Author Spotlight
GIANT GUEST-POST: Poetry as Site of Resistance by Jeremy Schmall
Poetry as Site of Resistance
by Jeremy Schmall
If you’re willing to argue with me when I say that nearly every poetry book published in the last 30 years is an abject failure, it’s likely you’re among the small group of people across the country who consider themselves poets. For everyone else, poetry simply doesn’t exist outside of high school textbooks. Poets do not appear on talk shows, do not perform on late night TV, and it’s increasingly unlikely their books will be reviewed in prominent publications like The New York Times or the Washington Post. It’s common knowledge in the publishing industry that even the rare “blockbuster” poetry books sell laughably small numbers compared with verifiable “failures” in the fiction and memoir world. In almost every measure we use to gauge success—money earned, books sold, widespread popular relevance, public recognition—poetry today is an absolute failure. My argument is that’s a good thing.
A number of critics have argued that poetry owes its irrelevance to an increasingly insular, excessively experimental practice; that if it were more accessible, more comforting, it would then be accepted into the mainstream, and poets could walk the streets like real authors, with book deals and money. But has anyone stopped to think of what that poetry would look like? I can hardly imagine anything less appealing than subway advertisements for the James Patterson or John Grisham of poetry, for books that are market-tested, or even ghost-written, whose products are tailored to a target market.
The problem is simply this: traditional measures of success in contemporary society are biased toward a capitalist bottom-line imperative, and therefore do not apply. As Dean Young put it during a poetry reading in Chicago last February, “[Poets] are not a market, we’re a tribe.” But the question becomes, if poetry is irrelevant to the culture at large, if it doesn’t sell, then why does it still exist? How has it not disappeared yet?
In the past twenty years we’ve seen the rise of capitalism 2.0: globalization, which can truly do only one thing well, and that is commodify and sell. All other factors must be subordinated to this goal. Local cultures and traditional ways of life—if they can’t be appropriated and sold—must be smoothed out, pulverized, and replaced by quantifiable markets.
The truly great promise of poetry—today, right now—is as a functioning site of resistance to globalization; and to be very clear, I don’t mean that poetry should be explicitly political, or anti- or pro-anything. Sloganeering is best left to pamphlets. Poetry resists simply by stubbornly existing largely outside the control of the capitalist hegemony, by creating a true and uncommodifiable culture.
The crucial point here is understanding the difference between a consumer market and true culture. A consumer market is based on what kinds of people buy what kinds of things, i.e. how to make money by selling what to whom. True culture is the spread of what is critical to people, beyond the control of corporate manipulation, and without regard to profitability; culture is precisely how humanity itself understands humanity itself. Capitalism seeks to manipulate this process by producing its own manufactured meaning; if it can control the endpoints, it can control the means to achieving those endpoints, e.g. if you want to be a “hip enlightened nerd,” here’s your type of shoe, TV show, soft drink, and automobile.
Poetry, as it exists today, is a spontaneous, self-organizing and utterly unprofitable source of culture that exists in the gap between production and capitalist appropriation; it is precisely in that gap where it can do the most harm to the larger project of globalization, which must continually expand both its productive and consumptive capabilities toward a receding horizon. Anything that has the power to interrupt the pervasive manipulation of globalization—that can flick us off autopilot and force us to really think and use our imaginations—re-grounds us within our essential humanity. After all, we are a soft-skinned, flat-toothed, no-clawed tribe whose very existence demands the full engagement of active, truly imaginative thinkers. Engaged and imaginative individuals—the very kind who make up the tight-knit poetry world—potentially form a truly resistant body politic.
I challenge anyone to read Noelle Kocot’s apocalyptic 33-page elegy, “Poem for the End of Time,” and not come away from the experience utterly astonished as she weaves the political (“America your skull-shattered martyrs / Are fucked into God-symbols of music / Are fucked into Emerging Markets / Are fucked into frontiers slouching toward the rough beast / of Bloomberg”), with an intensely personal redefining of herself and “neighborhood” following her husband’s death:
In the night, the stars, the way things used to be
Why did I look into those gypsy eyes
It was weird and cold and dark there
Alone, alone, alone, alone with my visions of skull-shattered martyrs
In Laramie, Wyoming
America what is this river of stars that runs through us all?
Through intense repetition of certain phrases—continually rearranged to create and accumulate meaning—the poet razes the personal, corrupted “neighborhood” and creates an entirely new one, a new place worth living in (“For this we were given a voice my neighborhood / For this we were given a voice my neighborhood”).
A consensus has emerged that our current place of existence—severe economic crisis and pervasive paranoia—can be blamed on poor management, that with a few tweaks—tighter regulations, less leveraging, more honest accounting—the catastrophe unfolding before us could’ve been avoided; but what has really been revealed is a crisis of our collective imaginations. It’s been revealed that we were incapable of imagining a world without a receding economic horizon that must be sped toward at an increasingly rapid pace, despite the fact that the faster we sprint—the longer we work with increasing productivity—the faster it recedes; that we failed to imagine our lives without consumer electronics, name brands, oversized homes, green lawns, shopping malls, and automobiles; that we failed to imagine for ourselves a world we could truly thrive in.
The continued existence of poetry despite overwhelmingly hostile market forces demonstrates its importance to humanity, as a vital tool in the struggle to continually define the purpose of our often bewildering existence. That popular culture holds no esteem for poets—that it dismisses truly imaginative work—should come as no surprise in our current milieu of political and economic crises. Our recent concerns have centered largely on figuring out how to turn money into more money, without much regard for what the end result might look like, never mind what it should look like.
