An artist seeking perfection may be a worthy enterprise, but alarm bells should ring when politicians entertain the idea.

It appears that the lessons of twentieth century history haven’t been entirely absorbed by our twenty-first century leaders; they would do well to read Auden’s poem.

Thanks for reminding me of a poem I hadn’t read since I was at school.

This can be implied from both the statement that the Tyrant was after perfection (Hitler is most remembered for his quest for the perfect race) and because this poem was writen by an author who lived in a time when Hitler was in power. Also, that Auden refers to the perfection as “of a kind” emphasizes the fact that Hitler’s veiw of perfection was one built on his own personal philosophy, and not any type of true perfection.

The second line, “And the poetry he invented was easy to understand”, is refering to, not artists, but Hitler’s use of propaganda. He is comparing the propaganda to the type of poetry that is writen without much deeper meaning intended, the kind that can be taken simply at face value. This is because Hitler’s propaganda was not deeply analyzed by those who beleived it, his followers not taking the time to actually understand Hitler’s personal motives behind the various things he did.

“He knew human folly like the back of his hand” because he was familar with the many attrocities of the human race, having committed a great number of them himself.

When Auden says that he “was greatly interested in armies and fleets”, he is refering to Hitler’s intense quest for military power, combined with his conquests of expanding across Europe.

“When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter” refers to the fact that the other members of the government who served under Hitler were under his control, and would share his feelings, opinions, and belifes, if only to appease him.

The final line, “And when he cried the little children died in the streets”, makes for Auden’s final, and most powerful statement against Hitler–litterally stating that the man’s bad moods would resonate as the deaths of his citizens. The message delivered in this line is that it was those with him Hitler took a dislike that suffered the most under his rule.

So ok. “Perfection of a kind” is like drawing a picture and creating a whole new world. What’s going to result from this?

I think the easy way to read what an artist does is that he sets up the decline of his world. This happens in literature always, right? The world’s dumber than you, so it starts with easy-to-understand “poetry,” then to “folly,” then moves to “armies and fleets” and the inappropriate laughter and death.

We’re getting a particular kind of artist here – the one aiming at “perfection of a kind.” So I think roughly what’s happening is that reason is turning into a concern with power.

So that creates the problem for us: “folly,” “armies and fleets,” “senators,” “children” is a particular sort of picture. The only really famous thing in literature that it evokes is the shield of Achilles, and I don’t remember any senators there, or pictures of people doing dumb things.

But I think that’s the image you need to make the cycle complete. The artist sometimes responds to tragedy and thinks he can transcend it by getting political. He ends up glorifying the maker of tragedy instead of producing proper critique.

I agree this isn’t the best reading in the world. But I’m happy to try it anyway.

Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after,
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.

The first line was a little hard for me because art isn’t always about perfection- sometimes it’s about showing imperfections, mess, darkness, but then I’m limiting perfection. Who says something can’t be perfectly flawed or perfectly horrible? Art always tries to capture a perfect state; a moment in time, a place, a feeling, an experience, whatever.

Sooo, we’ll say my subject is drawing a picture— he tries to convey the whole of this world inside of his head onto a piece of paper. He creates a new person in a new place and the picture is representative of something whole, or perfect.

If he’s good, in this case he is, then everyone will understand- they’ll be able to see that world they’ve never been in or in other artists, they’ll feel or understand whatever emotion/idea is being conveyed.

It is ideal to have a good grasp of psychology, of what will make people react.

I don’t know if I can make the armies and fleets fit in any way other than my previous statement.

Advertisers and tv producers sort of come to mind here creating a series of images in an attempt to control people’s behavior, influence emotions, because they study human behavior and at least think they know what makes people tick– and I won’t argue that they seem to be right for the most part.

The last two lines I really like interpreted the other way, a real political tyrant and chaos and nervousness in the wake of a mood swing… but to follow the idea from before: the artist creating his art can and when he’s successful, does, control his audience.

Automatically I want to say this isn’t relevant because artists have no real power, but that’s nonsense. Artists have a huge amount of influence over culture and attitudes, policy, just… so much.

Well, there’s my jumbled up mess of a response. Go ahead and argue =P