/lit/ - Literature

>>22127783
I submitted a poem to a local contest and lost. It used a number of very archaic words with multiple obscure meanings in order to facilitate wordplay. Best of all is it rhymed and had a decent rhythm reading it out loud.

The winning 3 poems were pretty bad. 2 weren't poems at all, just boring prose chopped up into vaguely artistic looking lines, and the 3rd had a few inline rhymes on top of playful sentence structure. It made zero sense to me how I could have lost until I found out the judge was a nationally renowned LGBT Jewish female poet pretending to be Hispanic (I confirmed it was a fake name using people search), whose personal website has inexplicable freemason symbolism.

There was never a chance at winning. It's apparent that from the late 19th century onwards real art has been increasingly suppressed or maligned. Nowhere is that more apparent than in modern art, but beat and slam poetry is impressively awful too. Critics, publishers, magazines, etc that are still around are the vestigial remains of rich elite children who are too useless to do anything else. They display urinals and wall-bananas, wax poetic about menstruation, compose songs about nothing (4'33"), all to crush the human spirit and secure cushy jobs for their nieces and nephews.

It's not like my poetry is amazing; it's objectively more qualified to be called poetry than my fellow poets in the local contest, though. And I didn't even receive criticism or feedback from the judge. If I had, she'd have betrayed her ulterior motives. I'll still make poetry, and anons should too of course. Don't hold any illusion that you will be recgonized or appreciated should you make something truly worth being called art. Make it for yourself and the Muses.