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".
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
|