Thanks for replying Jim. I agree with most of what you say except I am
obviously more cynical and think that the problem of 'bad' interactive
art, by the 'pretenders' as you call them, is more widespread.
And yes, I have always found reading 'poemy poems' on the computer
difficult, though I have got a lot more used to it.
Cheers
Tim A.
On 2 Sep 2010, at 07:36, Jim Andrews wrote:
>> Please expand on what you mean by poemy poems - the term is quite
> lovely, in fact I think I've used it myself in the past.
>
>> My idea of a poemy poem is one that is full of the kinds of phrasing,
> tones and vocabulary that are expected by a reader fed on a diet of
> similar stuff - a mix of elegiac mood and realistic detail on a
> familiar experience, usually with a wise little twist at the end to
> 'startle' the reader with the poet's 'unique' insight (usually of
> course it's not an insight at all, just a particular ordering of the
> words to make it look that way - a language accident pretending to be
> original thought, etc.)
>
>> Now maybe your idea of a poemy poem is simply one that isn't in your
> list below, one that looks like any other poem until you read it.
>
> Presumably it would look much the same after you read it, Tim. It
> would still look like a poemy poem.
>
>> I'm saying this because over the past 10 years I've encountered an
> increasing prejudice against poems that look like ordinary poems from
> people who think that just because something is visual, sound,
> interactive, conceptual or whatever then it's the dog's bollocks -
>
> I read poemy poems in print. Quite a bit. I rarely read them on a
> computer screen. Sometimes, though. I have a great interest,
> however, in computer art, and in what one can do with/on a computer
> screen. I'm just not all that interested in reading poemy poems on a
> computer screen. To me, poemy poems on a computer screen are a
> little like films of books. That's probably partly because much of
> my life's work has been toward trying to create interactive poetry
> for computer screens. But, also, work that utilizes the particular
> properties of the media/um it inhabits might talk to us in ways that
> work that's dead to its media/um can't. A poemy poem might be alive
> to its nature as a written thing or facsimile of voice but dead to
> its existence and environment on the net, dead to its visuality,
> dead to its own behavior and lack of interactive behavior, dead to
> its position as one among billions of poemy poems in an age of
> disposable discourse.
>
>> which of course is bollocks proper. It has been the excuse for masses
> of trivial crap passed off as innovation etc - often it is the poorest
> of 'poemy poems' given a bit of a makeover on the computer or placed
> within some pointless interactive project.
>
> what can i say? art attracts pretenders. great pretenders. and not
> so great. many people don't have much experience with good
> interactive art; their expectations are low and muddled. and most
> people who try to make interactive poems don't have a sense of the
> possibilities of interactivity beyond glorified page turning or
> magnet poetry. like other forms of art, there are a few people
> serious about making such work as is required to do something
> worthwhile.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
|