My Writers Circle

Poets Corner => Review My Poetry => Topic started by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 03:00:55 PM

Title: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 03:00:55 PM
I ran across this definition of "concrete poetry" ... http://poetry.about.com/b/2008/12/14/concrete-poetry-comes-alive-online.htm ...

and I must say I am totally against this concept (or definition) of concrete poetry. The term, in my opinion, has been kidnapped by the current "I" Generation (that's "I" for INTERNET-DEPENDENT),  a motley ragtag crop of offspring maturing into an artifical information storage dependence that leaves the cognitive skills of their brains underdeveloped and held in suspension.

Concrete poetry by the definition referred to above is nothing more that visual performance art, which is a far cry from poetry.

In my humble,dated, and somewhat bloated opinion I am just outraged over the concept. It leaves me weak in the knees and concerned over the future of our country as well as all of the literate world currently being formulated.

Gray
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: eric on December 18, 2008, 03:11:58 PM
that is what concrete poetry is, Gray.  no use being against the concept.  and Apollinaire is a whole lot older than you are ... in fact, he's dead.   :D
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
Hum bug!!! IT IS NOT POETRY !!!

It is just performance art at best.
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 03:58:08 PM
Gray, let me ask you a stupid question.

Do you consider John Yamrus a poet?
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 04:03:40 PM
thatollie:

I don't know why you would think a question is stupid. None that I have ever come across have been stupid and with my big old imagination, I can not conceive of any being stupid. But to answer your question, I would call John Yarmus a poet. I would like for you to keep in mind that the term is used broadly by many individuals and is a noun with subjective qualities.

Why do you ask?

Gray
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 04:10:00 PM
And when Mr Yamrus does a reading, do you think he tries to add to the poem?
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 04:15:25 PM
Yes, I would say he does based on what I have seen of his readings on YouTube.

May I ask why you ask?

Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 04:50:59 PM
Would you say that concrete poets are trying to add to their poems by constructing them that way?
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 05:27:55 PM
No, I would not. I think that they are trying to create a stchick for themselves. Poetry are words on a page to be read outloud. Part of poetry is a visual but only in how it relates strictly to the sonics of the words and their meaning, and not so much on how they appear on the page as an form of art.

This so-called "concrete poetry" is nothing more that a visual presentation which can be or may or can not be or is not art in itself. But it is not poetry. It is a visual form the same way a sketch, or picture, or motion picture is a visul form.

How the wrods are arranged on a page should be for the use in the way they are verbalized by the reader. If their arrangement is for any other reason, then it becomes strictly for the visual, which has nothing to do with poetry. Poetry is an art form that should be spoken outloud, not read or seen silently. Or so I believe. Such are its roots in its origin. How can one word or even one syllable be labeled poetry? Is it poetry simply because it is floriated in appearance?

Just my opinion, though.
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 05:33:41 PM
And what do you think of the way HaroHalola constructs his poetry?
Does he not use line breaks and spacing and punctuation and symbols to change the meaning of the words around them.
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 05:49:24 PM
I think HH is an excellent poet. The way he arranges his words (line breaks etc) benefit the way a reader of one of his poems reads his writing outloud. I do not think he uses line breaks, or punctuations, or symbols to change the meaning of his words. I believe he uses words (which are symbols in themselves) as well as symbols to project his meaning or his intent. Of course, I would have to ask him directly to be certain what he means or intends whenever he writes a poem. In the long haul of it, only he would really know.

But that is not concrete poetry as I understand it, thatollie. Concrete poetry from what I understand refers to a so-called genre based strictly on the way the words are placed on the page for the sake of placement only. Like shape poetry. For example, using the word "tree" in multitude to form the shape of a tree on a blank page.

For me, this is not poetry. What JY or HH write and how they write are not examples to which I was making a reference, but then I could be truly confused about the definition and/or example of what "concrete poetry" (as referred to in the original link I posted) is.

Educate me, please, if you think I am off base.

Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 05:57:24 PM
The definition is right, but my point was that we all use the methods that we feel will add to our work.
Concrete poets do so because they see it as an addition to the words.
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 06:01:58 PM
True, thatollie. I can not disagree with your statement. I think I'm just becoming an old stuck-in-the-mud.  ;D

Thank you for a refreshing discussion, by the way. I would be curious about what others here thought.
Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 06:04:54 PM
Well, let's ask Mr Yamrus.

http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=7160.0
x donottryto
o              p
b              u
a  n  i  e m t

Title: Re: I'm so confused...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 07:32:17 PM
Your example (of JY's piece) illustrates my point.

