Gack. What I get for typing in a hurry at work. What I meant to type in that second paragraph follows:
It's natural for pople who have worked hard at something to over-estimate the difficulty of what they know, and underestimate the effort required for basic competence in some other area. You're quite right that 'one's "experiment" is another's "tinkering," ' and I have no problem with the casual use of the term "experiment" by artists, including poets. But it's not what scientists do--and I'm puzzled that anyone would weant it to be.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 11:39AM, Michael Snider <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Rebecca,
>
>For my sins I taught Freshman Composition and Creative Writing for seven years at the University of Louisville. One of the reasons I left was that the full-time faculty decided we could no longer ask our students to write even the most rudimentary literary criticism (since that was too hard for our tender young charges) while, on the other hand, we were required to teach a module on technical writing which included the design, implementation, and report of a "scientific experiment." It was embarassing.
>
>It's natural for pople who have worked hard at something to over-estimate the difficulty of what they know, an underestimate the effort required for basic competence in some other area. You're quite right that 'one's "experiment" is another's "tinkering," ' and I have problem with the casual use of the term "experiment" by artists, including poets. But it's not what scientists do--and I'm puzzled that anyone would weant it to be.
>
>That's not to say that scientists don't tinker--of course they do. But after tinkering comes the rigorous experiment (with some tinkering, probably to adjust whatever apparatus is being used to perform the experiment).
>
>
>On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 01:22AM, seiferle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Hi, Tom,
>>
>>Well, I think I know who might have sent you this poem, but I don't know as it answers for me what a good poem is, since I have a much easier time recognizing each one in its particularity than I do defining a good poem in general.
>>
>>I do think that many of these discussions hinge upon the definition, that we are each speaking an idiosyncratic vocabulary which each of us is making up and defining as we go. So one's "experiment" is another's "tinkering." Which is particularly true of some words, like avant-garde or experimental or formalist, which are waved back and forth as if they were rather large flags.
>>
>>I don't know, I hope the view of scientists isn't like the view of the scientist I heard say, "oh English majors they are the worst, they think they know everything since they have had to read here and there."
>>But I do think the scientist's view of an experiment is much more rigorous and defined, requiring verifiable results, in a way poetry never does. Which is not to say that the term can't be used poetically,
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Rebecca
>>
>>Rebecca Seiferle
>>www.thedrunkenboat.com
>>
>>
>>
>>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>>From: tombell <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue
>>
>>
>
>
|