INTERLUDE
HOW TO NAVIGATE THE REALM OF NOT UNDERSTANDING; OR, JOY
A joyful poetry is able to do all things. It can get almost anybody to read it, cause it's got that much (& that kind) of energy.
It doesn't have to be shallow. In fact, it can't be. Joy is deep --- it comes from there. (A kind of duende.)
Joy motivates people to read. When it goes somewhere terrifying, it can take you. You trust it.
(No one trusts the person who is shouting as if the world is ending, even (& especially) when it is.)
So you shout as if it is just beginning. You make it begin. (Where do you get this kind of energy? How does it happen?)
Like when you're in a room and someone's being negative and wouldn't it be so much more interesting (and difficult) to imagine a way out.
(Esp. cause all the absurd stuff is there.)
I find this emotional intelligence rare & the true brilliance of any time. I see it often in poems, but sometimes I see other kinds of "intelligence" that seem to me pretty dumb.
We don't bend down enough.
What a poet who can see everything clearly & still keep afloat & moving quick, without sacrificing depth!
For the language and for the approaching language and for those approaching the approaching language | and for the place in which it is read
and for the places, esp., in which it won't be
[INTRO] [SECTION I] [SECTION II] [INTERLUDE] [SECTION III]
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Section 2: Engage! (Poetry and Power)
SECTION II
ENGAGE!
(POETRY AND POWER)
"I mean, I do something basically less important-- it is, in fact....it's extremely important for people with power not to let anybody understand this, to make them think there are big leaders around who somehow get things going, and then what everybody else has to do is follow them. That's one of the ways of demeaning people, and degrading them, and making them passive. I don't know how to overcome this exactly, but it's really something people ought to work on." (Chomsky, 321-322)
one of the principal | big big | tasks of a poet today, as I see it | is to not demean people
now | there are many ways of not demeaning | of "activating" | and I think one way that the contemporary poetry community succeeds very well is on a purely textual level | i.e. there are many really interesting texts that are just fundamentally concerned with activating language | keeping it from closing down. This is a huge kind of activity
but then the question becomes | how can we more often (& deeply) pair this with a willingness to engage with (be engaging to!) different readerships | i.e. what if this kind of language-activation was more broadly and multiply situated | now | this is a problem of community as much as it is one of text | but as writers & readers & people | in the poetry community | we can approach the problem from all angles
and I think people are (rightly) afraid of writing something absorbing precisely because it would risk making its readers passive | and here's a sort of big paradox we run into | which is how can something be absorbing | i.e. completely grab the reader | and also make them active
I think it's an easy opposition to re-enforce | which is exactly what's happened | i.e. I'll either write dense complicated language that forces its reader to be active | or I'll give in and write something "entertaining" or (worse) "reductive" | but there are ways of becoming absorbed in the process of disruption (c.f. Bernstein, Artifice of Absorption). Now that's exactly what we're looking for
but I think we're in a different time now, and more is actually possible. Because I think poets are pretty absorbed in a particular rhetorical form of absorption in disruption right now, and there is quite a large counter-mainstream that I think has its foundations in exactly that procedure--- quite a few sub camps and styles, as well as all sorts of stuff that doesn't fit at all -- but what's missing, I think, is a really compelling call to write in a way that's more widely (and multiply) legibly complex ---- to ---- carefully, joyously, interestingly --- expand and rethink poetry audience & place within the community ---- and that requires a different kind of focus on these terms "absorption" & "disruption"
we might call this "disrupting (self)absorption in disruption by being absorbingly disruptive"
!!
or just -- engaging
"Now, you can ride the crest of the wave and try to use it to get power, which is the standard thing, or you can ride the crest of the wave because you're helping people that way, which is another thing. But the point is, it's the wave that matters" (324, Chomsky)
there are all kinds of possibilities that poetry simply all-the-time has its blinders on to
and it moves sluggishly (who can see that quickly????)
through what-it-is, to what else it could be...
all of us have to contend with that from within our own body of work
lest we become cliches of ourselves
it sounds easy
but it's of course immensely difficult (as you know!)
because as we try to carve out these spaces within language that DO feel new and true
we grasp what is new and true about them
and de-activate it (by immediately trying to replicate our success)
this is just completely how power works
and so poetic language provides a crucial analog for political work
in terms of how to keep power from consolidating
& what the specific obstacles are to that
which is the point
they're always specific
they're rotational
even now they get away
(take back over)
okay?