The shape of the words on the page adds nothing to the way they are read outloud. They crontribute nothing to the emotional response of the reader. The layout or arrangement of the words merely provide a visual challange for the reader's amusement or chagrin. It is just a visual performance.

In my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 09:21:52 PM
In fact I think JY might be agreeing with you, he puts the poem in a box and it tells him not to.
Or I've struck upon a layer he didn't intend. [which also happened in a critique of one of his novels.]
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: eric on December 18, 2008, 09:42:49 PM
Well, Gray, you make a plausible question here, but I really don't think you've shown you're qualified to answer it.  I wish you would, but you don't.  The contents of the thread, at least, seem to be simple expressions of opinion without much to back it up.   Let's remember something you always forget, which is that facts are your friend.  Also recall that when I mentioned Apollonaire, a demonstrably greater poet than you or me, who invented this form, you said bah humburg it's only performance art.  A rather laughable statement, since Apollonaire did not perform in the sense of performance art at all.  He was simply too French for that.  John Yamrus, who can't really be a fairly close ally of yours on this point, created a witty piece of concrete poetry that you likewise dismissed as performance art.   This ignores the fact that the box made by Yamrus cannot be performed.  Again you did not use reasons, other than that the sounds are not altered by the shape. 

Okay, with that background let us engage in some analysis.  We can use the Yamrus piece.  Recall that a poem is defined, and you have approved this definition, as a collection of words that evokes an emotion in the reader that is different than the meanings of the words themselves as put down on the page.  Clearly the sonic qualities of the words are of much import, which is why all poems should be read when being understood.  As the Yamrus box illustrates, though, the simple meaning of the words can be amplified, bent, made ironic or any number of other things by a good shape that they may make.  Obviously, therefore, the shape of a concrete poem can lend to and influence the evoked emotion, which means that a good concrete poem is in fact poetry, contrary to your unsupported assertion that it is not.  I don't particularly care for concrete poems, except when they are witty and well constructed as is Yamrus's, but you are simply wrong that they are not poetic.

Ollie, I think Yamrus did intend that very level of irony.  Which proves my point, by the way.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 10:35:36 PM

eric:

Thanks for joining this discussion. I for one am always glad to read what you have to say; your opinions have always provoked considerable thought with me and have at times been entertaining as well.

My quailifications to state my own opinions stem from the very fact that I make a point of sayng I am only giving my opinion. Granted, there are those (dead or alive) who would agree with you about the arrangement of words into picture form on a page in an effort to enhance or influence the emotional impact of a poem or poetic writing. It is still, however, a very visual effect that, when added to the composition, does nothing to elevate the emotional response that the very words spoken aloud could not do.

If a poem requires, or simply employes a visual gimmick, then it ceases to be a poem by the very definition you have provided. One may as well paint or provide a picture to illustrate a given poem and say the picture is a part of the poem. I suppose that it how new genres are formed, how new schools of thought are pondered into existence.

My goodness, I was not seeking allies in this discussion, not from John Yarmus or HaroHalola or thatollie or you. I was just posing a question or rather at best a speculative thought regarding so-called "concrete poetry". In my opinion, "concrete poetry" is and still remains a visual art and when the reader is engaged and takes time to decipher it, the poem becomes a performance piece. The reader, not the writer, becomes the "performer" by the very act of trying to read words constructed into the form of a visual picture.

Of course, this again is only my opinion, backed by my personal preferences. I am not attempting to present an essay of pursuasion or an academic paper supporting any particualar hypothesis about what is or is not "concrete poetry".

Gray
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 10:38:56 PM
Quote
Ollie, I think Yamrus did intend that very level of irony.  Which proves my point, by the way.
We may get an definite answer, I wouldn't be surprised if he blessed this topic with another viewpoint.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: eric on December 18, 2008, 10:45:07 PM
Ollie--Yamrus always surprises me.  My hallucinations are often different than his reality, which makes for interesting contrasts.

Gray--now, that was what I was  looking for.  A little backing up of your opinions.  Good job.  Now, look at my definiton.  It says "a collection of words arranged on a page."  Says nothing as to how.  A collection can be boxed shape.  And the shapes can do more than just influence the words, as I intimated.  They can contradict them.  Look at some of Apollonaire's poems. 