According to the cultural critic Slavoj Žižek, one should not privilege the optimistic outcome, but rather should accept the inevitability of future defeat, truly imagine it, then do everything in one’s power to prevent it—now—while it’s still preventable. But before it’s even possible to begin laying the groundwork for a new utopia, before we can establish what the coordinates of the new world should look like, before we can know what we want so that we can then actually build it, we must first be a humanity with the full capacity to actually imagine it. So, what are we trying to prevent? And if we succeed, then what?
+
Jeremy Schmall is the founder and co-editor (with me) of The Agriculture Reader. He is the author of Open Correspondence from the Senator. His poems have appeared recently in Forklift, Ohio and PEN America. A thousand thank yous to Jeremy for sharing this essay with HTMLGiant. We’re hoping to hear from him again soon. – JT
Structuralisms/StructuralistPsychoanalysis/Zizek/Zizek4.jpg)
Not Jeremy Schmall. Yet.
Tags: Jeremy Schmall, Noelle Kocot, site of resistance, Slavoj Zizek
I hope to one day be a revolutionary demagogue who randomly quotes Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
I hope to one day be a revolutionary demagogue who randomly quotes Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
Your argument makes very little sense.
Allow me to mention a couple of things with which you will doubtless disagree.
You say “How has it not disappeared yet?”
Poetry HAS disappeared. In a world of however many hundreds of millions, very few cultural activities cease to exist in an absolute sense. Instead, they drop to statistical insignificance. In this case, the number of people reading poetry has dropped to the level of people writing poetry. Without academia as a prop (which you curiously fail to mention), the number would be still lower. There are as many European folk dance enthusiasts as there are readers of poetry. Probably more.
I look forward to your piece on how all hobbyists are resisting global capitalism.
In your choice of capitalist straw men, James Patterson & John Grisham, it is clear that you mistake or wish to ignore the relative health of the literary novel. By citing these two authors–instead of any number of literary novelists–you seem to ignore the fact that it is still possible to reach a wide (millions, hundreds of thousands) audience with that 18th century contraption, the novel–and to do it with artistic intent and integrity.
The same can no longer be said of poetry.
You suggest that poetry–because it isn’t read–can be a site of resistance. Fine, fine. I won’t debate this point on its own terms, indeed, resist away! However, I should note that when poetry was “healthy” it wasn’t much of a capitalist’s dream; it was–through a culture of song and recitation–something that was part of people’s day-to-day. It had cultural rather than economic significance. And it is the loss of the former that incapacitates poetry.
Latching the demise of your genre on to some larger struggle just gives you something ennobling to think about on the way down.
Your argument makes very little sense.
Allow me to mention a couple of things with which you will doubtless disagree.
You say “How has it not disappeared yet?”
Poetry HAS disappeared. In a world of however many hundreds of millions, very few cultural activities cease to exist in an absolute sense. Instead, they drop to statistical insignificance. In this case, the number of people reading poetry has dropped to the level of people writing poetry. Without academia as a prop (which you curiously fail to mention), the number would be still lower. There are as many European folk dance enthusiasts as there are readers of poetry. Probably more.
I look forward to your piece on how all hobbyists are resisting global capitalism.
In your choice of capitalist straw men, James Patterson & John Grisham, it is clear that you mistake or wish to ignore the relative health of the literary novel. By citing these two authors–instead of any number of literary novelists–you seem to ignore the fact that it is still possible to reach a wide (millions, hundreds of thousands) audience with that 18th century contraption, the novel–and to do it with artistic intent and integrity.
The same can no longer be said of poetry.
You suggest that poetry–because it isn’t read–can be a site of resistance. Fine, fine. I won’t debate this point on its own terms, indeed, resist away! However, I should note that when poetry was “healthy” it wasn’t much of a capitalist’s dream; it was–through a culture of song and recitation–something that was part of people’s day-to-day. It had cultural rather than economic significance. And it is the loss of the former that incapacitates poetry.
Latching the demise of your genre on to some larger struggle just gives you something ennobling to think about on the way down.
[…] 18, 2009 · Leave a Comment I repeat, read the following article posted on HTMLGIANT, called “Poetry as a site of resistance” by Jeremy Schmall or fall into a coma forever. Only returning to get slapped in the face by other poets and writers […]
This beats Dana’s “Can poetry matter?” hands up. Seriously.
You phrased it perfectly — why does poetry still exist if it is not important?
And I always find it interesting when I propose to people, what if we had a society where everything was “free”? Let’s use our current metropolitan structure as an example — what if I worked at the electricity company because I knew I needed electricity and I knew my neighbor did, my girlfriend did, my mom did, the hospital did, etc etc etc? And people look at you and smirk. How nuts that idea is. Well, I ask them, where is your imagination? Not flights of the ‘impossible’ (whatever that is), but the power to form something that may not be in the same current of present events….
I mean, whenever I look around I see poetry as nothing but alive. While, yes, yes, the current Jack Gilbert’s (if possible) of the current poetry world aren’t being interviewed by Rolling Stone or Vogue like they used too, while Saul Williams (a rough comparison to Allen Ginsberg) is our closest to a pop culture rockstar….. Jeremy is right when he says we need not be a prominent figure in the global scene? Why can’t poetry be the quiet guy in the corner drinking his drink and watching the party move whom everyone comes over to talk to, and once they do and leave, they come back with more people because, damn, people, you gotta talk to this cat.
Man… this essay is the shit.
This beats Dana’s “Can poetry matter?” hands up. Seriously.
You phrased it perfectly — why does poetry still exist if it is not important?
And I always find it interesting when I propose to people, what if we had a society where everything was “free”? Let’s use our current metropolitan structure as an example — what if I worked at the electricity company because I knew I needed electricity and I knew my neighbor did, my girlfriend did, my mom did, the hospital did, etc etc etc? And people look at you and smirk. How nuts that idea is. Well, I ask them, where is your imagination? Not flights of the ‘impossible’ (whatever that is), but the power to form something that may not be in the same current of present events….
