Felino Soriano Tribute

!
conversations I truly enjoy are those that lead to revelatory thinking, which, in my
experience, stem from directional unknowingness, in that the path of
conversation—even if the topic has been predetermined—alters itself based on a
reactive, unplanned language used to describe one’s perception. The
language springs from a silence and frees itself into clarity or confusion; either
can be valuable in the learning of self and the process this takes in becoming.
I think of formulaic language as being a language that is expected, thus,
clichéd.
You mention some similarities in interpreting music and painting, but
what is the main difference as far as your PROCESS in interpreting
music versus interpreting a painting?
The disparateness relies on the differentia pertaining to artistic medium. Painting
and jazz, topographically, appear quite different, yet they are rather similar in their
fundamental purpose ofcommunication. Senses. The senses are informed
differently depending on what it is I am interpreting. A painting engages the eye
first, leading into what is heard or explained in its language of communicatory
desire; this is the listening component. Ekphrasis is a brand of communication…
in a painting, my listening dictates the language of ensuing poetry. With jazz, the
auditory devices speak, first. A jazz quartet is conversing, —I am
eavesdropping. Depending on what I am hearing (as I’ve mentioned elsewhere,
the synesthesia I have translates sound to color), images leap rather quickly,
informing then, the language being used within a poem’s desire to portray.
Have you ever attempted to poetically interpret an excerpt from a
work of philosophy? If not, would you? Why or why not? Who would
you choose?