"that is just completely how power works"
so at the moment of the poem giving up power
(Spicer)
it gets it back but as the power of a wave rather than the rider
"Or take a look at the intellectual left, the people who ought to be involved in the kinds of things we're doing here. If you look at the academic left, say, it's mired in intricate, unintelligible discourse of some crazed post-modernist variety, which nobody can understand, including the people involved in it--but it's really good for careers and that sort of thing. That again pulls a ton of energy into activities which have the great value that they are guaranteed not to affect anything in the world, so therefore they're very useful for the institutions to support and to tolerate and to encourage people to get involved with." (Chomsky, 328)
making something strange
& legible
legibly strange
rather than elaborately cloaked and "interesting"
"your interesting friend isn't interesting"
complex thinking and feeling in simple strange language
:
language strange and complex and simple
easily apprehensible / felt
difficultly thought
unknown
"Incidentally, I should say that my own political writing is often denounced from both the left and the right for being non-theoretical--and that's completely correct. But it's exactly as theoretical as anyone else's, I just don't call it "theoretical," I call it "trivial"--which is in fact what it is. I mean, it's not that some of these people whose stuff is considered "deep theory" and so on don't have some interesting things to say. Often they have very interesting things to say. But it's nothing you couldn't say at the level of a high school student, or that a high school student couldn't figure out if they had the time and support and a little bit of training.
I think people should be extremely skeptical when intellectual life constructs structures which aren't transparent--because the fact of the matter is that in most areas of life, we just don't understand anything very much." (Chomsky, 229)
Be very skeptical of my poetry.
[INTRO] [SECTION I] [SECTION II] [INTERLUDE] [SECTION III]
ENGAGE!
(POETRY AND POWER)
"I mean, I do something basically less important-- it is, in fact....it's extremely important for people with power not to let anybody understand this, to make them think there are big leaders around who somehow get things going, and then what everybody else has to do is follow them. That's one of the ways of demeaning people, and degrading them, and making them passive. I don't know how to overcome this exactly, but it's really something people ought to work on." (Chomsky, 321-322)
one of the principal | big big | tasks of a poet today, as I see it | is to not demean people
now | there are many ways of not demeaning | of "activating" | and I think one way that the contemporary poetry community succeeds very well is on a purely textual level | i.e. there are many really interesting texts that are just fundamentally concerned with activating language | keeping it from closing down. This is a huge kind of activity
but then the question becomes | how can we more often (& deeply) pair this with a willingness to engage with (be engaging to!) different readerships | i.e. what if this kind of language-activation was more broadly and multiply situated | now | this is a problem of community as much as it is one of text | but as writers & readers & people | in the poetry community | we can approach the problem from all angles
and I think people are (rightly) afraid of writing something absorbing precisely because it would risk making its readers passive | and here's a sort of big paradox we run into | which is how can something be absorbing | i.e. completely grab the reader | and also make them active
I think it's an easy opposition to re-enforce | which is exactly what's happened | i.e. I'll either write dense complicated language that forces its reader to be active | or I'll give in and write something "entertaining" or (worse) "reductive" | but there are ways of becoming absorbed in the process of disruption (c.f. Bernstein, Artifice of Absorption). Now that's exactly what we're looking for
but I think we're in a different time now, and more is actually possible. Because I think poets are pretty absorbed in a particular rhetorical form of absorption in disruption right now, and there is quite a large counter-mainstream that I think has its foundations in exactly that procedure--- quite a few sub camps and styles, as well as all sorts of stuff that doesn't fit at all -- but what's missing, I think, is a really compelling call to write in a way that's more widely (and multiply) legibly complex ---- to ---- carefully, joyously, interestingly --- expand and rethink poetry audience & place within the community ---- and that requires a different kind of focus on these terms "absorption" & "disruption"
we might call this "disrupting (self)absorption in disruption by being absorbingly disruptive"
!!