I mean, whenever I look around I see poetry as nothing but alive. While, yes, yes, the current Jack Gilbert’s (if possible) of the current poetry world aren’t being interviewed by Rolling Stone or Vogue like they used too, while Saul Williams (a rough comparison to Allen Ginsberg) is our closest to a pop culture rockstar….. Jeremy is right when he says we need not be a prominent figure in the global scene? Why can’t poetry be the quiet guy in the corner drinking his drink and watching the party move whom everyone comes over to talk to, and once they do and leave, they come back with more people because, damn, people, you gotta talk to this cat.
Man… this essay is the shit.
“In this case, the number of people reading poetry has dropped to the level of people writing poetry”
See, I find this troubling. If something isn’t held up into the shining light of media, this means it is failing, or has disappeared? The systems by which books are counted and money tallied are based upon systems that usually tend to aid those counting the bottom line.
There has been a shift — before, it was adults who were reading poetry. And adults are the ones dictating certain aspects of popular culture. Now, you have my generation and the generation coming up — the ones who are semi-products of the “Slam poetry events” (and don’t get started on the stigma of that, of the stereotypes. Check out Susan B.A. Somers-Willett, or Patricia Smith, or Idris Goodwin who was published in Diagram — if there are a few exceptions there are always a hundred more) and their offshoots, the open mic, general poetry readings….
Poetry hasn’t gone anywhere.
It is very difficult to claim that because a group of people who dictate what is media-seen feels that poetry doesn’t matter, that it in actuality does not, is to be caught up in a wave of craziness. That is like following a fad because its in.
Like calling acupuncture new-age medicine when its been around for 2,000 years…
“In this case, the number of people reading poetry has dropped to the level of people writing poetry”
See, I find this troubling. If something isn’t held up into the shining light of media, this means it is failing, or has disappeared? The systems by which books are counted and money tallied are based upon systems that usually tend to aid those counting the bottom line.
There has been a shift — before, it was adults who were reading poetry. And adults are the ones dictating certain aspects of popular culture. Now, you have my generation and the generation coming up — the ones who are semi-products of the “Slam poetry events” (and don’t get started on the stigma of that, of the stereotypes. Check out Susan B.A. Somers-Willett, or Patricia Smith, or Idris Goodwin who was published in Diagram — if there are a few exceptions there are always a hundred more) and their offshoots, the open mic, general poetry readings….
Poetry hasn’t gone anywhere.
It is very difficult to claim that because a group of people who dictate what is media-seen feels that poetry doesn’t matter, that it in actuality does not, is to be caught up in a wave of craziness. That is like following a fad because its in.
Like calling acupuncture new-age medicine when its been around for 2,000 years…
For someone so enlightened, and no I don’t have much to argue against this tirade, I was surprised to note the improper italicization of things:
In writing the titles of newspapers, do not italicize the word the, even when it is part of the title (the New York Times), and do not italicize the name of the city in which the newspaper is published unless that name is part of the title: the Hartford Courant, but the London Times.
–http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/italics.htm
Guess I have to be college educated to dig the obviously intentional misuse of something so basic.
All the same, this article was solid and agreeable. http://ltd.henrychalise.info is evidence of my agreement.
Yours,
PHM
For someone so enlightened, and no I don’t have much to argue against this tirade, I was surprised to note the improper italicization of things:
In writing the titles of newspapers, do not italicize the word the, even when it is part of the title (the New York Times), and do not italicize the name of the city in which the newspaper is published unless that name is part of the title: the Hartford Courant, but the London Times.
–http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/italics.htm
Guess I have to be college educated to dig the obviously intentional misuse of something so basic.
All the same, this article was solid and agreeable. http://ltd.henrychalise.info is evidence of my agreement.
Yours,
PHM
[…] The truly great promise of poetry—today, right now—is as a functioning site of resistance to globalization; and to be very clear, I don’t mean that poetry should be explicitly political, or anti- or pro-anything. Sloganeering is best left to pamphlets. Poetry resists simply by stubbornly existing largely outside the control of the capitalist hegemony, by creating a true and uncommodifiable culture. —Jeremy Schmall at HTMLGIANT […]
I’m only about 1/2 in agreement with this post, and yet I am very glad to see it here. Serious discussion of poetry, politics, economics, literature and language seems to be almost vanishing from the internet. We need more of this sort of thing.
I’m only about 1/2 in agreement with this post, and yet I am very glad to see it here. Serious discussion of poetry, politics, economics, literature and language seems to be almost vanishing from the internet. We need more of this sort of thing.
[…] Read this at HTML Giant […]
I found myself strongly disagreeing with Jeremy’s argument but I couldn’t articulate my thoughts well. Thanks for doing it for me!
I found myself strongly disagreeing with Jeremy’s argument but I couldn’t articulate my thoughts well. Thanks for doing it for me!
I don’t suggest that the “people who matter” have quit reading poetry. I suggest that almost everyone has–whether they “matter” or not. I don’t think poetry is dead because the NYTimes doesn’t review books of poetry but because the number of individuals in our culture who have even a slight interest poetry has irrevocably crashed. At one time, the average train conductor would have known poems by heart. Now they don’t. They don’t read it and they don’t miss it. Almost no one does.
Your generation’s interest in poetry is actually a creation of the media you pretend to despise…just a slightly edgier version of that media. Numbers-wise the youth movement about which you are so excited is tiny. Most of those will give it up. And poetry still winds up as a passing hobby of a tiny few.
