I'm not sure how anyone could pass the quiz below, unless extremely well read:

[reverent.org]

Personally, I done bad, real bad.

More of the same ilk:

[reverent.org]

I got 100% on artist vs ape

75% on bush/kerry

40% on Mozart Salieri (but I have no sound card so i didn't actually hear them)

42% on poetry/parody

My best result 83% was on the artist vs. ape quiz. Remind me to never buy a work by Ernst Nay.

Les

I don't think the idea is to see how well you can spot a farce, (regarding the poetry/parody quiz) but rather to prove the school of spoofs right in that some of this poetry is well, bologne? Don't you think?

I think you're right Talia, though I'm not sure whether the point is to prove art bad, or satire good. Perhaps it's that satire is just as good.

The point they fail to make, in my mind at least, is that without something written by an artist to spoof, would the satire still hold up?



Les

I think the point is not so much about how well one can identify good or bad art. It seems more of a commentary and criticism on the snobbery exhibited by those who fancy themselves connoisseurs of fine art by seeking to show they all are full of crap. Perhaps they are.

Joe

But are the fakes really parodies? If so, should not the site offer the related and parodied works?

I think I will make a post on their discussion forum and see what shakes out.

[reverent.org]

Yes, it should.

Ought they not to be at least somewhat humorous?

Hugh:

The answer supplied to your query at the reverent.org website seems to confirm that it was the elitism fueling the rise of so many "schools" of poetry that was being parodied and not individual poems or poets. As to whether a parody should be humorous, I think so, else the parody would be as tediously boring as some awful, long-winded prose critique.

It doesn't have to be LOL funny, but at least somewhat absurd

Agreed...like the Bonnydoon winery's annual poetry parody contest.