The Observer Effect

Fartmonger

Swirling nausea stirs to proclaim:
the truth now lies exposed.
Keep in mind just one thing:
Beauty is too fragile to be observed.

Dreams, now hollow, buckle
under scrutiny's weight.
Smiles, all lines in the sand,
disappear in the tide.

Desire is our undoing.
Like trout on a baited hook,
we were seeking something.
Knowledge, truth, beauty.
All misnomers now:
We sought only self-destruction.

__________________________________

Have never shown anyone my poetry before. Just curious what people think of it. Comments/criticism/questions appreciated

Fartmonger

Swirling nausea stirs to proclaim:
the truth now lies exposed.
You will learn only one thing:
Beauty is too fragile to be observed.

All experiences, sketched in the sand,
disappear in the tide.

When it was revealed we asked:
What were we searching for?
Knowledge, truth, beauty.
All misnomers now:
We sought only self-destruction.
_____________________________

I rewrite everything I have written. Is this a sin against the purest expression of thought I have?

I rewrite things a lot Hope it's OK to post the second version as a reply rather than edit the pre-alpha poemtry.

Matt Holck

eh
some things are more pernament than others
we used to have to keep the flame burning to own a fire

Fartmonger

Matt Holck wrote: »

eh
some things are more pernament than others
we used to have to keep the flame burning to own a fire

Fire: the oxidation of combustible materials.
To see all explained as a chemical equation is harrowing.

Thoughts spread in much the same way as fire.

Fartmonger

Swirling nausea stirs, annoucing:
The truth now lies exposed.
You will learn only one thing:
Beauty is too fragile to be observed.

Life, sketched in sand,
disappears in the tide.

As it was revealed we asked:
What were we searching for?
Knowledge, truth, beauty.
All misnomers now:
We sought only self-destruction.
_______________________________

I think it's almost finished

Thanks for the interesting response, Matt.

I wonder if I'd get more reaction if I said what it was about - heh.

Insect Overlord

I think a change or two could be made to the line "Beauty is too fragile to be observed".
How can beauty exist if it cannot be observed?

Fartmonger

An File wrote: »

I think a change or two could be made to the line "Beauty is too fragile to be observed".
How can beauty exist if it cannot be observed?

That's actually part of the point of the poem ^_^

By 'observe' I mean - analyse from a neutral, scientific point of view. Beauty disappears under such scrutiny.


What makes something beautiful? It's a difficult question

Insect Overlord

Fartmonger wrote: »

That's actually part of the point of the poem ^_^

By 'observe' I mean - analyse from a neutral, scientific point of view. Beauty disappears under such scrutiny.


What makes something beautiful? It's a difficult question

Great point.

Matt Holck

Fartmonger wrote: »

By 'observe' I mean - analyse from a neutral, scientific point of view. Beauty disappears under such scrutiny.

I disagree

el_tiddlero

Fartmonger wrote: »

By 'observe' I mean - analyse from a neutral, scientific point of view. Beauty disappears under such scrutiny.

Matt Holck wrote: »

I disagree

I'm with Matt. Beauty is only discovered by observation. Scrutiny begets beauty, as in turn, beauty begets scrutiny..

Reilly616

Fartmonger wrote: »

That's actually part of the point of the poem ^_^

By 'observe' I mean - analyse from a neutral, scientific point of view. Beauty disappears under such scrutiny.


What makes something beautiful? It's a difficult question

I think that's where your poem falls short, because that isn't really a hard question, and it certainly doesn't make the beauty disappear.

What makes something beautiful (scientifically) is just the arbitrary attributes which coincide with an increased chance of reproduction. It's pretty simple evolution. Say there is a strong, fertile peacock and he happens to have a big tail. A peahen will be attracted to him and have chicks. These chicks will either be more likely to be strong big tailed peacocks, or peahens which are attracted to the former. Thus, the fact that they are strong and likely to reproduce propegates the "beauty" associated with the tail. It may have nothing to do with the strength, but it still becomes "beautiful". Analysing things like beauty scientifically is a fascinating thing to do, and not at all mysterious. I would suggest "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. He discusses this sort of thing in depth and much more elloquently than I could. It really is an interesting topic.

Now, that said... I think that you do have a good talent for poetry. You clearly analyse things and that's good. The revisions, too, are a positive point (I'm no good at revisions). I simply disagree with the premise, the poetry itself is well written.

Fartmonger

el_tiddlero wrote: »

I'm with Matt. Beauty is only discovered by observation. Scrutiny begets beauty, as in turn, beauty begets scrutiny..

Seeing each smile in terms of twitching muscle wiped the smile right off my face...

Thanks for the responses though. Food for thought. I'm not usually such a nihilist :P

Fartmonger

Reilly616 wrote: »

What makes something beautiful (scientifically) is just the arbitrary attributes which coincide with an increased chance of reproduction. It's pretty simple evolution. Say there is a strong, fertile peacock and he happens to have a big tail. A peahen will be attracted to him and have chicks. These chicks will either be more likely to be strong big tailed peacocks, or peahens which are attracted to the former. Thus, the fact that they are strong and likely to reproduce propegates the "beauty" associated with the tail. It may have nothing to do with the strength, but it still becomes "beautiful". Analysing things like beauty scientifically is a fascinating thing to do, and not at all mysterious. I would suggest "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins. He discusses this sort of thing in depth and much more elloquently than I could. It really is an interesting topic.

The fact that so many of my conceptions of beauty are shaped by the flesh saddens me. It makes it feel somewhat hollow.

Not really much point in getting too depressed about it though, afterall what do I know? :P

Aside: I have been meaning to read some Dawkins for a while now. Esp. the blind watchmaker. It sounds pretty fascinating.

Reilly616 wrote: »

Now, that said... I think that you do have a good talent for poetry. You clearly analyse things and that's good. The revisions, too, are a positive point (I'm no good at revisions). I simply disagree with the premise, the poetry itself is well written.

Thanks muchly *beams*

Reilly616

Fartmonger wrote: »

The fact that so many of my conceptions of beauty are shaped by the flesh saddens me. It makes it feel somewhat hollow.

Not really much point in getting too depressed about it though, afterall what do I know? :P

Aside: I have been meaning to read some Dawkins for a while now. Esp. the blind watchmaker. It sounds pretty fascinating.

I'd definately advise it.