Showing posts with label butterflies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label butterflies. Show all posts

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

Butterflies | Poetry | Pareidolia



“The caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity”
             George Carlin

Butterflies are poets. We stop to admire them. They are frivolous. They take control of our imagination. We feel a desire to pin them down into groups. They are part of nature.

More importantly though, they protect themselves with impressive lies.

I am talking about automimicry. Those owl-eye things that appear on their wings. They ward off potential attacks by trying to appear far more weighty and threatening than they really are.

It all boils down to the idea of pareidolia – the mind’s compulsion to make sense and find patterns in meaningless, random stimulus – like cloud-watching. Did you know that your brain is wired to recognise human faces with minimal stimulus? Picture two eggs, a black pudding and a sausage in your mind. Do they look like a bemused face? It’s pareidolia.

Let’s get back onto butterflies trying to make themselves look like owls though. Poets are always doing this. The degree-educated brains knows what a poem is supposed to look like… moreover it knows what a good poem is supposed to look like. So it is that we are at the mercy of certain nifty typographic tricks that con you, the unsuspecting reader, into thinking that you are reading a poem rather than thrown together old pap.

Allow me to elaborate on the tricks of the poetaster trade before giving you an example which shall con you, through paredolia, into thinking that you are reading a poem.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a list of things that only bad poets do; it is a list of things that people do when they are trying to disguise themselves as poets.

1. Epigraphs
We’ve all seen them, lurking around under the title. They come from Dostoevsky  or Shakespeare or a quaintly out-dated periodical which has long since been proved wrong. They create the illusion that the poet has read more than they have. They add a gravitas that would be otherwise lacking in the writing itself. They are not the sign of an intellectual but the trappings of a poseur.

2. Line-Breaks
These are a firm favourite amongst those who got into poetry because they don’t have the effort to fill up 50 pages of writing the old fashioned way. Bukowski loved this… three words per line for 32 pages. I’m all for the idea of the blank page around a poem being literary ‘silence’, but if I buy a book to discover that it comprises of 80% silence I want my money back.

3. The After Party
Out of ideas about how to pretend to be a poet? Take a famous poet’s name… let’s say Dylan Thomas. Put the words ‘After Dylan Thomas’ underneath your title and hey presto… you have our attention.

4. Wardour Street
For more information about ‘wardour street’ in poetry, see James Fenton’s book ‘The Strength of Poetry’ – he puts it much better than I do. Basically, it’s the idea of using antiquated language in the belief that it will put you on par with Thomas Wyatt. Needless to say it doesn’t.

5. Write a Sestina
We’ve got creative writing courses to blame for this. Just… stop writing them. Please. We’ll try again as a society in 80 years, but until the official revival lets just leave this form alone.

6. The Average Amount of Weirdness
This often comes in an out of place mention of pubic hair or sex or a swear-word or just a plain old ‘where the fudge did that come from?’ image. Actually, it often contains all of these. It’s not idiosyncrasy, it’s vacuous.

If all this is somewhat un-clear to you, here is a poem I have composed using all of the above rules (apart from no.5… no sestinas until 2090, got it?)

Play Jury
after Ovid

“If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be punishment as well as prison.”
-          Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky

There was
she, waiting for
that which can only
be describethed

as thine only
assailable bounty
sans scruple nightward
up-curves opening

onto a thinly thorned
pile of yesterday’s
souvenirs – a fistful
of fucking pubes.

Phil Brown
Poetry Editor

Monday, 26 July 2010

Butterflies | Introduction | Like an ISA or that porno version of Facebook

Week 10 | Butterflies | Contents

Tuesday | Poetry | Pareidolia
Wednesday | Fiction | Two Riders Were Approaching

Aurora Borealis - PubDom NASA.gov


Over the next two weeks Silkworms Ink is going to be thinking about Butterflies & Bees. The idea is to establish a wee polarity between the two and see what happens. Unscrupulously, it is a nod-plug and a wink to Polarity Magazine. Issue 1 out now; concepted and edited by the super-smart George Ttoouli and designed by yours truly, generally a good thing. I suggest you immediately buy a copy.

Anyway, Butterflies.

Scientifically speaking, Goethe’s Theory of Colours is not a theory at all. According to Wittengenstein is nothing more than “a vague schematic outline” with no ‘experimentum crucis’. Although Goethe admits in the introduction that he has not provided a true explanation of the essential nature of colour but instead a postulation on it as phenomena – how it is as apposed to what it is. Peter Hughes sums it up nicely by stating that for Goethe, "the highest is to understand that all fact is really theory. The blue of the sky reveals to us the basic law of color. Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the theory."

It is easy to see why Newton’s ideas have held firmer ground in the scientific community. However, Goethe’s studies and thinking did find footing in art. Kandinsky was particularly influenced by Goethe’s ideas and in 1840 when the text was translated into English by Charles Eastlake, it was widely adopted by the art world, Pre-Raphaelites and J. M. W. Turner etc.

Anyway, Butterflies.

Colour is something that is pretty fixed. Red is red. Right? Well, no, we can never be sure as what evidence and definition stands for the real-world quality of redness independent of our perception. To even attempt to answer the impossible we would need to step back from specific colours to look at light itself. Newton says light is white and heterogeneous – splitting into its component parts at prism. Goethe says light is white, pure, homogenous – splitting into colour through the turgidity of the prism. In short, Newton understood colour to be parts of white light, whereas, Goethe saw colour as arising from the interaction of light as dark.

According to Goethe, "Newton's error... was trusting math over the sensations of his eye."

Newton narrowed the beam of light in order to see what he was looking for – Goethe widened the aperture, he didn’t see the colours nearly ordered, instead was only confronted with colour at the edges – marginalised like taboo and other great ideas.

Anyway butterflies,

Actually butterflies, quite incredible sentients. Widely recognised as things of fancy – a creature of costume jewellery. To an extent this is true, the butterfly does have a certain bravado – but it does have more to offer on closer inspection (as with all small things….apart from the apostrophe…agreed, but what about the plural possessive you say…how about replacing the ‘s with a z?) the butterfly you see is an incredibly acute animal in terms of evolution; the Batesian and Müllerian may spring lethargically to mind.

A major factor in the mating habit of the butterfly is the colour of its wings.

It is important to remember here that the butterfly (an umbrella term for the plethora of species) is under threat. The key statistic in the decline of British butterflies is the astonishing 97 per cent loss of mature grass meadows since the 1930’s. Mature meadow is virtually irreplaceable. The natural environment of the butterfly has been unwarmly eroded on a global scale.

As aforementioned the butterfly is very much on its toes, and this is the most remarkable thing about the butterfly – through those evolutions and mimicry there has arisen instances of two separate species mating to form an entirely new species.

Modern art before humans conceived it, the wings of a butterfly under a microscope show their scales and are paint strokes of the universe.

Colour for the butterfly is that of Goethe, not Newton – a phenomena of the eye.

Please join in on the Big Butterfly Count - July 24th-August 1st.

James Harringman
Editor-in-chief