The Dying Art of Poetry and Theatre?

In previous centuries, theatre and poetry were viewed as mainstream forms of entertainment. Their popularity could be partly due to the lower literacy rates (not everyone had the ability to read to themselves. Poetry and theatre are easy to be performed and therefore watched and enjoyed). Also, another reason could be the lack of other forms of mainstream entertainments that can be enjoyed in a group which are available today (like the television, cinema, or internet).

In today’s society, poetry and theatre are often seen as being elitist. But there are many places where poetry and theatre can be found that are not considered high culture or mainstream. Music lyrics are a form of poetry that have a broad and diverse audience. In one form or another, music is enjoyed by most people. Music concerts have increased in popularity despite the falling number of record sales, and musicians and artists frequently use elements of theatre in their performance at live concerts. Exaggerating emotions helps the audience engage with the emotional facets of the music. Similarly, musicians enact or incorporate elements of the song’s story in their performance (for example, this could be clothing attire, backdrops, or dancers).

Poetry is also evidenced in advertising. Many products use slogans that have elements of poetry, like rhythm and rhyme. Their catchiness helps sell products as it makes the slogan stick in the viewers mind. Poetry is also found in community and Government announcements. The ad campaign for children and swimming safety had the slogan “kids alive, do the five”. An ad promoting fitness and exercise in Canberra has the slogan “don’t say one day, say Sunday”.

Many other art forms and texts also use elements of poetry and theatre.

To be spoken or not to be?

From high school through to University, teachers and lectures of English literature will say that poetry is intended to be performed- it is an oral form of literature.

Whether this is or is not just a flippant comment, I am unsure about the absoluteness of this statement. Without arguing about the semantics of the word ‘intended’-(for example, I could argue that the tofu, gherkin, and vegemite sandwich I made was intended to be tasty, but that doesn’t mean it was) -I want to explore the idea of poetry as an oral art form.

Entrenched in a lot of cultures and viewpoints is the idea that poetry needs to be spoken and therefore performed. This could be due to a number of reasons that aren’t completely incontestable. Historically, poetry is oral. Ballads were performed so they could be passed down from generation to generation. Rhythm, rhyme and repetition were important prompts in remembering the content of the story. Specific words were less important and even the content changed slightly overtime, with each telling. The actual words in ballads were more fluid as there was less emphasis on a concrete product that could be replicated due to the fact that there was no way to produce products for a mass audience. Now with a way to produce products for a mass audience, is the intended oral nature of poetry still essential as poetry is no longer such an intrinsic part of expressing our folklore?

Another reason often cited to why poetry is performed is the close link between poetry and music. Poetry relies on sounds, rhythms, rhymes, half-rhymes, assonance, consonance, beats, off beats. In languages which aren’t phonetic, like the English language, the written word does not visually replicate the beauty of these poetic techniques.

However, while the written word is only one facet of poetry, it is a myth to say that a poem needs to be read aloud to do the poetic techniques justice. For the physical body, there are many similarities between reading a poem in your head and reading it aloud. People sound the words out to themselves in both instances. Similarly, the body reacts in the same way to the words. The rhythms found in poetry do not need to be spoken to be present. It is a part of the body. It is present in the rhythmic pulses of the blood pumping around the body. People do not need to read poetry aloud to appreciate the rhythm of poetry. Therefore, is it still necessary to claim that poetry is an oral art form?

Translation vs Romanticisation of the original.

In one of my classes at Uni, my James Joyce obsessed poetry lecturer commented enthusiastically on an English translation of a Russian poem by saying that if the language was this beautiful after it had been translated, what would it have been like before translation.

For some time I have been interested in the concept of translation. In particular, texts that have been translated into English after being written in a language other than English. I only speak and understand English, so I can only look at this from an Anglo-centric perspective with the limitations (but I would also argue benefits) of having a singular and unchallenged view of the English language. I only understand the text as a product in itself and not as a variation of the original.

My problems with my poetry lectures assertion is the fetishisation of the original, particularly from the perspective that English is not as beautiful as other languages because it is not a Romantic language.

If you can’t read the original, no matter how highly praised or celebrated it is, it means nothing to you. If the text is inaccessible to you, than it is worthless. How can you comment that a poem would be more beautiful in the language it was first written in if you can’t read that language. It doesn’t matter how beautiful it supposedly is if you can’t read and understand it.

A translation should be viewed as a cohesive product in itself as it is problematic to perceive translations as being inferior simply by default. There are several different methods of translation. Poetry, in particular, is not translated word for word, but by imagery and meanings. There are many elements of poetry, like rhythm and rhyme that would get lost in translation if the translator didn’t take into account these elements and try to replicate their essence when remaking the text into their own language.

Essentially a translation is a completely new text. It should only be praised if it is a good text in itself and not as being a complimentary or referential text to the original. My poetry lecturer’s inference that the original text is automatically superior is simplistic and completely devalues the role a translator plays and the ability for a translated work to have merit in its own right.