I don’t suggest that the “people who matter” have quit reading poetry. I suggest that almost everyone has–whether they “matter” or not. I don’t think poetry is dead because the NYTimes doesn’t review books of poetry but because the number of individuals in our culture who have even a slight interest poetry has irrevocably crashed. At one time, the average train conductor would have known poems by heart. Now they don’t. They don’t read it and they don’t miss it. Almost no one does.
Your generation’s interest in poetry is actually a creation of the media you pretend to despise…just a slightly edgier version of that media. Numbers-wise the youth movement about which you are so excited is tiny. Most of those will give it up. And poetry still winds up as a passing hobby of a tiny few.
You lost me when you said that you could think of nothing less appealing than having the John Grisham of poetry advertised on the subway. Gee, that’s a healthy attitude.
It’s like when Indiana Jones and Crystal Skulls came out and some archaeologists were like “That isn’t real archeology! That’s garbage! He demeans us!” Then a lot of other archaeologists piped up and said something along the lines of “But he’s the reason we’re in the field in the first place!”
Think of a Grisham-poet as an “entry drug” or something. I can think of few ways such a person would be “bad” for poetry in general. How does having someone substantially raise interest in a field “harm it”? I think it’s attitudes like yours that actually harm poetry in the long run. For art to succeed it must be relevant to someone, and it also must be accessible. If “modern” poetry doesn’t appeal to anyone but the academic and the poet, than that is a real failure. What’s the point?
That being said, I don’t think poetry is dead. It’s just moved on. Rap is the “new” poetry. Just a few weeks ago Winnipeg (or Manitoba) made a twenty-three year old rapper their poet laureate, and I think that’s a good idea. Better than giving it to some sixty year old academic d-bag who no one has ever heard of.
You lost me when you said that you could think of nothing less appealing than having the John Grisham of poetry advertised on the subway. Gee, that’s a healthy attitude.
It’s like when Indiana Jones and Crystal Skulls came out and some archaeologists were like “That isn’t real archeology! That’s garbage! He demeans us!” Then a lot of other archaeologists piped up and said something along the lines of “But he’s the reason we’re in the field in the first place!”
Think of a Grisham-poet as an “entry drug” or something. I can think of few ways such a person would be “bad” for poetry in general. How does having someone substantially raise interest in a field “harm it”? I think it’s attitudes like yours that actually harm poetry in the long run. For art to succeed it must be relevant to someone, and it also must be accessible. If “modern” poetry doesn’t appeal to anyone but the academic and the poet, than that is a real failure. What’s the point?
That being said, I don’t think poetry is dead. It’s just moved on. Rap is the “new” poetry. Just a few weeks ago Winnipeg (or Manitoba) made a twenty-three year old rapper their poet laureate, and I think that’s a good idea. Better than giving it to some sixty year old academic d-bag who no one has ever heard of.
I agree with this comment.
I agree with this comment.
more poetry posts at HTML Giant plz.
more poetry posts at HTML Giant plz.
Edmonton, Cadence Weapon
Edmonton, Cadence Weapon
I agree with Nate.
@PHM… Way to miss the forest for the lichens. Besides which you’re wrong or, simply, not right. Your link cribs from one source on punctuation, and not one of the leading ones (AP or CMoS). Also, who cares?
…………………
“Anything that has the power to interrupt the pervasive manipulation of globalization—that can flick us off autopilot and force us to really think and use our imaginations—re-grounds us within our essential humanity.”
Yes, and whether music or visual art or movies something else, it’s very rare that something that does what Jeremy mentions is commercially viable.
The mention of rap music is a bit of a red herring, because the rap that sells is not, very generally speaking, the sort of rap that anyone would compare to poetry. All the “backpacker,” “conscious” rap? It doesn’t sell either. Who outside of a handful (a bigger handful, admittedly) is collecting cutting-edge paintings? And, even then, for what reasons? And fiction sells, sure, but novels more than short-story collections, and it’s not that many lit-fiction authors selling big numbers. And movies? It’s the same wherever you look.
It’s pointless to compare poetry in its bus-driver-quoting heyday to poetry now…neither its context nor its putative purpose is the same, or perhaps even similar.
I agree with Nate.
@PHM… Way to miss the forest for the lichens. Besides which you’re wrong or, simply, not right. Your link cribs from one source on punctuation, and not one of the leading ones (AP or CMoS). Also, who cares?
…………………
“Anything that has the power to interrupt the pervasive manipulation of globalization—that can flick us off autopilot and force us to really think and use our imaginations—re-grounds us within our essential humanity.”
Yes, and whether music or visual art or movies something else, it’s very rare that something that does what Jeremy mentions is commercially viable.
The mention of rap music is a bit of a red herring, because the rap that sells is not, very generally speaking, the sort of rap that anyone would compare to poetry. All the “backpacker,” “conscious” rap? It doesn’t sell either. Who outside of a handful (a bigger handful, admittedly) is collecting cutting-edge paintings? And, even then, for what reasons? And fiction sells, sure, but novels more than short-story collections, and it’s not that many lit-fiction authors selling big numbers. And movies? It’s the same wherever you look.
It’s pointless to compare poetry in its bus-driver-quoting heyday to poetry now…neither its context nor its putative purpose is the same, or perhaps even similar.
Cadence Weapon will begin his post as Edmonton’s poet laureate July 1st.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2009/05/26/edmonton-pemberton-poet-laureate.html
Cadence Weapon will begin his post as Edmonton’s poet laureate July 1st.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2009/05/26/edmonton-pemberton-poet-laureate.html
the only relevance of poetry is the now. our singular observations will never be retold, as snowflakes and fingerprints or similar jazz. regardless of a reader, the capturing of a now passing is a sole chase. and the reward is in the hunt, personal. not for sale.
so just do it for the kids, man.
the only relevance of poetry is the now. our singular observations will never be retold, as snowflakes and fingerprints or similar jazz. regardless of a reader, the capturing of a now passing is a sole chase. and the reward is in the hunt, personal. not for sale.
so just do it for the kids, man.