Thanks for the joust, dude.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 10:51:54 PM
eric:

My pleasure. I'm glad you joined in.

I will certainly explore more of Apollionaire's writing. Too bad he is long gone. I would have loved to correspond with him. Can't you just imagine it?

(...so, you hallucinate, too? I hope yours are every bit as interesting as mine have been...  ;) )
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: thatollie on December 18, 2008, 11:00:14 PM
Quote
(...so, you hallucinate, too? I hope yours are every bit as interesting as mine have been...   ;))
The joust of three hallucinators, I do so hope I've held my own.

Some Apollinaire here, none of them concrete.
http://tkline.pgcc.net/PITBR/French/Apollinaire.htm

His poem about the peacock is rather amusing, same with the lion.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 18, 2008, 11:13:01 PM
You certainly did hold your own, ollie. Just try not to "go into the light".  :D

Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: Jade on December 19, 2008, 10:08:05 AM
Quote (from Gray) In my opinion, "concrete poetry" is and still remains an visual art and when the reader is engaged and takes time to decipher it, the poem becomes a performance piece. The reader, not the writer, becomes the "performer" by the very act of trying to read words constructed into the form of a visual picture poem. Unquote

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool, I'd like to say what I see, in Gray's (amended) words - above. Apologies Gray.


P.S. Not every poem - in fact very little poems - can be fully understood at first sight. That's what makes it a challenge. And being involved in the performing - in order to understand it - is an honor.

Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm not - just my impression.
Title: Re: I don't think I'm so confused, not anymore...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 19, 2008, 11:02:08 AM
Hello Jade,

I like your comments. Odd way of changing my idea...capsulizing it with your edit.

So, do you think that any reader of a poem (a concrete one or not) is a performing artist? An interesting idea, the way you put it. I am not sure I entirely agree with you, though.

Gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Jade on December 19, 2008, 11:48:53 AM
Hi Gray

May I ask how you read a poem. Do you not mentally perform it, visualizing the significance of it? Is it only me?

Yes, I think every reader sows the threads of the poem together in their own manner, and a good poem is one where the outcome is the same active play, when done by different 'performers'.

As someone I discussed this with put it: "The performing artist in the mind, making the words come to life ... that is what a poetry reader should do... the poet is supposed to write for that interchange. The poet must put down his or her words in a way that they come to life in the mind of the reader.  This is why abstractions are so bad.  When the words come to  life in a new mental landscape and express or infer a new set of emotions there, that is what poetry is all about. Poetry does not occur on the page.  It occurs in the brain of the reader."

With that being said, I agree, however...the 'tree-image' as you described, would not qualify as poetry in my accord, but rather a readable painting.

 
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 19, 2008, 12:16:40 PM
Who is that someone you talk with on the side, Jade?  Should I be jealous?  Whoever it is, he's right.  Poetry exists to have a life of its own, a kind of performance art of the mind. 
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Jade on December 19, 2008, 12:19:51 PM
Hi Eric

Yeah, be jealous, be very jealous. I was conversing with my (what's the male word for muse... could it be divine afflatus?)

And yeah, he's always right.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 19, 2008, 01:49:03 PM
Jade:

To answer your question...I read a poem outloud, slowly, trying to adopt the sonics of it (or the way it is written to sound) with the use of line breaks and punctuations provided by the poet. I believe poetry is an oral art form derived from words written and placed on a page that (as eric puts it) 'evoke an emotional response in the reader' when the words are read outloud. Consequently, reading a poem is not strictly a mental engagement as, for example, reading a short story or novel.

In my opinion, a poem engages the emotions of the reader and should be written as clearly as possible by the writer. This, then, is why I believe abstractions are for the most part out of place in a poem. It would seem to me that the best way to convey an idea in a poem is by employing the five senses, to show the reader the intent rather than tell. As a result, the reader is able to experience the emotional response provoked by the poem rather than to just imagine it. With the use of abstractions, the reader in effect is forced to speculate what the writer means rather to actually feel by way of senual images what the writer is trying to communicate.

The emotional experince gained through the five senses is what makes a poem an art form. Abstract thoughts in a poem do not directly engage the reader on an emotional level.

I am sure the above is just my opinion and I do not claim that anyone should or should not agree with me. I am also certain there are other members here who could explain more clearly what I mean.

Gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Mark H on December 19, 2008, 05:42:25 PM
F
L
O
O
D

G
A
T
E
S     

O
F

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S     

There's
     always
          someone
               trying
                     to hold
                          them back.........
                               WHOOOSH>>>>>>>>>>>gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 19, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
 :D

That's funny, Mark.

A very humorous PICTURE.

Sort of like a cartoon.

Do you mind if I print it and keep it?  :)
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 19, 2008, 10:09:08 PM
How much paint did Mark use to create his picture, Gray? 

Your choices:

(  )  None
(  )  Some
(  )  Much
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 19, 2008, 10:20:52 PM
I think it is more of a charcoal sketch, eric. He is very talented, don't you think?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 19, 2008, 10:23:29 PM
My opinion of his talent is beside the point.  With your charcoal sketch idea (which is, by the way, wrong; the answer is no paint, no charcoal), you are leaning toward the cartoon view.  What part of Mark's picture is most like a cartoon?  What part least? 

At the risk of confusing you further, please tell me what part of the Yamrus box is not made of words.  Also, consider Yamrus's use of spatial relativity, and how that does or does not affect both the way the poem sounds and what it means.   My guess is that was not philosophically motivated, but still.  Do you think this is cartoonish or no, and why or why not? 

Thank you, old chum.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 19, 2008, 10:52:09 PM
Oh, that was a legitimate question on your part, eric? I thought you were asking with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. My mistake.

To answer your question, I see no color in the picture, even after giving my glasses a good cleaning. On my computer screen, Mark's piece of art comes across as black fonts on a very light shade of blue background. I am not too sure if that has to do with the color settings on my internet browser or those of my moniter. I always have a difficult time distinguishing the difference since both programs seem to be there for the same function.

I fail to understand, eric, why it is that you ask me which part of Mark's piece is most like a cartoon and which part is least like one. You have already pointed out to me that my charcoal sketch idea (which you say leans towards the cartoon view) is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then how can you expect me to explain what I think about it's similarities to a sketch or cartoon? You have already expressed your opposition to the concept.

Is it that you would like for me to explain to you what a caricature is?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 19, 2008, 11:03:22 PM
You are right that Mark has made a funny looking dam, but I would not call it a caricature.  So no, I have no interest in your explanation of the word, which would either be erroneous or irrelevant.  Unless, of course, you apply it to Mark--but I couldn't agree with that either.  Not in this context, anyway.  As you may remember, people often take my intensely complicated questions as  jokes because they do not realize I am very simple minded and only want to know what I ask.  So often this turns out to be a vain hope.

Obviously, the charcoal is wrong because Mark is using computer squiggles to make his picture, in things known as "words."   You use charcoal as a medium, not a color--but the correct medium is words.  Now recall again what my definition of poem (the generally accepted definition) is.  Again, I never said that Mark's poem is not a cartoon, I only said that it was not charcoal (I am glad you got clean glasses out of the deal anyway).  I will give you a hint.  The same word in Mark's poem answers both my questions about what is most or least like, etc.

I think I exfoliated on the Yamrus thingies after you started answering the question, so I'll bap it back to you for that as well as a stab at the cartoon points.

I am sure you'll want to answer my questions if you wish to support your position, but if not oh well, I'll just leave you be.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 12:28:42 PM
First thing's first, Mark wrote a wonderful piece.

Let's look at the yamrus poem again, but reformatted to Gray's exacting standards.

Do not try
to put me in a box.

Monsieur Gray, do you see any change in meaning with this reformat?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 20, 2008, 01:33:59 PM
Well, Ollie, the Waste Land is a wonderful piece.  I think Mark's deal is an amusing piece by a good poet and a thoughtful person.  If you wanted to say "I think Mark wrote a wonderful piece," I'd agree with that.  If you said "Mark wrote the Waste Land," I would not agree.  But in any case, it does not work reformatted any more than Yamrus's ... and you are spot on in pointing that latter thing out.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 01:37:41 PM
I didn't say that Mark wrote the Waste Land, but kudos to him if he did because it's a good read.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 20, 2008, 02:10:08 PM
If Mark wrote the Waste Land, he is a lot older than I give him credit for and he goes by a devious set of names.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 02:12:04 PM
True but we're veering wildly away from the point of the conversation.