or just -- engaging
"Now, you can ride the crest of the wave and try to use it to get power, which is the standard thing, or you can ride the crest of the wave because you're helping people that way, which is another thing. But the point is, it's the wave that matters" (324, Chomsky)
there are all kinds of possibilities that poetry simply all-the-time has its blinders on to
and it moves sluggishly (who can see that quickly????)
through what-it-is, to what else it could be...
all of us have to contend with that from within our own body of work
lest we become cliches of ourselves
it sounds easy
but it's of course immensely difficult (as you know!)
because as we try to carve out these spaces within language that DO feel new and true
we grasp what is new and true about them
and de-activate it (by immediately trying to replicate our success)
this is just completely how power works
and so poetic language provides a crucial analog for political work
in terms of how to keep power from consolidating
& what the specific obstacles are to that
which is the point
they're always specific
they're rotational
even now they get away
(take back over)
okay?
"that is just completely how power works"
so at the moment of the poem giving up power
(Spicer)
it gets it back but as the power of a wave rather than the rider
"Or take a look at the intellectual left, the people who ought to be involved in the kinds of things we're doing here. If you look at the academic left, say, it's mired in intricate, unintelligible discourse of some crazed post-modernist variety, which nobody can understand, including the people involved in it--but it's really good for careers and that sort of thing. That again pulls a ton of energy into activities which have the great value that they are guaranteed not to affect anything in the world, so therefore they're very useful for the institutions to support and to tolerate and to encourage people to get involved with." (Chomsky, 328)
making something strange
& legible
legibly strange
rather than elaborately cloaked and "interesting"
"your interesting friend isn't interesting"
complex thinking and feeling in simple strange language
:
language strange and complex and simple
easily apprehensible / felt
difficultly thought
unknown
"Incidentally, I should say that my own political writing is often denounced from both the left and the right for being non-theoretical--and that's completely correct. But it's exactly as theoretical as anyone else's, I just don't call it "theoretical," I call it "trivial"--which is in fact what it is. I mean, it's not that some of these people whose stuff is considered "deep theory" and so on don't have some interesting things to say. Often they have very interesting things to say. But it's nothing you couldn't say at the level of a high school student, or that a high school student couldn't figure out if they had the time and support and a little bit of training.
I think people should be extremely skeptical when intellectual life constructs structures which aren't transparent--because the fact of the matter is that in most areas of life, we just don't understand anything very much." (Chomsky, 229)
Be very skeptical of my poetry.
[INTRO] [SECTION I] [SECTION II] [INTERLUDE] [SECTION III]
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Section 1: Health (A Lecture)
Sekiso Osho asked, "How can you proceed on further from the top of a hundred-foot pole?" Another eminent teacher of old said, "You, who sit on the top of a hundred-foot pole, although you have entered the Way you are not yet genuine. Proceed on from the top of the pole, and you will show your whole body in the ten directions."
"Consider yourself addressing an audience with considerable knowledge of poetry, both practice and theory, both contemporary and historical."
(University of Iowa MFA Exam prompt, 2009)
"Its social substance is precisely what is spontaneous in it, what does not simply follow from the existing conditions at the time..."
(Theodor Adorno, On Lyric Poetry and Society)
"They will be buried by laughter."
(Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Commonwealth)
I will be addressing an audience with considerable knowledge.
As a member of this audience, I know that we can often have a difficult time seeing the unknown.
(And if the unknown is, in this case, an audience without considerable knowledge?)
