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