Quick question: Why are we having this debate?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 02:38:59 PM
We are having this debate (and like any good debate, one can present any side without actually believing what ideas and/or concepts that side upholds) because it is so GOOD for one's cranial circulatory system and one's over blood pressure.  ;D

Regarding ollie's reference to JY's piece as an example. If the words are read outloud the way ollie has last presented them, do they sound the same as the way JY wrote them? I think so, depending on the speaker. So, then, it can be said that the arrangement of the words into a pattern of a square is strictly for a visual impact...like a good picture, sketch, photgraph, etc.

And eric, did I not answer your question,...or have I missed one? Please restate it for me if I have.

Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 02:43:26 PM
I did not ask about reading it aloud, I asked you if reformatting the Yamrus poem changed the meaning.
Isn't the layer of irony eric mentioned lost in the reformat?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 03:26:38 PM
thatollie:

What is a poem if it is not an art form to be read outloud?

Reformatting the visual aspect is only a changing of a sub-particle of the whole poem. If reading the words in the shape of a box lends irony to the overall impact of the poem, then why bother with the sonics? Why not read every poem that is written as strictly a visual art form? Why be concerned with how a poem sounds, or with its rhythm and/or rhyme or meter?

A cartoon (even with a caption) is strictly put on paper (or on whatever) for its visual interpretation. If a poem is so dependent on its visual interpretion, then I do not think it is a poem. And to me, concrete (so-called) poetry is put on the page strictly for its visual effect. Visual art = performance art.

What question was that again, eric?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 03:33:23 PM
Actually, I thought poetry was supposed to engage all the senses, or as many as the poet thinks necessary for the effect.
Does the reformatting engage the senses in a different way to the original?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 03:51:42 PM
I agree with you, Your Royal Thatness, that poetry should engage all the senses, just as any art form should engage all the senses. Usually (I think) a painting or sketch or other things of that genre tend to be created for a visual inspection. One does not sit in a museum and listen to a Rembrandt or a Picasso or go to a gallery to listen to what a sculpture has to say.

A poem (in my opinion) engages the five senses with the words that are used by the poet. Poetry comes from the tradition of passing along oral history from one generation to another, before written language was involved. Poetry is the original tool of histrorians and consequently, contemporary poetry maintains the basic elements of its origins.

I do not think reformatting the words on a page necessarily engages the senses in a different way, other than perhaps the sense of sight. If it is engaging the sense of sight differently, then it becomes like a picture or painting or sketch or photograph, etc. The formatting is for the sake of the visual effect alone.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 03:56:57 PM
I have sat for many hours listening to what a sculpture has to say, but that is besides the point.

Let me ask you, which do you consider a finer piece of art? [I'm talking strictly opinion]

x donottryto
o              p
b              u
a  n  i  e m t

or

Do not try
to put me in a box.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 04:05:49 PM
Did the lips of the sculture move when it spoke? Did it have lips? Have you been gettiing into my drug lockbox again?

I find it difficult to say which is a finer piece of art, since your examples are two different types of art forms (if any at all). For me, it is like being asked which is a finer piece of fruit, an apple or an orange. Clearly both are fruit and both can be fine (if picked at the right time), but what is not so clear is which is finer.

So, I can not really answer your question.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 04:10:32 PM
Nope, it's lips didn't move. No, I haven't been in your stash either. And personally I consider oranges finer than apples. But none of that has anything to do with this topic.

Art is art is art, plain and simple. Poetry is an art as is sketching.
Art is choice, which do you think is a more meaningful choice, the stanza or the box?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 20, 2008, 05:39:18 PM
well, gee. gray, as you know i love to tell you you're completely wrong, but once again i get to do that.  the yamrus poem engages the visual senses  in an obvious way, it engages the sonics in the way i described above, it engages the mind in several ways, only one of which is mentioned above, and it engages the feelings in your toes in an as yet undefined manner.  you are wrong that a poem is intrinsically about its sound ... read my definiton ... while a poem is essentially a spoken thing, it is not intrinsically a spoken thing.  yes i know, i contradict myself.  either whitman or george bernard shaw put that right  ... and you are wrong about something else, but i forget what it is.  i will not repeat my questions for you, and if this is not enough reason to jump off the cliff, i don't know what is.  goodbye, i have a flying lesson to attend.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Jade on December 20, 2008, 06:01:20 PM
I just had a flash go off in my head. Dangerous, very very dangerous, I know.