SECTION I
HEALTH
a lecture
1
You see there are a few things we need to talk about | but what I am going to start with here | is local poetry | because as of now local poetry is looked down on | when I think | it should be the opposite
how does poetry work | in today’s institutions you may ask | one publishes a book of poetry or two and that qualifies you | for certain occupations in which you are encouraged to write more poetry | all of this poetry | is available more or less widely | and your name can be increasingly known | and this helps you be a “successful poet” | now
if you are an “unsuccessful poet” | or just a person | you write but maybe | only those immediately around you | say in your community | hear it | you are not successful | maybe | because you are speaking to non-poets | other people around you | local concerns | things in your town | I don’t know | but you do not write for national contests etc.
what might we value | about this devalued brand
how might it | be important
because it can’t be important just by virtue of being "lesser" | (in quality) | (whose) | but rather | where is the good work that goes unwritten | that is yet to be written | might this be an important kind of work | how might it be important
for one it might resist certain habits of address | or non-address | "rhetorical aphasia" | of the so-called mainstream | or streams | that is | it might address itself differently | which could be useful | if we consider address | a useful issue | I for one | am sometimes bored with the concerns | of the poetry community | not that they aren’t | interesting | but that, sometimes | they don’t have enough limits to make them exciting | sustainably | in terms | of health
what is health | this is a good question | this is the second thing I want to talk about | what is health | and what does it mean | for poets | right now I think for many people it means | being unhealthy | which I think makes for “good poems” | but maybe | unhealthy poems | what do we want | a poem to do
a local healthy poetry | would not assume it is more important | than you | its appeal would be generous | first and foremost | this would be cool | and interesting
how does one be generous | in a poem | what do you have to give | why do we want that | from a poem | for a poem
perhaps we are thinking of the poem’s health here
2
this leads us somewhere interesting | that is | it leads us | out of the poem | or should i say | further in | the poem | is also led out of itself | why | is it healthy for the poem to be led out of itself | and what does being let out of itself | mean
for one | it would mean changing | this talk would have to maybe at a certain point | stop looking as it now does | and sounding as it now does | and it would have to change in terms of its sound and tone i guess | and this would hold some readers’ interest | but maybe not others' | i.e. people who like poems | may like this game of change | people who get frustrated with poems | may not | but it could also change in such a way as to grab both | now | the question remains | or actually grows stronger | how does the poem change | in a way that is healthy | the second point
is related to this | “being let out of itself“ | i.e. into the world | i.e. | how does a poem do that
this may be a question | of where the poem comes from | or how it is situated
this is an old question, too, I think | but let’s ask it | differently
what can a poem do | today | in our world
what is it doing
right now i believe | as one who writes poems | it exists as a kind of checkpoint it is a living checkpoint | in language | through which some pass | and gain power | some of this power | is social | though it happens in language | it is very powerful this power
some of the power | is negative | that is | it undoes the power of language | and invests it in something else | it deposes language | now | the fact of this | is very cool | but something that also passes | back into the first kind of power almost instantly | woooooooo
what to do about that | is i think | the question i am asking
and i think it really has to do with audience | with address | with where this is headed | this is something i think that certain bodies of philosophy and poetry have dealt with | pretty insufficiently | or rather | new forms have not yet found their way into power | also | because it’s a tough thing | i.e. how would that look to have true negative power in power | i think this is also | a question people have been asking | trying to do | only to fail and have it slip straight back | there are many | many people i like reading | people who are directly invested in this idea and maybe pay less attention
to their situate-ion
generally | still | i do think the dream | for me | maybe for you i don’t know | i am suggesting this | is that i could write a kind of poetry | that my high school students could be equally (tho differently) moved by | enjoy | feel empowered by
perhaps the negative power | the real negative power | negative power that can take power | whatever | let’s just have some of the non-poets | non power holders involved | speaking | reading | included | and there are many who are invested in this too | only | they're not here | i.e. this is a power organism | designed to infiltrate | itself | you see | who would reasonably | be interested in this | except those seeking power | ok | so here we are | there is this other idea
that power is not “bad” | that good folks need to take it | i think there is much truth to this | i distrust it | but i also trust it in a certain way | the problem is of course “good” | i think | children are good
are we to write for children?
