No ideas but in BLOGS
on matter above, I submitted this comment today to Stan Apps blog:***Stan said, speaking of how Flarf and non-Flarf poems in the new Poetry issue shared qualities of "awfulness":>I continue to be more interested in the similarities...Poems qua poems aside, for the moment, I thought there was an extremely interesting, even uncanny similarity on display in the Bio section of the magazine, at the discreet back. There, the form and tenor of the Author Bios for the "improper," "avant-garde" Flarf/Conceptual poets were really quite identical to the form and tenor of the Author Bios of the more "Mainstream" poets in the issue: each Bio impeccably professional, proper, and careful in its tight self-fashioning. Publications, Awards, Teaching Positions, Curatorial Honors, etc., everything one would seek and expect on the Bio pages of the most prestigious of our journals.I wanted to ask if the Author Bios were actually provided by the Flarf/Conceptual poets, or if these were written by the magazine itself, so as to conform to its editorial protocols, thus symbolically (and reasonably, I suppose) putting everyone--Mainstream and Avant-Garde--inside the same actual boat, so to speak. Or perhaps the Flarf/Conceptual Bios, in all their similarities of decorum, were written as they were by the Flarf/Conceptual poets *as a doubled-ironic gesture,* as a stab at more deeply juxtaposing their "awful" and "iconoclastic" avant poems against the ritualized, institutional proprieties of a larger background paratext they aim to banish-- a paratext, of course, that more naive "awful" poets would have as "Not-poetry," but which is (as I know the Flarf/Conceptual poets are intensely aware) "Always-Already-poetry" down to the follicle. (A rather effective and subtle comic-critical gesture, if such was the case... I mean if such gesture had been done by the Avant-Garde Poets on purpose...)Or not? Or what?Curious. Kent
There's a follow-up comment today at Ron Silliman's blog pertaining to the Apps discussion referenced above (RS highlights same at top of his list of links)-- this last comment by me concerning the continuing use of deletions and blockings at Flarf blogs to control discussion.One wouldn't want a Flarfist as a Cultural Minister.KentKent
The Bored and the PrivilegedFlarf: a case of indigestion during and shortly after the Bush years. The 'work' 'produced' much as the name describes created a bleating simulated fart-like noise, briefly passing itself off as poetry. The name of this 'movement' taken from a jar of 'noise putty' manufactured in China. Flarf packages itself in the plastic capital of the avant garde, offering a pretext of DaDa appropriation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism) Upon closer examination Flarf reveals itself to be a product of the Bored and the Privileged. Ask any Flarfist/Flarfista for their pedigee. MFA. University Post. The stuff of rebels. Rather than seeing Flarf vs. Conceptual 'Writing' at the Whitney it would have been great to see Flarf vs. Spoken Word. That would have been a real throwdown vs. the staged circle jerk we were presented with.
Post a Comment