When the "Six Poets at the Six Gallery"- reading in 1955 was the catalyst that dramatically revealed what Allen Ginsberg later described as 'the natural affinity of modes of thought', where the complete audience knew 'at the deepest level that a human voice and body has been hurled against a harsh wall', (in my opinion one of the most groundbreaking moments in the history of poetry) could a concrete poem have the same effect?

What will happen to poetry readings? The performer at a reading cannot be every person in the audience, now can it?

Please call 911, I feel rather faint....

PS . BTW - that reading was the 'Howl' - very powerful.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 06:03:21 PM
I'll have to dust my wings...but I'll catch up with you later, then, eric. Be careful up there and please be sure and not cut yourself on the edge.  :D

I suppose that art is art, thatollie, and a poem is about the sound and sight both. So, when pictures become poems and start moving with sound...oh, wait, that has happened already. So, when pictures become poems and poems become pictures, I may be forced to give up eating apples. Oranges are for drinking, anyway.

Gray

(...P.S...eric finally saw through the B.S., even if it was just a straight line of it... ;D )
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 06:05:39 PM
That's a good question about the reading, Jade.

Any takers? eric? ollie?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 20, 2008, 06:14:44 PM
Okay, Jade, that's a point well taken.  This is the exact other side of it, and of what I said--that most poems, great poems, are  essentially written to be spoke aloud, and that great moment you describe where Ginsburg made one off the very ledge I mentioned is a perfect example of this.  So a concrete poem will not get there, not at least any of the ones I know.  But neither will most other poems ... or certainly most other moments.  I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness ...

that was genius.  and he was pretty good at jacks, too.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Mark H on December 20, 2008, 06:34:11 PM
Gray

As you are so keen on the reading out loud aspect, I dug this out for you. I was experimenting with a radical new form of poetry I called puncuoetry. I really think you will enjoy it.

http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=10115.0

Mark
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 07:57:36 PM
Begin quote:

#!/sbin/korn
$peots = null;

would read,

sh’bang slash, spin, slash korn.
Poets get null splat.

End quote.


Mark,

Your example is something wonderful. I have not seen this type of writing before, not since the linquistist class I took during my university years.

It is an interesting puzzle you have presented, in my opinion. You have substituted one set of symbols for another set, while maintaining both have the same sounds, regardless who reads them (based of course on your instructions). In other words, if I read the red symbols above outloud or the blue symbols outloud, they would  (or should) sound the same. Therefore, the visual aspect of the symbols (or words on the page) are like a picture puzzle to solve. On the other hand, once the puzzled is solved, the symbols sound the same.

Red = Blue when heard. Do they then equal the same when read silently?

Thanks for sharing.

Gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 20, 2008, 09:36:21 PM
The only problem is that Mark's experiment was a hoax.  So either he's fooling you or you're fooling everbody else.  And there never has been a college course on linquistist since the world began.   In all other respects, I am sure you guys are onto something.  But excuse me, the edge is calling again.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: thatollie on December 20, 2008, 10:35:27 PM
This is not
concrete p
oetry beca
use the str
ucture rule
s over the
words. Inst
ead of the
words being
the most im
portant part.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 20, 2008, 10:51:43 PM

eric:

How can one have a degree in linguistists without a college course in it?

I think you are the one onto something here...I believe you are the one who has figured it out.  ;)

(...P.S...eric finally saw through the B.S., even if it was just a straight line of it... ;D )


Gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Mark H on December 21, 2008, 03:17:25 AM
The only problem is that Mark's experiment was a hoax.  So either he's fooling you or you're fooling everbody else.

Eric

How certain are you it was not a double bluff? Or what if it started as a spoof but then a real poet convinced me it had some merit  :-\ perhaps that poet was also bluffing.

Whatever, my only point is that I don't see why we should rule things out just because they don't conform. I despise tradition for tradition's sake. Some concrete poetry is mugabe, but some -- like John's box -- is exceptional. Excluding it just because it has a strong visual aspect is dafter than buying a Spandau Ballet CD.

