Imagine that. I thought that once I saw the German translated I'd
understand it. Was I ever wrong! HELP!
you lazy bloke.
Judy
2009/5/11 Martin Walker <[log in to unmask]>
> But, Hal, can theory be viewed without writing?
> mj
> Wenn vollkommene Herrschaft über seinen Gegenstand die freie kunstreiche
> Ausbildung desselben möglich macht, so können doch die künstlichen
> Schraubengänge der Polemik nicht die Form der Philosophie sein.
> If perfect mastery of one's subject makes its free, artistic development
> possible, then the merely artificial turns of the polemical screw cannot be
> the form of philosophy.
> F.W.J. Schelling
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Halvard Johnson
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 5:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughtmesh Snap
>
>
> What do you mean when you say "no writing can be viewed
> without theory"? I'd say that any writing can be viewed
> without theory.
>
> Hal
>
> "My experience is what I agree to attend to."
> --William James
>
> Halvard Johnson
> ================
> [log in to unmask]
> http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
> http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
> http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
> http://www.hamiltonstone.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > also, not to harp too much on the subject, but the key words in my
> original
> > post were "on its own". it's true that no writing can be viewed without
> > theory, but ultrapostmodernist poetry seems to require the tinted glasses
> > of
> > a theory that, to me, feels strained & alien. even if it makes me a pleb,
> > and even though I know views are wont to shift around, at the moment I'd
> > rather produce something good within a norm than produce something bad
> > outside of one.
> >
> > KS
> >
> > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > I will say I appreciate the idea in provoking sneers at "a poetry field
> > > crowded by would-be sincerists unwilling to own up to their poems’
> > > self-aggrandizing, sentimental, bloviating, or sexist tendencies". then
> > > again I see nothing wrong with aggrandizement or sentimentality if it
> > isn't
> > > done vacuously, or naïvely. on my own part I can't do much in the way
> of
> > > rooting out such in my own writing, being a called-out naif myself. I
> do
> > > what I can with my pupating awareness and ability.
> > >
> > > KS
> > >
> > > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > I was curt, but I stand by the opinion, which comes from an albeit
> > >> non-postmodern stance. I know of flarf poetry, and one quote I found
> > from
> > >> Joshua Corey sums up what preconceptions I have of it: "I admire the
> > >> subversive energy of the project, the daring of setting out to write
> > >> deliberately bad poetry so as to put our received ideas of "the
> poetic"
> > into
> > >> question."
> > >> that's all well & good, but it's still bad poetry to me. I'd rather
> read
> > >> GOOD poetry that questions our received ideas of 'the poetic'.
> > >>
> > >> KS
> > >>
> > >> 2009/5/10 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>
> > >> I detect no evidence you understand it, or "flarf" at all. To elicit
> > the
> > >>> comment "bad
> > >>> poem" from a naif signals success in that range.
> > >>>
> > >>> Barry Alpert
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:28:26 +0300, kasper salonen <
> [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >if nothing else, it's a bad poem on its own.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >2009/5/6 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> THOUGHTMESH
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Video shocked selfless publishing.
> > >>> >> Innovation featured fact editors edited.
> > >>> >> Ambition benefitted conceptual shocked video.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Barry Alpert / Silver Spring, MD US / 5-6-09 (8:16 AM)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Unconsciously referencing traditional forms with its 14 words, 3
> > >>> lines, &
> > >>> >> the "rhyme" of its
> > >>> >> conclusion with its opening. Also an unexpected variant on my
> > >>> >> severely-edited workings
> > >>> >> with the strategies of "flarf".
> > >>> >>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
|