Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Four Poems by Frank O'Hara

Critical Essay – Compare and contrast four examples of Frank O’Hara’s poetry, reflecting on his work in terms of form, content and context.

 ‘It may be that poetry makes life’s nebulous events tangible to me and restores their detail; or, conversely, that poetry brings forth the intangible quality of incidents which are all too concrete and circumstantial’[i] – Frank O’Hara, on the aesthetics of poetry.

The most defining aspect of Frank O’Hara’s work is its immediacy – everything included in his poems was a feature of the everyday, part of the pedestrian culture of the places he lived in, from conversations and music, to cityscapes and the people that walked them. In his work, he was averse to writing in abstract, something which he discussed in tangential terms in his essay, ‘Personism: A Manifesto’; using the analogy of a knife wielding assailant, he identified the importance of instinct and material realism in order to make the poem real. In his life, he was more than a poet – he was a curator at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and a critic of art and film – and he found interesting ways to supplement his poetry with knowledge from these interests. It was his vivid spontaneity, however, that gave his pieces such identifiable tone and voice, using an autobiographical style to imbue everyday life into his work.  These four things; capturing pedestrian culture, avoiding abstraction, the inclusion of art and film, and his characteristic spontaneity, frequently allowed him to create a poem ‘between two people’. However, most remarkable was his preoccupation with the self, how he wanted his poems to be, ‘… between an “I” and a “you”… [ii], as he understood that, ‘… the only mind he can wholly penetrate is his own… [iii]


Critics of O’Hara’s poem ‘Music’ argued that it was menial, self-indulgent and, worst of all, jovial; as they tended to suggest about most of his poetry[iv]. However, O’Hara uses several techniques to create a living moment in his poem, many of which appear to be random or sporadic. By shifting through many different images and places (resting near ‘The Equestrian’, appearing ‘naked as a table cloth’, amongst others) O’Hara stylistically mimics techniques used in art and film to evoke a vivid, almost surreal quality in the poem. He creates a moving thought process, an inner monologue of thoughts and pictures that’s directionless. This has the effect of imitating a wondering mind, effectively turning his voice and tone aloof. Throughout the piece, there’s a desire to translate his perceptions across to you, with nothing in between. The ‘you’ in this piece is a shifting one; what starts of as a specific ‘you’ (‘If I seem to you to have lavender lips…’) becomes a very general one (Clasp me in your handkerchief like a tear, trumpet of early afternoon!’). This changes who is being addressed, from a single person to a collective, similar to the changing crowds of a New York street, or the Mayflower Shoppe itself. It specifies that the subject matter is anything relevant to these places, and anyone who experiences them. Due to the spontaneity of the images and settings, the poem becomes very present, further reinforced by O’Hara’s unwavering use of the present tense throughout the piece despite its shifting location. However, he keeps his settings grounded, and characteristically uses specific place names (‘the Mayflower Shoppe’, ‘the Christmas trees on Park Avenue’) to bring this surreal trail of imagery down to earth. He keeps his piece local (to New York), placing himself in specific settings to focus his experiences. The effect of the surreal wondering quality of the piece, accompanied by its familiarised setting, is to de-familiarise it. Much like in the opening statement, O’Hara realises the ‘intangible quality’ of a New York afternoon, with the intent of using his perspective to expose it.

In ‘Ave Maria’, there’s a much more obvious sense of theme than O’Hara’s poetry typically exhibits – he deals with coming of age, specifically first-time sexual experiences. His light-hearted, humorous method of addressing a serious topic breaks the ice, deformalizing a serious theme so that he can move it away from social commentary, choosing to instead to identify an ‘I’ and a ‘you’: Himself, and the ‘Mothers of America’ to whom the poem is addressed. This is exacerbated by the juxtaposition of the tone and subject matter of the piece with the title, ‘Ave Maria’ – a reference to Catholic prayer of the Virgin Mary. His lexical choice gives the relationship between the ‘I’ and the ‘you’ character - rather than using powerful, emotive descriptions which would feel contrived, he uses casual phrases and words (‘it’ll be sheer gravy’, ‘little tykes’) to turn the piece into a conversation, and humanise his work. The form of the poem lends itself to this intention – by spacing the lines out, moving some across the page, separating small phrases (‘hating you’, ‘and the family breaks up’) the poem feels spoken, each line being separated into an utterance, further reinforcing the feeling that this is a discussion. It also adds to the comic timing of the piece, giving it pacing and delivery, so that it ultimately can be enjoyed as light-hearted, as opposed to serious.
In an autobiographical style, he identifies with the children of these mothers by capturing images of specific places (‘Heaven and Earth bldg’, ‘Williamsburg Bridge’) to focus a narrative, again in the present tense, and turn it into an experience from the everyday. This allows him to find something ‘tangiable’ and express it to someone other than himself. Throughout the piece, we can find evidence of his aversion to the abstract. There are many examples of specific objects or actions (‘a quarter’, ‘bags of popcorn’, ‘hanging around the yard’) that the reader can clearly imagine. This creates realism in the poem, by depicting palpable situations that apply to a general proportion of the children of the mothers. The piece ends with a sense of loss; the children ‘grow old and blind’, but still watch the movies they should have seen when they were young. Here, O’Hara implies that they would miss the true wonder of living, becoming blinded to the ‘darker joys’ of sexuality because their mothers refused to allow them to experience them – the act of which O’Hara describes as ‘unforgivable’.