Mark
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 21, 2008, 01:18:35 PM
Yes Mark, absolutely agree with your larger point, it is right on the mark, so to speak.  But as to that other thing ... I did go through the alternatives before I wrote that ... let's see ...

oops, someone is annoying me claiming my attention ... be back with you in a sec or two ...
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 21, 2008, 01:30:49 PM
Okay, if it was a double bluff, then Gray's still bluffing ... if it started out as a bluff, but some greater poet (I'm not using the A-word) convinced you it was a thing worth making, she could either have been right, wrong or bluffing ... if she was right, it was a bluff worth making, but still a bluff ... if she was wrong, it was still a bluff ... if she was bluffing, the thing was a double bluff and you were out in the woods ... if Gray believed the any of the bluffs, which I think he did, he was also out in the woods ... if Gray did not believe any of the bluffs, but pretended he did, he was bluffing ... so either you bluffed Gray, or Gray bluffed us ... but if A-person bluffed you and Gray and you sincerely passed that on, I was wrong, there is a third alternative, it's a triple bluff, and it's all Amie's fault.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 21, 2008, 01:34:08 PM
Mark, eric, thatollie, and Jade:

I really appreciate all four of you for providing input into a lively [i]arguement[/i] debate discussion[/i] brouhaha (or would that be brew-hee-hee?).

This thread has certainly been made interesting and entertaining by everyone's comments and banter.

Gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 21, 2008, 01:42:48 PM
Kool, eric.

Let's blame Amie (since she did not contribute to this thread, unless my tired old eyes deceive me). After all, if Amie hasn't given an opinion here, then by all that is fair and right, she should be blamed for all or none of what has been stated.  :D

Better yet, let's blame it on the rain (or depending on where one lives, on the lack there of). That would make more sense than blaming a brilliant poet who has not commented as of yet on this thread.
 ;)

Gray
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 21, 2008, 01:56:23 PM
No, I think we should blame Amie for the rain, too (or snow in my case--the mountains have had a good share lately).  She is brilliant, isn't she?  I have no compunction in saying that.  And since I worship her, I blame her for everything.  That's only fair, isn't it?

p.s.  Take a close look at the old posts to gauge Amie's nefarious role in this particular matter.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 21, 2008, 02:34:39 PM
She is worshipful, yes? :D

(Is worshipful a word? I suppose I could ask the Most Holy High See's Counsel on Epistles or one of my former English Professors, if I can find one of them?  Or I could just look it up.)

And she is very talented.

(...Amie? You there? Are your ears itching?...  ;) )
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 21, 2008, 02:55:29 PM
She is nefarious.  Worshipful is a word, but it describes the worshipper or his act, not the object of the veneration.  I spoke of her in a worshipful manner.  To say she was worthy of worship, you would say venerable or something.  But she might not like the sound of that, heh heh.  But I am sure she's sick of this, so let's quit it.
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 21, 2008, 06:23:23 PM
Thanks for the English lesson, eric. I've learned something new.

I agree; Amie is probably sick of this. Best let it rest.  ;)

eric
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 21, 2008, 07:13:52 PM
Hello, eric.  I thought your name was Gray.  How are you this fine evening?  Well, actually, don't answer that.  Just fine, thank you.  There you go ... is the echo chamber working?
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Akeith (Gray) on December 21, 2008, 08:46:55 PM
Gray I mean eric:

Well, this (or that) certainly explains a lot...and I haven't even been drinking. :-\

Gray  ::)

Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 21, 2008, 09:30:31 PM
Heh, heh, heh.  Thank you for a pleasant laugh, eric Gray.

Gray  eric
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Jade on December 28, 2008, 07:03:34 PM
At the risk of beating a dead horse...

Look what I found in the archives... http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=17081.0
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: eric on December 28, 2008, 09:47:09 PM
Jade, I think you are a wonderful beater of dead horses.  The item you found proves at least three things:

1.  We should never feel the need to be consistent when it does not suit us.
2.   Amie is way smarter than me, John, and Gray combined.
3.  You are also nefarious, but in a good way.

(That is just a joke, Jade.  You are not nefarious at all.  You are actually perfect in every way ...)
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Jade on December 29, 2008, 04:49:29 AM
nefarious - extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous

I had to look up the meaning... it hurts...  :D
Title: Re: Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...
Post by: Amie on December 29, 2008, 07:26:41 AM
(...Amie? You there? Are your ears itching?...  ;) )

I actually totally missed all this dialogue until just this moment. Thanks for all the compliments guys :)

re: the OP, I'm a bit lost now... but it looks like Jade's got things sorted out ;D