't supposed to mean that. You can never truly know a work of art, anyways, so it's ludicrous to say something like that anyways.

This is why we will never agree. I see the author's interpretation as the actual meaning of a piece. I would never tell an author that he meant one thing when he says he meant another.

I'm not saying subjective analyzations are invalid and unwarranted; I know that art thrives on individual interpretations. I'm saying that one can never know the true purpose of something without researching its context.

I realize it's a moot point to argue this with you, though.

[The Personist]

This is why we will never agree. I see the author's interpretation as the actual meaning of a piece. I would never tell an author that he meant one thing when he says he meant another.

I'm not saying subjective analyzations are invalid and unwarranted; I know that art thrives on individual interpretations. I'm saying that one can never know the true purpose of something without researching its context.

I realize it's a moot point to argue this with you, though.
It's not about telling the author what he means or what he doesn't mean; it's about treating the text as separate from the creator. In certain cases--like Personism--the author is inextricable from the text, but even then you learn about the author FROM the work of art, and don't need to know about O'Hara's life in order to get the overall gist. Intention doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things; again, I cite Shakespeare. Arguably the greatest writer of the English language, and yet his writing has literally no artistic intent behind it that we can discern. That doesn't change the text in front of us.

[SilverWings]

I think 'art' is a broader term than anyone here is really stating.

For example, we all know that modern day radio is filled to the gills with crap, but ultimately, when any average and 'common population' person who listens to the radio extracts some meaning from a song full of cliches, isn't that a good thing? Surely it must be. Of course you could question that person's taste, but I'd bet that person would say that they think your taste is rubbish, as well. Hell, it's happened to me before!

I understand what The Personist is trying to say about quality of writing, but come on dude, did you really expect the next O'Hara or Shakespeare to come waltzing onto the AP.net lyrics board? I know the answer is no, but you gotta stop applying all these high levels of expectations on just the simplest of pieces.

Basically, what I'm saying is that subjectivity really is the ultimate determiner, whether you like it or not. Just look at the first reply, calling it 'cute' - that's at least served SOME purpose to SOMEBODY, and as insignificant as that fact is, it's still a form of artistic expression regardless of one person's taste over another's.

[The Personist]

If I'm lenient or say "well, for an AP.net post, it's good," that doesn't help any. Also, notice the argument itself wasn't about the piece (which sucks) but about a broader means of critiquing art.

But I'll stop actually having standards on AP. I apologize for assuming people posted on this board wanting to improve. From now on I'll only have nice things to say about how cute it is.

EDIT: This piece isn't even that cute, either.

[SilverWings]

That's my whole point. You may not think it is, but someone else might, like the member who replied first. I agree with you that's it not the most amazing piece in the world and it's pretty damn unoriginal, but it all depends on what you wanna get out of what you're reading.

[The Personist]

So you admit you want me to stop caring about actual quality?

[claudia84]

If I'm lenient or say "well, for an AP.net post, it's good," that doesn't help any. Also, notice the argument itself wasn't about the piece (which sucks) but about a broader means of critiquing art.

But I'll stop actually having standards on AP. I apologize for assuming people posted on this board wanting to improve. From now on I'll only have nice things to say about how cute it is.

EDIT: This piece isn't even that cute, either.



I appreciate your opinion on my poem.. Which is actually about when my boyfriend and I fell in love. It has lots of meaning to me, and I don't feel the need to fill my pieces with intricate words or metaphoric ways of getting the point across. Less sometimes is more, and I wrote this on my apartment balcony over looking the beautiful Philadelphia skyline. I'm sorry if you thought it was cliche', but this piece is completely from my own heart. Take care, and keep up your craft.

[claudia84]

That's my whole point. You may not think it is, but someone else might, like the member who replied first. I agree with you that's it not the most amazing piece in the world and it's pretty damn unoriginal, but it all depends on what you wanna get out of what you're reading.


Thank you for your feedback..<3

[claudia84]

that's reaaaaal cute :)


Thanks a lot..<3 xo

[claudia84]

It's cliche and a bit trite, but writing is all about how you feel.
as long as it's honest, that's really all that counts.


Thank you for your feeback, and having my back lol..<3 Take care xo

[SilverWings]

So you admit you want me to stop caring about actual quality?No, just have some reasonable expectations is all. I don't think claudia84 deserves to be given the third degree and comparisons to bloody Shakespeare, haha. And ultimately, I'm willing to bet she doesn't care that much either.

[nkalldayyy]

Thank you for your feeback, and having my back lol..<3 Take care xo
no problem, from one philly girl to another. haha : )