On 11/15/05, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes, yes, & therefore worth trying, especially if one has gotten into a
> kind of technical etc 'rut'.
If so minded there is a political motive to "removing" the author from
the work. In painting, this removes the male eye. What does it do for
poetry?
I'm not sure if this ever actually the case as all stochastically
generated poetry has the author *at a distance*: the author is the one
who has authored the program. The mechanical turk comes to mind here.
With collage I suppose the identity of the author is obscured; he or
she is always there somewhere.
Of course, here we start wandering into L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry right
about now, and I'm very rusty if not downright unknowledgeable on
this.
I wonder in poetry if the nearest analogy to the unrehearsed piece is
the meditational practice put forward by Robin Blaser? I think that
the idea behind this is that you meditate for a set period at a
set-time every day then you write a piece; the work accumulates over a
period of time, there are no modifications to the written piece. I've
tried this, never been satisfied with the results. Maybe I'll re-read
Blaser and give it another go.
Ouiji board anyone?
Roger
> On 15-Nov-05, at 6:47 AM, Roger Day wrote:
>
> > I think the role of stochastic technique in music and poetry is a
> > chance to step outside the potential gridlock of technique, to prevent
> > stale patterns happening see collage, flarfing etc
>
> But I think, in this fascinating discussions, that Ken misses the point
> when he seems to be suggesting that not being able to read music
> somehow means not having studied/practiced etc. No, it means having
> done so another way.
>
> Doug
>
> Douglas Barbour
> 11655 - 72 Avenue NW
> Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
> (780) 436 3320
>
> Each leaf a runnel the
> roofs now skiffs in green
> I've never done anything
> but begin.
> Lisa Robertson
>
--
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
|