It is? It’s tiny?
You know, funny thing, a friend of mine went to the welfare office. And wouldn’t you know it, he met a woman who loves poetry. Going to school for it.
I went to the local multi-services center last year and met a social worker who loves poetry. She wanted to come to my shows.
But it’s like, how can this actually be tallied? The average train conductor? Who knows this?
How is my generation’s poetry a creation of the media? My interest was from a book. You know, that weird thing made of paper that feels kinda funny when it gets really old? I could understand the Saul Williams aspect of interest being a creation of media. And I do not pretend to despise anything. I do despise the media. Of course, doesn’t mean I am unaware of it. Just don’t choose to buy into the beliefs. The ability to separate (oh goodness here we go) truth from prescribed-intentioned truth.
These things are so odd…. how can you tally these things? The youth movement I am so excited about. If it’s not talked about on MTV, in Rolling Stone, in the LA Times, Vogue, or all those other interconnected, usually singularly (or perhaps, doubly) owned within a small community, somehow, it is not ‘alive’. It is ‘dead’. You know… I remember watching the news in Jr. High and everyone there was a report of an infant curing itself of HIV. And then the next day, you didn’t hear about it. There were no retractions, no denials, no “I’m sorry, that was bad/wrong/inaccurate reporting”. It. Simply. Vanished. And if you look it up now, it is merely a conspiracy theory (although it is very much true). Simply because it is out of sight (once again, whatever that means), doesn’t automatically constitute a label of ‘dead’ or ‘not thriving’.
In places outside of America, such as France, the poet is still regarded. A friend of mine, a musician, was a French cat who I would hang with and do shows with on occasion. He was always kind of aloof about the fact I was a poet. It was matter of factly. A part of life. This situation isn’t truly a global one, I believe, it is more central to American culture.
But think about this — the reason why most of those authors were prominent figures was because of their use as capitalist figures. You could make money off them. But because you can no longer make money off them, they are not a part of the “big media picture” right now. This doesn’t negate their current popularity, but it does negate their ability to make money for the capitalist machine.
It is? It’s tiny?
You know, funny thing, a friend of mine went to the welfare office. And wouldn’t you know it, he met a woman who loves poetry. Going to school for it.
I went to the local multi-services center last year and met a social worker who loves poetry. She wanted to come to my shows.
But it’s like, how can this actually be tallied? The average train conductor? Who knows this?
How is my generation’s poetry a creation of the media? My interest was from a book. You know, that weird thing made of paper that feels kinda funny when it gets really old? I could understand the Saul Williams aspect of interest being a creation of media. And I do not pretend to despise anything. I do despise the media. Of course, doesn’t mean I am unaware of it. Just don’t choose to buy into the beliefs. The ability to separate (oh goodness here we go) truth from prescribed-intentioned truth.
These things are so odd…. how can you tally these things? The youth movement I am so excited about. If it’s not talked about on MTV, in Rolling Stone, in the LA Times, Vogue, or all those other interconnected, usually singularly (or perhaps, doubly) owned within a small community, somehow, it is not ‘alive’. It is ‘dead’. You know… I remember watching the news in Jr. High and everyone there was a report of an infant curing itself of HIV. And then the next day, you didn’t hear about it. There were no retractions, no denials, no “I’m sorry, that was bad/wrong/inaccurate reporting”. It. Simply. Vanished. And if you look it up now, it is merely a conspiracy theory (although it is very much true). Simply because it is out of sight (once again, whatever that means), doesn’t automatically constitute a label of ‘dead’ or ‘not thriving’.
In places outside of America, such as France, the poet is still regarded. A friend of mine, a musician, was a French cat who I would hang with and do shows with on occasion. He was always kind of aloof about the fact I was a poet. It was matter of factly. A part of life. This situation isn’t truly a global one, I believe, it is more central to American culture.
But think about this — the reason why most of those authors were prominent figures was because of their use as capitalist figures. You could make money off them. But because you can no longer make money off them, they are not a part of the “big media picture” right now. This doesn’t negate their current popularity, but it does negate their ability to make money for the capitalist machine.
Right, yeah. Edmonton.
Right, yeah. Edmonton.
Is anything that sells really “the sort of [whatever] one might compare to poetry”? “Poetic” or “artistic” rap might be rare, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of examples. It’s the same for anything. And the more diverse a medium, the better range there will be. Chances are, if everything was to your taste no one else would watch it.
Is anything that sells really “the sort of [whatever] one might compare to poetry”? “Poetic” or “artistic” rap might be rare, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of examples. It’s the same for anything. And the more diverse a medium, the better range there will be. Chances are, if everything was to your taste no one else would watch it.
Which is the case with poetry (maybe)(mostly?)(I don’t know you at all, I’m generalising).
Which is the case with poetry (maybe)(mostly?)(I don’t know you at all, I’m generalising).
And in France Celine Dion recorded an album with lyrics from a celebrated French poet (it was in “The Death of Taste” somewhere). And if that album was advertised on a subway platform it would make Jeremy Schmall cry.
And in France Celine Dion recorded an album with lyrics from a celebrated French poet (it was in “The Death of Taste” somewhere). And if that album was advertised on a subway platform it would make Jeremy Schmall cry.
poetry must die long live poetry
I’m a poet and I don’t care about poetry. I buy ~15 poetry books a month and don’t read them very carefully. This isn’t poetry’s fault, though.
