Bob, if when you say some would say your mathematical poetry isn’t poetry, that could be true if the poems consisted of only numbers with no words. If that were the case, then I would have to agree with them. That’s not to say it would not be a valid art form, just not one that could be classified as poetry, which for me has to have a strong semantic element.
Incidentally, it’s always puzzled me why most visual poets insist that what they are doing is poetry, as if for them to admit that it isn’t is a bad thing. Why can’t they be proud of what they are doing and come-up with a new classification for it as an art form?
Original Message:
I must have missed the post in which you mentioned the paradigm shift
you are referring to here, Jeffrey. Also, I'm not talking about
innovations of style, but of technique. But I'm too uniformed about all
that's going on in this discussion to say more . . . yet. As for my
mathematical poetry, and that of a very few others doing a kind of
mathematical poetry, it's definitely innovative. But many don't
consider it poetry, although they can't tell me what it otherwise is,
and there is also the question as to whether it is effectively
innovative, which I don't think will be settled for a while.
|