‘A Step Away from Them’ appears at first glance to wander, similarly to ‘Music’, with O’Hara documenting a casual experience with New York in his lunch hour. However, unlike in ‘Music’, he chooses to identify with a sense of time – with the centre of the piece revolving around a specific moment (‘it is 12:40 of a Thursday.’). By using this line as a fulcrum, he creates pace and continuity, balancing the poem so that it extends like an actual lunch break. The reason this poem differs from other examples of his work is that it is an elegy; something we only become aware of in the fourth stanza (‘First Bunny died, then John Latouche, then Jackson Pollock’). O’Hara’s intention throughout this piece is to imbue us with a sense of mortality, whilst defying the standard tropes of an elegy – He doesn’t talk much about the people involved, he doesn’t begin with memories of their life, etc. This is both disarming and thought-provoking, causing us to consider the lives that we can enjoy, whilst they cannot. In this poem, we can see O’Hara’s distaste for the abstract. His ruminations regarding his dead friends are brief, and surrounded by objective and material thoughts and experiences (‘BULLFIGHT’, ‘There are several Puerto Ricans…’). The purpose of this is to maintain the focus of the poem on the mortality of New York around him, such as the Manhattan Storage Warehouse, ‘which they’ll soon tear down’. There are references to fatality (‘They protect them from falling bricks, I guess’) and the entire narrative is drawn out into one continuous line, with little breakage, again to emphasise the progression of time and of life. This synergises with O’Hara’s penchant for creating spontaneity, which he does in this piece in the form of collections of images (‘cats playing in sawdust’, ‘labourers feed their dirty glistening torsos’) to create his lunch hour break. The subtlety of O’Hara’s consideration for his friends, and the mortality that he enjoys and they cannot, does however slip once in the form of a question (‘But is the earth as full as life was full, of them?’) Most of his Lunch Poems are devoid of such other-worldly considerations, but on this particular lunch break, he finds himself drawn to their memories. The ‘you’ in this piece is his friends, but he doesn’t talk directly to them because he can’t; he speaks of them. This drastic shift from his usual principle of a poem between two people includes people, while he considers his own mortality – as embodied in his title, ‘A Step Away from Them’.

In his piece ‘Why I Am Not a Painter’, O’Hara draws a parallel between two art forms: painting and poetry. However, it is also a commentary on his own artistic writing style; Personism. This is exemplary in the way that he addresses his love of art (‘I would rather be a painter’), showing that art itself holds a universal beauty. His many active interests in artists and different forms of art are suggested by his allusion to Mike Goldberg within the poem, which has the effect of bringing the two forms closer together. He solidifies this relationship between the two by sharing them in the same experience; both writer and painter find themselves devolving from their original subject matter, until it can no longer be seen in their respective pieces. O’Hara is commentating on the nature of art, specifically of representation, the result of which is that we as readers empathise with O’Hara as he fails to discuss ‘orange’, as he comments ironically, ‘There should be so much more, not of orange, of words…’ this irony verging on sarcasm is supported a few words later, when he writes, ‘It is even in prose, I am a real poet’. Personism also manifests itself in O’Hara’s use of an ‘I’, himself, and a ‘you’, which in this case is extremely general – the person who asks him why he is a poet as opposed to a painter. By retaining a very general ‘you’, O’Hara effects a casual style to a wide audience, without pandering to a demographic. Anyone who’s ever wondered why this Art Museum Curator is also a poet is privy to the poem. He chooses to address the question by retaining the casual tone (‘I drop in’, ‘But me?’), similar to the one he employs in ‘Ave Maria’. By doing this, O’Hara creates a discursive, conversational piece that feels like it is spoken. The piece also feels spontaneous for the same reason – the ink feels wet on the page, the ideas he writes on feel fresh and ready to be pondered. It doesn’t feel contrived, which has the effect of making the reader feel the poem is honest. This piece also employs specific and palpable things, like the other three poems discussed above, to maintain a tangible focus to the poem-narrative: these include the two pieces of work, Sardines and Oranges, and Mike Golding as a real friend he associated with.

In this style, O’Hara frequently captured the aesthetic he was talking about in this essay’s opening quote: He realised the emotions of the day to day proceedings and used them, both to create order and connection between them and to fragment them into shards of meaning in their own right. Often, his pieces led to specific places or locations, with the aim of capturing the flavour of it, its pedestrian culture, experienced in a scrap of time – His Lunch Poems were written in those exact circumstances; in stolen lunch hours, or moments when he was making his way in no particular rush. He wrote in a colloquial, sometimes autobiographical voice, he rarely stuck to a rhythm or rhyme scheme, and he often tried to include his other creative interests in art and media; all of this gave his poetry a personal connection with the subject matter, and a musing tone that became Frank’s staple.



[i] Marjorie Perloff, ‘Frank O’Hara and the Aesthetics of Attention’, boundary 2, 4.3, (Spring, 1976) pp. 779-806 (782)
[ii] Marjorie Perloff, p. 799
[iii] Marjorie Perloff, p. 799
[iv] Marjorie Perloff, p. 781-2

No comments:

Post a Comment