3
a healthy poem | does not care how good it sounds
but loves | when it sounds good
similarly | i teach better | when i forget the dumb stuff | i just did | but remember | if i just sounded good | my students like that | a poem likes
when it is healthy | it likes to move | poems like exercise | they like being vulnerable | they like being said | some people
are afraid to say their poems | as if the poem will get angry at them | as if they could say it “wrong” | this is | of course | what you always do | i.e. fuck up | you are always fucking up | your poems | but then you are there and can bend everything back and then something has just happened
I was telling someone the other night that I like high school students | because they have developed their bullshit detector for other people | quite well | but they have not yet | fully developed it for themselves | so as an instructor | one can point out their bullshit quite easily | the occasions often present themselves | and the students like that | because you are doing their favorite thing | their new favorite thing | you can even turn bullshit calling | on yourself | which is quite impressive to them | that everyone is full of shit | even their teacher | so doing something wrong | is always instructive
[INTRO] [SECTION I] [SECTION II] [INTERLUDE] [SECTION III]
Monday, September 27, 2010
New Series of Posts
About a year ago, as a 2nd-year student in the University of Iowa Writers' Workshop MFA program, I was required to write a 10-15 page essay articulating my "poetics."
I think that this might be a good forum in which to post my response. If it were today, I might formulate some things differently (or more specifically), but the early sketching out of the problematic/desires I find myself writing into is there (I'll try to update/footnote/extend some things in the comments section). The whole exercise is maybe interestingly symptomatic, too, of what it means to write and exist ambivalently (/amorously) within the particular institution of the Iowa Writers' Workshop; I imagine that this is both usefully representative and divergent from the experience of students in other MFA programs, poets writing in the contemporary US, and others' within the Iowa program itself—so I'd welcome all those other perspectives into the fold. That said, my approach was to try to imagine ways out of the ideology of contemporary American poetry, as I experienced it. What was deemed impossible, within its borders? Wasn't that, in some respect, exactly what we wanted to be trying to do?
The essay comes in three sections, with an appendix (and an intermission!), but there are natural breaks—I'll try to post it so you can have a sense for the pacing.
[INTRO] [SECTION I] [SECTION II] [INTERLUDE] [SECTION III]
I think that this might be a good forum in which to post my response. If it were today, I might formulate some things differently (or more specifically), but the early sketching out of the problematic/desires I find myself writing into is there (I'll try to update/footnote/extend some things in the comments section). The whole exercise is maybe interestingly symptomatic, too, of what it means to write and exist ambivalently (/amorously) within the particular institution of the Iowa Writers' Workshop; I imagine that this is both usefully representative and divergent from the experience of students in other MFA programs, poets writing in the contemporary US, and others' within the Iowa program itself—so I'd welcome all those other perspectives into the fold. That said, my approach was to try to imagine ways out of the ideology of contemporary American poetry, as I experienced it. What was deemed impossible, within its borders? Wasn't that, in some respect, exactly what we wanted to be trying to do?
The essay comes in three sections, with an appendix (and an intermission!), but there are natural breaks—I'll try to post it so you can have a sense for the pacing.
[INTRO] [SECTION I] [SECTION II] [INTERLUDE] [SECTION III]
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Direct Action in the Climate Movement
A Call for Direct Action in the Climate Movement from Bill McKibben of 350.org, Becky Tarbotton of the Rainforest Action Network, and Phil Radford of Greenpeace USA
+ Lady Gaga performing out against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
=
Lady Gaga Direct Action for the Climate Movement (supported by large, dispersed networks of coordinated local action)?
What could she/we do?
+ Lady Gaga performing out against Don't Ask Don't Tell.
=
Lady Gaga Direct Action for the Climate Movement (supported by large, dispersed networks of coordinated local action)?
What could she/we do?
Monday, September 20, 2010
What's the state of American poetry?