I like this post and yet I also think D Johnson lodged some good objections.
poetry must die long live poetry
I’m a poet and I don’t care about poetry. I buy ~15 poetry books a month and don’t read them very carefully. This isn’t poetry’s fault, though.
I like this post and yet I also think D Johnson lodged some good objections.
So, what do we do? I say we write our shit on buildings and stuff. Forget about ‘traditional’ or ‘conservative’ modes of publishing poetry. Use the streets. It’s not new (using the streets), but it’s illegal and, in ‘corporate culture USA’, it will get people to notice poetry. Some people may even like it! Besides, architecture in ‘corporate culture USA’ is so functional and boring.
I have a silver paint pen and I use it (not to tag my name, that’s dumb) for poetry!
So, what do we do? I say we write our shit on buildings and stuff. Forget about ‘traditional’ or ‘conservative’ modes of publishing poetry. Use the streets. It’s not new (using the streets), but it’s illegal and, in ‘corporate culture USA’, it will get people to notice poetry. Some people may even like it! Besides, architecture in ‘corporate culture USA’ is so functional and boring.
I have a silver paint pen and I use it (not to tag my name, that’s dumb) for poetry!
I slowly raise my right fist into the air and mutter “right on”
I slowly raise my right fist into the air and mutter “right on”
i have a hard time caring about this essay. the idea of poetry as protest is silly.
poetry is not inherently anything.
if it was not capitalism it would be imperialism, or it would be communism or it would be tribalism or etc.
poetry has existed despite many political/economical climes. it really is navel gazing to believe the decline of poetry has something to do with economics and global capitalism.
everything in this article could be applied to essays. who the fuck gives a shit about essays.
the main difference between an essay and a poem is emotion.
an essay is more for the head and the poem is for the heart.
poetry is vehemence, sadness, unrequited love, loneliness and etc.
it is a way of expressing emotion.
it is no surprise to me that sylvia plath was batshit crazy writing poems in her journals or charles bukowski drinking himself to death and using pen and paper to express himself.
poetry is about personal emotional expression and nothing more.
if there is protest to be expressed it should be against fellow poet for feeding the bullshit mythology behind poetry, for not thinking differently, and for not promoting himself and others.
poetry changed within the last 20 years. it was televised and they called it “slam”.
of course the traditional poets refused to embrace the change and now no one really gives a shit about either..
what’s wrong with poetry isn’t the economy, it isn’t the politics and it isn’t a mysterious galactic force or “this generation’s negligence”
this generation has nothing to do with any failure. all those ideologic baby boomers still exist and their bank accounts possess way more buying power than “this generation”.
the issue is you.
i have a hard time caring about this essay. the idea of poetry as protest is silly.
poetry is not inherently anything.
if it was not capitalism it would be imperialism, or it would be communism or it would be tribalism or etc.
poetry has existed despite many political/economical climes. it really is navel gazing to believe the decline of poetry has something to do with economics and global capitalism.
everything in this article could be applied to essays. who the fuck gives a shit about essays.
the main difference between an essay and a poem is emotion.
an essay is more for the head and the poem is for the heart.
poetry is vehemence, sadness, unrequited love, loneliness and etc.
it is a way of expressing emotion.
it is no surprise to me that sylvia plath was batshit crazy writing poems in her journals or charles bukowski drinking himself to death and using pen and paper to express himself.
poetry is about personal emotional expression and nothing more.
if there is protest to be expressed it should be against fellow poet for feeding the bullshit mythology behind poetry, for not thinking differently, and for not promoting himself and others.
poetry changed within the last 20 years. it was televised and they called it “slam”.
of course the traditional poets refused to embrace the change and now no one really gives a shit about either..
what’s wrong with poetry isn’t the economy, it isn’t the politics and it isn’t a mysterious galactic force or “this generation’s negligence”
this generation has nothing to do with any failure. all those ideologic baby boomers still exist and their bank accounts possess way more buying power than “this generation”.
the issue is you.
I mostly agree with jereme. poetry has no intention, you might be able to argue resistance to capitalism as a by-product, but it is not the intention of poetry to resist or allow or anything. I hate when poets want to be politicians.
I mostly agree with jereme. poetry has no intention, you might be able to argue resistance to capitalism as a by-product, but it is not the intention of poetry to resist or allow or anything. I hate when poets want to be politicians.
What is being said in this essay? Huh? Wha?
I like what Adam R said above:
‘poetry must die long live poetry
I’m a poet and I don’t care about poetry. I buy ~15 poetry books a month and don’t read them very carefully. This isn’t poetry’s fault, though.
I like this post and yet I also think D Johnson lodged some good objections.’
I’ll say this: Most poetry I read I do not enjoy reading because it seems too fanciful (or only relating to the Self of the artist, that it doesn’t promote an imaginative connection in the reader). Call me Utilitarian, Mainstream, whatever.
But, really, call me Slow, too. Someone summarize the argument in this essay, if an argument does exist, in a few sentences. Please?
What is being said in this essay? Huh? Wha?
I like what Adam R said above:
‘poetry must die long live poetry
I’m a poet and I don’t care about poetry. I buy ~15 poetry books a month and don’t read them very carefully. This isn’t poetry’s fault, though.
I like this post and yet I also think D Johnson lodged some good objections.’
I’ll say this: Most poetry I read I do not enjoy reading because it seems too fanciful (or only relating to the Self of the artist, that it doesn’t promote an imaginative connection in the reader). Call me Utilitarian, Mainstream, whatever.
But, really, call me Slow, too. Someone summarize the argument in this essay, if an argument does exist, in a few sentences. Please?
Because poetry sells poorly, yet continues to exist, it is therefore existing in spite of capitalism. Then, because capitalism is a big ugly thing that’s going to get Orwellian on us in the future, poety will act as a resistance to that and save the world.
