This is an interesting take, Rupert, but I'm not wholly sure that it
is therefore poetry's fault, a perhaps I just infer here. I have
watched all too many films based on poems in which the metaphorical
has been literalized in such a pitifully direct manner that I've had
to turn away in shame.
But, there are wonderful artist's books in collaboration with poets/
poetry, & why not something along the same lines with film/video, I
agree. But please, some freewheeling imaginations...?
Doug
On 7-Mar-08, at 4:46 PM, RUPERT MALLIN wrote:
> To be controversial a second: poetry does not work with paintings,
> photographs, illustrations, music . Poets too easily want 'literal'
> reference they perceive in these mediums - while many artists
> working in these mediums seek poetry as 'literal' scaffolding they
> can work away from but cling to, as justification for their
> abstractions. Different mediums should not hold each other up but
> create an amazing interior friction, in my view.
>
> My best collaborative work has been and is with film makers,
> sculptors, performers and sound technicians. Sculpture seems a crazy
> starting point for poets to truly flex but surely, the biggest
> battleground in modern art has been in sculpture: the enclosure of
> space in form versus the opening of space as social interaction.
> And, of course, similar battles are onging in theatre and music.
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Stars, rain, forests.
Stars rain forests.
John Newlove
|