Clayton Eshelman, Annie Finch, Ron Silliman, and Danielle Pafunda weigh in in the first installment of a multi-installment feature on Huffington Post.
And some stuff about The Cloud Corporation, which just came through Iowa City, here.
And some stuff about The Cloud Corporation, which just came through Iowa City, here.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Rule The Air
Because the ground doesn't give up its yards without a fight.
That is, until you rewrite the playbook,
change how you see the game, and realize
that when you rule the air, anything is possible.
Rule The Air.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Inversion
"Poetry is not politically efficacious in countries where it is not valued as a cultural necessity by the general populace." --Jennifer Moxley
Poets are not poetically efficacious when they do not value their country's general populace, and do not take them as a necessity other cultures than their own.
Poets are not poetically efficacious when they do not value their country's general populace, and do not take them as a necessity other cultures than their own.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
David Segal for Congress!
David Segal has proved himself far and away the most exciting candidate in my homestate's Democratic primary (Rhode Island).
Follow the comment thread at dailykos, and read David's statement, here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/7/15351/08590?new=true
And learn more about how to get involved with the campaign here:
http://votesegal.com/
Nobody's Puppet from Nobody's Puppet on Vimeo.
Follow the comment thread at dailykos, and read David's statement, here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/7/15351/08590?new=true
And learn more about how to get involved with the campaign here:
http://votesegal.com/
Monday, June 14, 2010
Rethinking Poetics
Went to a day (Friday) of the Rethinking Poetics conference.
Highlights:
1. Rodrigo Toscano / Alan Golding's (tongue in cheek?) suggestion for a "report back from our industries." More useful to share experiences from within our positions as neoliberal-subject-people than rationalizing anxious circles through aesthetics around the scraps of privilege ($$ & social/intellectual capital) that are left?
2. Joshua Clover's insistence that we stave off endless nuance and keep antagonisms alive, and fresh.
3. Jena Osman's provisional term "echolocation."
Thinking a lot about MOBILIZING as an alternate term to either "antagonism" or the kumbaya-like "coming together" (preserve the antagonism, but orient it better, tactically?).
Wish I had been there for the ecology panel. Would've loved to hear Andrew Schelling talk about bioregionalism, in particular.
Highlights:
1. Rodrigo Toscano / Alan Golding's (tongue in cheek?) suggestion for a "report back from our industries." More useful to share experiences from within our positions as neoliberal-subject-people than rationalizing anxious circles through aesthetics around the scraps of privilege ($$ & social/intellectual capital) that are left?
2. Joshua Clover's insistence that we stave off endless nuance and keep antagonisms alive, and fresh.
3. Jena Osman's provisional term "echolocation."
Thinking a lot about MOBILIZING as an alternate term to either "antagonism" or the kumbaya-like "coming together" (preserve the antagonism, but orient it better, tactically?).
Wish I had been there for the ecology panel. Would've loved to hear Andrew Schelling talk about bioregionalism, in particular.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Manureism (or, some manure): A Response
I wrote this directly after I returned from AWP, in response to (and following the form of) Vanessa Place's piece at the Flarf v. Conceptualism panel. I do not know what Manureism is, but sometimes I think I see it places.
flarf is a cake fart.
conceptualism is shit.
what is manure?
TOWARD A COMMUNITY GARDEN
(through, not against, conceptualisms)
1. Conceptualism asks what is poetry.
1. Manureism asks where is poetry.
2. Conceptualism is allegorical. It is about things other than poetry itself.
2. http://gardennotesforrelocalisation.blogspot.com/
3. Conceptualism courts jest, but is not the king's dog.
3. Manure is a wolf dressed up in jester clothing. It cares for sheep.
4. Conceptualism is composed.
4. Manure is composted.
5. Conceptualism employs a variety of techniques that compromise and complicate the question of excess text, of unreadability, of extra-textual narrativity, of the need for and love of categories and the acategorical, of the false and adored divide between praxis and other praxis, addition and subtraction, theory and things with two types of teeth.