Because poetry sells poorly, yet continues to exist, it is therefore existing in spite of capitalism. Then, because capitalism is a big ugly thing that’s going to get Orwellian on us in the future, poety will act as a resistance to that and save the world.
And I don’t think the idea of Poetry as Resistance makes much sense, either. I agree with Jereme. We, as privileged Americans, can show the world an entire language — whatever we want to say — with the internet for, like, $20 a month or a library card. What is Poetry ‘Resisting?’
What, because you labor in obscurity, that means you are resisting capitalist structure & stricture? I could sit all day and stare at the carpet, could I say Carpet Staring is a Site of Resistance? Obscure Artistic behavior does not inherently equal Economic Model Resistance/Societal Resistance. No inherent anything.
I’m very tired and shouldn’t be talking in a public forum. Pardon my half-capacity.
And I don’t think the idea of Poetry as Resistance makes much sense, either. I agree with Jereme. We, as privileged Americans, can show the world an entire language — whatever we want to say — with the internet for, like, $20 a month or a library card. What is Poetry ‘Resisting?’
What, because you labor in obscurity, that means you are resisting capitalist structure & stricture? I could sit all day and stare at the carpet, could I say Carpet Staring is a Site of Resistance? Obscure Artistic behavior does not inherently equal Economic Model Resistance/Societal Resistance. No inherent anything.
I’m very tired and shouldn’t be talking in a public forum. Pardon my half-capacity.
i read poetry at punk rock shows.
i paste poems on walls.
http://wall-attacks.blogspot.com/
i read poetry at punk rock shows.
i paste poems on walls.
http://wall-attacks.blogspot.com/
I have a problem with so many sentences/implications in this piece.
One of them: ‘The problem is simply this: traditional measures of success in contemporary society are biased toward a capitalist bottom-line imperative, and therefore do not apply.’
Yes, very convenient to say. But art has been created and marketed and absorbed in this culture and that art has been deemed successful not only $ wise but critically/has resonated with a large audience. Also: I don’t go to a movie and then make my decision about it’s quality based on opening weekend gross. The paragraph containing this sentence and the prior paragraph kinda make me want to punch. Very convenient and broad things to say. I think the above sentence could also be interperted to say: ‘Yeah, poetry doesn’t sell because of the System, man. Fuck the System! Poetry rules!’ Yeepers.
Another:
‘I can hardly imagine anything less appealing than subway advertisements for the James Patterson or John Grisham of poetry, for books that are market-tested, or even ghost-written, whose products are tailored to a target market.’
Okay. Do I think episodic television sucks? Yes, most of it. Do I bemoan it’s success sometimes? Yes. Do I think it idiotic to NOT wish that a book I write sells a billion copies and is plastered on every building in the world? Yes. Yes. Yes. I think it’s nice to bemoan the idea of ‘market driven’ art, but, c’mon. Patterson and Grishman started off like every single human or Poet: working, doing what they love, or at least what they like, and finding bottom-line evil capitalistic success. Belittling their success and asserting the superiority of Poetry seems too easy and hollow an argument to matter.
I have a problem with so many sentences/implications in this piece.
One of them: ‘The problem is simply this: traditional measures of success in contemporary society are biased toward a capitalist bottom-line imperative, and therefore do not apply.’
Yes, very convenient to say. But art has been created and marketed and absorbed in this culture and that art has been deemed successful not only $ wise but critically/has resonated with a large audience. Also: I don’t go to a movie and then make my decision about it’s quality based on opening weekend gross. The paragraph containing this sentence and the prior paragraph kinda make me want to punch. Very convenient and broad things to say. I think the above sentence could also be interperted to say: ‘Yeah, poetry doesn’t sell because of the System, man. Fuck the System! Poetry rules!’ Yeepers.
Another:
‘I can hardly imagine anything less appealing than subway advertisements for the James Patterson or John Grisham of poetry, for books that are market-tested, or even ghost-written, whose products are tailored to a target market.’
Okay. Do I think episodic television sucks? Yes, most of it. Do I bemoan it’s success sometimes? Yes. Do I think it idiotic to NOT wish that a book I write sells a billion copies and is plastered on every building in the world? Yes. Yes. Yes. I think it’s nice to bemoan the idea of ‘market driven’ art, but, c’mon. Patterson and Grishman started off like every single human or Poet: working, doing what they love, or at least what they like, and finding bottom-line evil capitalistic success. Belittling their success and asserting the superiority of Poetry seems too easy and hollow an argument to matter.
And to answer my own question: Yes, I could call Carpet Staring a form of Resistance (capital R Resistance), but should I? Should I?
I’m grumpy. Somebody please prove me wrong.
And to answer my own question: Yes, I could call Carpet Staring a form of Resistance (capital R Resistance), but should I? Should I?
I’m grumpy. Somebody please prove me wrong.
Ken, here’s JS’s argument in a nutshell, as I understand it. I don’t think he’s saying that there’s a 1-to-1 correlation between writing poetry and fighting capitalism, assuming that “fighting capitalism” is even something you’re interested in–which obviously it might well not be.
His point–anyway the point that I take away–is that the nature of a capitalist marketplace is to commodify culture. Viral marketing and product placement are two good examples of this process– it’s one thing to know a magazine needs ads to support its content, so there are ad pages. It’s another thing when you’re watching a movie and there’s a long funny scene involving a bottle of Frank’s Hot Sauce and later you find out the Frank’s people paid for that. The advertising which ostensibly supports the art/entertainment has in fact encroached into the “sacred” space of the thing itself. That’s just an example.
