Poeta en NY

Federico García Lorca’s Poeta en Nueva York combines a sharp, stinging social critique with an innovative aesthetic form in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of socially committed art. Lorca traveled to New York from Spain and encountered firsthand the modern urban cosmopolitan city of his epoch, complete with skyscrapers, poor barrios and the muddy Hudson River, and underwent a feeling of personal alienation. The product to come out of this experience is this book of poems, which was published posthumously.
What are the formal innovations of this collection of poems? One is that many of the images do not appear to have a logical, intellectual connection. In “Vuelta de paseo”, among the images that appear are the following: “Con el árbol de muñones que no canta/y el niño con el blanco rostro de huevo.” How does the reader approach these two disparate and extraordinary combinations? It requires of the public a new way of reading, in which logical connections are superseded by illogical and irrational ones that suggest and provoke, but don’t tell. It is also a creation of new images by combining things that one wouldn’t normally consider, such as little animals with broken heads (“los animalitos de cabeza rota”). The structuring force is the syntax of the poem, and with work the reader can justify drawing certain logical conclusions. In this same poem, one of the recurring themes is mutilation and deformation; the tree stump, drowned butterfly in an inkwell, water with dry feet. There is also an important line in this poem which underlines the fragmented identity of the poetic yo. “Tropezando con mi rostro distinto de cada día./¡Asesinado por el cielo!” This line puts into doubt the unity of the subject, and there is discontinuity.
What are the targets of the social critiques? The impurity of this new world and the dehumanizing effects are one in particular. In “Grito hacia Roma Desde la torre del Chrysler Building”, the poetic yo directs his dismay at the Pope and the failure of the Catholic Church to respond to the dehumanization from industrialization and modernization. Christian symbols permeate the work and are profaned, with the result that the blind multitude (society) has no one to lead it. “Porque ya no hay quien reparta el pan y el vino,/ni quien cultive hierbas en la boca del muerto.” The sacraments are being forgone, humanity has become tainted and the Church does not respond (because it is just as tainted). The great ill is avarice; images abound of money, like “sus anillos y sus teléfonos de diamante.” Where is the Church? “Pero el hombre vestido de blanco/ignora el misterio de la espiga/…ignora que Cristo puede dar agua todavía,/ignora que la moneda quema el beso de prodigio/y da la sangre del cordero al pico idiota del faisán.” One of looking at these verses is that the man dressed in white is the Pope, the wheat is a promise for the future of the land, but Christ has been negated and greed has overcome. The end of the poem is a call to action to end the hypocrisy of a Church and a society that calls for peace and love, and then acts out of avarice and violence. The poet hasn’t given up on society and humanity evidenced by the belief that Christ can still give water. One could, however, argue if this is the Christian Jesus or the concept of a martyr.
A few solutions are offered by the prophetic poet. One is a society constructed for the benefit of all (Democratic). “Porque queremos el pan nuestro de cada día,/flor de aliso y perenne ternura desgranada,/porque queremos que se cumpla la voluntad de la Tierra/que da sus frutos para todos.” Lorca plays with the image of our bread, which can refer to the Eucharist and to real sustenance for the pueblo. The final verse makes it clear that the people, nosotros (including the reader in his equation), deserve what has been promised in Scripture and democracy: land which produces for all, not the select few. But how to invert this situation, and what is the role of the poet? The poems speak for themselves as social critiques, especially the more time the reader spends interacting with the verses, so the poet must describe the social ills. But Lorca envisions another more active role as the poet as martyr. In “Nueva York: Oficina y denuncia”, the poet denounces the described ills (lack of nature in the city, destruction of nature to sustain the city) and then questions what his role should be. “¿Qué voy a hacer? ¿Ordenar los paisajes?/¿Ordenar los amores que luego son fotografías,/que luego son pedazos de madera y bocanadas de sangre?” He denies a realist poetry that represents how it should be or is; rather, he denounces and offers up himself:

“No, no; yo denuncio.
Yo denuncio la conjura
De estas desiertas oficinas
Que no radian las agonias,
Que borran los programas de la selva,
Y me ofrezco a ser comido por las vacas estrujadas
Cuando sus gritos llenan el valle
Donde el Hudson se emborracha con aceite.”

Why or how can the poet be a martyr? I think Pablo Neruda’s experience as a committed communist and tragic death, or Lorca’s death at the beginning of the Civil War and subsequent appropriation as Republican martyr are only two of many examples that one could cite…
Loarca sympathizes with oppressed groups and foresees the time for their release from the shackles of this modern society; in this book the blacks are the group that does not fit into this modern world, and their music is a symbol of their discordance. “Rey de Harlem” can be read as an ode to the blacks.



“Vuelta de paseo” can be placed within the ultraísta category (how and why?)

Murphy: By not creating the illusion of completeness and naturalness that doesn’t exist in reality, he is challenging the notion of a complete perfect world, by doing that it is disrupting an artificial sense of reality. Form as critique.
-Deastheticized aesthetic art – you can have that is recognizable as art and it does not negate is link to reality and social critique
-Self-consciously divest itself of beautiful illusion projected art for art’s sake and also refusing to overstep its boundary of autonomy and become a think among things

Modernism embraces autonomy, art is art

By attacking realist conventions of representation, it’s already articulating a social critique. (associated with Bourgeoisie, conception of reality as whole and not aware there’s a camera there)
Breaking the illusion of this is how reality looked like
What is the structure of Luces de Bohemia?