/lit/ - Literature

>>11858436
>One parallel that I find interesting is the reception of modern poetry and modern classical.
considering the names you later drop it'd be nice for you to define modern. you can't mean contemporary because some have been dead a while, nor modern because webern comes from romanticism and expressionism, and stockhausen from webern (to keep it short).
>They'd call them hacks, but would never question the effort behind the work and talk about the techniques.
because lads like pollock, if you mean the drip paintings, were more chance-based (which is a contestable claim too), unlike webern and stockhausen, who seeked to defend an autistically rigorous form, which is more noticeable than that, were it a thing (like i said, contestable), in pollock's drip paintings. just some days ago i was reading about shakespeare's "venus and adonis", then about the sestina, its form, and 2 strikingly different opinions are present in the wikipedia article: for stephen fry, the strenght of the sestina comes from the "repetition and recycling of elusive patterns that cannot be quite held in the mind all at once" but for shanna compton "even someone unfamiliar with the form's rules can tell by the end of the second stanza... what's going on...".
>Poetry on the other hand is based on language that everyone understands, and drawing is what everyone tried to do as kids, so these art forms feel more relatable.
then you haven't read enough poetry nor have seen enough paintings, picrel is by klee, for instance
also, most of this post is based in that you haven't read many negative opinions that disregard the form of composers, which may have to do with you not being actively interested in them, but i, who am a little bit more do see them, often