.

Rosey,

You've already had some heavy hitters down here give you some technical workouts, so I'll go somewhere a little airier (but, for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Kylan).
I've never liked meta-art, and this is no exception. While meta-humour becomes more funny the more abstract it is, meta-art seems to lose quality with subsequent levels of abstraction (a few examples notwithstanding). I think this arises from the fact that meta-art makes its point too abruptly, and everything else is just filler. Especially in today's current artistic environment meta-art, being nothing new, is immediately recognised for what it is - an attempt by the artist to either a) validate their own work, b) be critical of their peers, or c) appear edgy/clever/funny - (thus, ironically, defeating the purpose of meta-art. So meta!). Putting your piece in that context, we have a novel idea, and one that in and of itself has value. Then we have a whoooooole bunch of useless, if pretty, fluff, then a tried-and-true rounding couplet. If we did this:

"I write my poems in pen but
resolutions in pencil

for only machines don't make
mistakes, and artists are human."

we lose none of the essence of the poem, but save everyone involved some time and energy, and avoid falling into the trap that meta-art so often does - spelling the reference out step by step in order to fill in the whole page or canvas or reel of film, and thus look more like a 'serious artwork' by virtue of sheer quantity. This is somewhat ironic, considering that the level of meta-ness and abstraction is inversely proportional to our (the audience) attention spans. When it comes to a topic that your audience is likely to already be familiar with (such as poetry on a writing website) make you point, make it quickly, and make us take notice.

I dig the intention. But you missed the mark.

Your brother in arms,

Kray-z

I really like this poem but I thought it would rhyme a lot

Where is the tension in these lines? What simultaneously pulls them apart as it brings them together? In other words, what sets this poem opposite of prose? Where is the line drawn? You have drawn your lines at random, and seem to be relaying a literate sermon. Philosophy, generally, should be applied to art afterward.

A poem, such a small space, should muster all its power to subvert the expectation of the reader as soon as possible. How does this poem attempt to confuse, surprise, batter, render helpless?

Ask "what if" to your own poem. What if you wrote your poems in pencil, and your resolutions in ink? Shifting the balance and weight like that can have great results.
It is remarkable to note that another poem on the featured works list - LemonyIce's "Declarations of a Lovesick Poet" - also incorporates metapoetic discourse. This strategy should be implemented with the utmost self-awareness and discretion.

For rhythm, read, say, Dylan Thomas.

Rosey,

I'd like to think Imagery and I are the best
of friends.

I can see her face vividly in this poem
and it makes me happy. You
capture her likeness well,
it's almost as though she's standing here
in front of me.
The way you play with Mr. Breaks
as well,
to provide movement,
to compliment Imagery,
keeping things
twisting
and turning and shifting--
I think I'd like to see

some more poetry out of you.


My impressions are above. Your poem expresses an idea very well. The idea of New Years and poetry and fate and uncertain futures and the permanence of past mistakes, all of these ideas are expressed and kind of twist and turn and blend together; and as far as execution, this is well thought out. But just as I highlight all of the positive elements of this poem, these very elements play at the piece like a double-edge sword.

This piece is going to remain feeling flat, because they remain ideas. Mind, they are cleverly expressed - imagery keeps it vivid, but this piece is far from feeling tangible yet. I say this a million times - it's all about creating an experience. Ideas should be evoked, not expressed. Or if they're expressed - only let it be a minor aspect of the poem.

Hey, girl. Those opening two lines are fantastic, and you're right. They were worth writing a poem around, but in future iterations, I'd like to see you try to loosen up what you've got to match the loose, naturalness of the first couplet.

Firstly, not everything needs an adjective or modifier. You have none of those in the beginning or the end, but you've over-packed the middle with things like "ever-shifting", "vibrant", "textured", "graphite", "oncoming", "new", "happy", "now-inked", " ourlife's", not to mention the heavy-handed description in things like "every which way" or "forcing pause". The middle stanza needs some heavy cleaning. Let words carry their own weight. They were born to handle what they create, so let them free and see what happens.
Look:

poetry reflects the past while
resolutions exist in a future that
can be erased and
edited by the present:
a gift of time in ink
that splashes on the paper of our lives—
spilling over our sketch for the future
and washing away graphite lines that refused to
bend for change, forcing
new directions — the result a
happy accident

(live's canvas was too repetitive of "the paper of our lives" for me to keep.)

But just look. Look how each word carries its full weight and keeps moving. I kept some adjectives, of course. They were necessary. Graphite lines are way different from regular lines, and happy accident is necessary for the meaning of the poem.

Please push further with this. Experiment. Be choosy with your words, especially in as compacted a form as poetry.

Good luck, Rosey. Lemme know if you have any questions by sending a PM or leaving a wall post. Happy resolutions~

Rosey darling. <3

You know I'll be around for us to talk about this more in depth later, but I have a reliable computer right now, so I'm going to chew on this a little. After all, you told me to.

I said it in a PM that the first two lines are that perfect subtle narrative splash that makes poetry so wonderfully deep without forcing itself into depth. It's the sort of couplet that you'd make your signature or post on tumblr and get reblogged a thousand times. The problem, though, is that you go on to unravel the tight subtlety of the first couplet with the next stanza. And while that's not always a bad thing - it can be wonderful if you can evoke a third face of the metaphor. But in this instance, it's unsuccessful.

Following the unraveling, I do like the building image of the vibrant ink - it shapes a pocket watch in my head.

The two instances of life's comparison (paper/a canvas) rub me a bit strangely. I think it's simply the easiness of the comparison. Ink to paper, graphite to canvas. It fits too easily, if that makes sense. You can craft something better for those places, I know.

We'll talk about it. <3

-Ty

"for only machines don't make
mistakes, and artists are human."

This Line. As cliched as it is, is beautiful.
I like the fact that you wrote about something like this; it's not something I've, personally, seen very often written about. So, Kudos to you.