tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1807387864117106126.post6722778084697681448..comments2023-03-26T15:57:10.901-07:00Comments on Tricks and manners: Why Frank O'Hara Wasn't a PainterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1807387864117106126.post-89306124860449227522013-01-14T10:44:32.604-08:002013-01-14T10:44:32.604-08:00The writing is good. There is a connection made be...The writing is good. There is a connection made between O'Hara's preference to be a poet rather than a painter and the way he has written this poem.He/she speaks of the "I do this...that" N.Y. School mode and the poem as demonstration.The writer's premise that O'Hara is "incapable of abstraction" along with the keen "and we must abstract it for ourselves"etc. may be food for talk in the forums.<br /> <br />About O'Hara's noticing the SARDINES in the painting, the writer states that the caps indicate the word, not the concrete objects. This may be worth further observation/clarification.There is comparison of the painterly way of expression vs the poet's way. <br /> <br />The metapoetics of O'Hara"s work is emphasized at the end of the essay along with a rather complex use of "real" in quotation marks. A comparison is set up with that "real" i.e. prose poet and Mike Goldberg's not using a "real" sardine in his more abstract painting. Again, I think there may be room for discussion stemming from this tightly-presented essay. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com