5. Manureism employs a variety of techniques that compromise and complicate the question of excess text, of unreadability, of extra-textual narrativity, of the need for and love of categories and the acategorical, of the false and adored divide between praxis and other praxis, addition and subtraction, theory and things with two types of teeth.
6. Conceptualism is sexy. The penis is a dildo.
6. Manureism = cross-pollination.
7. Conceptualism loves poetry enough to put it out of its misery.
7. Manure is your neighbor (who might annoy you, but, is still there).
8. Conceptualism wants.
8. Manureism eats.
9. Legit.
9. Trying things out.
10. Conceptualism has no answers, but is, instead, interrogative. Through the deployment of multiple strategies that serve to destabilize text (extant or made) via reframed reiterations and multiple sites of rhetorical deployment, conceptualism is neo-Kantian, epistemologically concerned with the ongoing sobject and the instantiation of radical evil, in other words, the affirmative will to evil that manifests the fact of will itself. In other words, the instantiation of that which is consciously contra-textual in the sense of all that has made text make contextual sense, the rendering immaterial of every materiality of poetry. The contra-text being the new con-text, con-, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the sense of being a cunt. Conceptualism is, as the term indicates, primarily a cortical engagement.
10. "Manureism seems like it would have to involve a certain degree of experimentation, like: will this straw insulate or smother this chard? But within a frame, right? Its desire is to nourish, explicitly. If it fails, or if it poisons, which is likely, or if it trips the sensitive intaker out, those are unexpected consequences of a fairly composed experiment. But conceptualism is of course wide open. Wait--is it? Does not having answers indicate openness?"
(Primarily a physical engagement.)
11. Conceptualism is Lacan in a mirror, the discourse of the slave.
11. Manureism is shit on a stick.
12. Conceptualism is Lacanian in the sense of desire by way of the Law by way of the petit objet a. As such. La donne
12. Manureism doesn't need you to have read Lacan. Probably.
13. Flarf plays Cuzin while playing it off, it speaks to people in people-voice okay, it’s the first to suggest titty beer bong hits and butterscotch Jell-O shots, it wants to stay up late and bitch bitch bitch, it might bleed out but nothing’s permanently stained, it surfs like point break without leaving a wake, it goes Louey-Louey and blows O.C. pretty, it would like you to like it, really?, it wants to be kinda Dada but it’s not that fucking desperate, wants to play it black but mostly lays trick pussy.
13. Conceptualism repeats the above.
14. In this sense, conceptualism is a fart.
14. Manure is poop.
15. Ron Silliman does not like conceptualism.
15. Dale Smith likes manure.
16. The best conceptualism is failure.
16. The best manure is neither virtuostic nor failure, though it may be both.
17. Poetry looks like conceptualism.
17. Poetry smells.
Q&A
18. Conceptualism and flarf evade the question of world (/community) peace and global (/local) justice (as ill-formed as it can be). Their stance is too often flatly ironic (sarcasm); a disguised form of earnestness (look at me mom, I get it).
18. Manureism does not evade the question, but engages with it at the level of artifice (linguistic, social, political). Manureism is deep irony: not what else does this mean (pointing to context), but what else might this do? (activating context)
Manureism cannot pass around conceptualism, and may have to go through it.
The two may also work alongside one another, performing different work.
In this sense manureism represents a possibility for love, in poetry.
April 22nd, 2010
*note: Many of the individual writers and work under the terms "flarf" and "conceptualism" might also be "shitty."
Many might be if they were situated differently.
How to sort out waste from waste; the plastic bottle from the apple core (from the banana peel)?
flarf is a cake fart.
conceptualism is shit.
what is manure?
TOWARD A COMMUNITY GARDEN
(through, not against, conceptualisms)
1. Conceptualism asks what is poetry.
1. Manureism asks where is poetry.
2. Conceptualism is allegorical. It is about things other than poetry itself.
2. http://gardennotesforrelocalisation.blogspot.com/
3. Conceptualism courts jest, but is not the king's dog.
3. Manure is a wolf dressed up in jester clothing. It cares for sheep.
4. Conceptualism is composed.
4. Manure is composted.
5. Conceptualism employs a variety of techniques that compromise and complicate the question of excess text, of unreadability, of extra-textual narrativity, of the need for and love of categories and the acategorical, of the false and adored divide between praxis and other praxis, addition and subtraction, theory and things with two types of teeth.
5. Manureism employs a variety of techniques that compromise and complicate the question of excess text, of unreadability, of extra-textual narrativity, of the need for and love of categories and the acategorical, of the false and adored divide between praxis and other praxis, addition and subtraction, theory and things with two types of teeth.
6. Conceptualism is sexy. The penis is a dildo.
6. Manureism = cross-pollination.
7. Conceptualism loves poetry enough to put it out of its misery.
7. Manure is your neighbor (who might annoy you, but, is still there).
8. Conceptualism wants.
8. Manureism eats.
9. Legit.
9. Trying things out.
10. Conceptualism has no answers, but is, instead, interrogative. Through the deployment of multiple strategies that serve to destabilize text (extant or made) via reframed reiterations and multiple sites of rhetorical deployment, conceptualism is neo-Kantian, epistemologically concerned with the ongoing sobject and the instantiation of radical evil, in other words, the affirmative will to evil that manifests the fact of will itself. In other words, the instantiation of that which is consciously contra-textual in the sense of all that has made text make contextual sense, the rendering immaterial of every materiality of poetry. The contra-text being the new con-text, con-, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the sense of being a cunt. Conceptualism is, as the term indicates, primarily a cortical engagement.
10. "Manureism seems like it would have to involve a certain degree of experimentation, like: will this straw insulate or smother this chard? But within a frame, right? Its desire is to nourish, explicitly. If it fails, or if it poisons, which is likely, or if it trips the sensitive intaker out, those are unexpected consequences of a fairly composed experiment. But conceptualism is of course wide open. Wait--is it? Does not having answers indicate openness?"
(Primarily a physical engagement.)
11. Conceptualism is Lacan in a mirror, the discourse of the slave.
11. Manureism is shit on a stick.
12. Conceptualism is Lacanian in the sense of desire by way of the Law by way of the petit objet a. As such. La donne
12. Manureism doesn't need you to have read Lacan. Probably.
13. Flarf plays Cuzin while playing it off, it speaks to people in people-voice okay, it’s the first to suggest titty beer bong hits and butterscotch Jell-O shots, it wants to stay up late and bitch bitch bitch, it might bleed out but nothing’s permanently stained, it surfs like point break without leaving a wake, it goes Louey-Louey and blows O.C. pretty, it would like you to like it, really?, it wants to be kinda Dada but it’s not that fucking desperate, wants to play it black but mostly lays trick pussy.
13. Conceptualism repeats the above.
14. In this sense, conceptualism is a fart.
14. Manure is poop.
15. Ron Silliman does not like conceptualism.
15. Dale Smith likes manure.
16. The best conceptualism is failure.
16. The best manure is neither virtuostic nor failure, though it may be both.
17. Poetry looks like conceptualism.
17. Poetry smells.
Q&A
18. Conceptualism and flarf evade the question of world (/community) peace and global (/local) justice (as ill-formed as it can be). Their stance is too often flatly ironic (sarcasm); a disguised form of earnestness (look at me mom, I get it).
18. Manureism does not evade the question, but engages with it at the level of artifice (linguistic, social, political). Manureism is deep irony: not what else does this mean (pointing to context), but what else might this do? (activating context)
Manureism cannot pass around conceptualism, and may have to go through it.
The two may also work alongside one another, performing different work.
In this sense manureism represents a possibility for love, in poetry.
April 22nd, 2010
*note: Many of the individual writers and work under the terms "flarf" and "conceptualism" might also be "shitty."
Many might be if they were situated differently.
How to sort out waste from waste; the plastic bottle from the apple core (from the banana peel)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)