But what makes poetry–and other niche cultures–“special” is that their small size and cultural irrelevance render them immune to the forces of the marketplace. The spaces poetry creates are not spaces anyone particularly wants to invade, as they do with film, music, and other more popular cultural forms. Marlboro is never going to sponsor AWP. And so what *that* means, basically, is that poetry becomes a space outside of the market. Whether you think of that as (a) an outpost of resistance in the struggle against capitalism, (b) a sort of safe space where you can stand apart from the market until you’re ready to go back in for more, or (c) a lost opportunity because you wish there was some way to make poetry more capital-friendly, really depends on your own personal perspectives on poetry, art in general, and capitalism.
I don’t think JS is arguing that poetry in itself will save the world from capitalism. But by carving out a safe haven FROM the marketplace, it offers you critical distance and one possible vantage point from which to make an assessment about the system itself, and your role in same. It’s the difference between watching a storm sweep across a horizon, and running around in that storm, either searching frantically for shelter and never finding it or else walking along whistling dixie, not even realizing that you’re wet.
Ken, here’s JS’s argument in a nutshell, as I understand it. I don’t think he’s saying that there’s a 1-to-1 correlation between writing poetry and fighting capitalism, assuming that “fighting capitalism” is even something you’re interested in–which obviously it might well not be.
His point–anyway the point that I take away–is that the nature of a capitalist marketplace is to commodify culture. Viral marketing and product placement are two good examples of this process– it’s one thing to know a magazine needs ads to support its content, so there are ad pages. It’s another thing when you’re watching a movie and there’s a long funny scene involving a bottle of Frank’s Hot Sauce and later you find out the Frank’s people paid for that. The advertising which ostensibly supports the art/entertainment has in fact encroached into the “sacred” space of the thing itself. That’s just an example.
But what makes poetry–and other niche cultures–“special” is that their small size and cultural irrelevance render them immune to the forces of the marketplace. The spaces poetry creates are not spaces anyone particularly wants to invade, as they do with film, music, and other more popular cultural forms. Marlboro is never going to sponsor AWP. And so what *that* means, basically, is that poetry becomes a space outside of the market. Whether you think of that as (a) an outpost of resistance in the struggle against capitalism, (b) a sort of safe space where you can stand apart from the market until you’re ready to go back in for more, or (c) a lost opportunity because you wish there was some way to make poetry more capital-friendly, really depends on your own personal perspectives on poetry, art in general, and capitalism.
I don’t think JS is arguing that poetry in itself will save the world from capitalism. But by carving out a safe haven FROM the marketplace, it offers you critical distance and one possible vantage point from which to make an assessment about the system itself, and your role in same. It’s the difference between watching a storm sweep across a horizon, and running around in that storm, either searching frantically for shelter and never finding it or else walking along whistling dixie, not even realizing that you’re wet.
Ken you’re mixing good points with silly hyperbole. You get an internet gold star for the day.
Good point: But art has been created and marketed and absorbed in this culture and that art has been deemed successful not only $ wise but critically/has resonated with a large audience.
The easy response to the is that for every 1 famous.rich artist there are 1000 working for their own goals. But that’s reductionist.
because you’re right on. Art does this & art progresses through the ways these moments of cultural acceptance transform art & vice versa. That is one of the roles of the imagination in a political sense. Auden chooses Ashbery, Ashbery is reviled by the intelligentsia of the day then becomes beloved & then becomes the closest thing we have to a major public figure for poetry from America & then becomes an object of scorn & revisionism. Or The Clash begat Crass begat Kukl begat Bjork & now we have Little Boots & Animal Collective. Trace the spheres of influence however you want.
The way I see it, Jeremy’s argument is an extension of the Romantic idea of how the artist relates to the world. Trace it from Shelley to Williams to Julianna Spahr. The work of the imagination in response to a cultural milleau that has never & will never privilege the imagination is a way of reaffirming that which makes us individuals & therefore (here comes the shelley) allows us to relate to others beyond the modes of connection that are politically & commercially established for us.
He’s not saying F the man, he’s saying that all act of the imagination create new possibilities that push away from the established notion of correctness, which in some circles is called conservatism. So all art is saying F the man.
His thing about the subway ads is supposed to provoke you. You’re having the correct response.
Ken you’re mixing good points with silly hyperbole. You get an internet gold star for the day.
Good point: But art has been created and marketed and absorbed in this culture and that art has been deemed successful not only $ wise but critically/has resonated with a large audience.
The easy response to the is that for every 1 famous.rich artist there are 1000 working for their own goals. But that’s reductionist.
because you’re right on. Art does this & art progresses through the ways these moments of cultural acceptance transform art & vice versa. That is one of the roles of the imagination in a political sense. Auden chooses Ashbery, Ashbery is reviled by the intelligentsia of the day then becomes beloved & then becomes the closest thing we have to a major public figure for poetry from America & then becomes an object of scorn & revisionism. Or The Clash begat Crass begat Kukl begat Bjork & now we have Little Boots & Animal Collective. Trace the spheres of influence however you want.
The way I see it, Jeremy’s argument is an extension of the Romantic idea of how the artist relates to the world. Trace it from Shelley to Williams to Julianna Spahr. The work of the imagination in response to a cultural milleau that has never & will never privilege the imagination is a way of reaffirming that which makes us individuals & therefore (here comes the shelley) allows us to relate to others beyond the modes of connection that are politically & commercially established for us.
He’s not saying F the man, he’s saying that all act of the imagination create new possibilities that push away from the established notion of correctness, which in some circles is called conservatism. So all art is saying F the man.
His thing about the subway ads is supposed to provoke you. You’re having the correct response.
It is precisely the uselessness of ‘poetry’ that makes it so dangerous. The problem, for me, revolves around dissemination.
Remember: ‘poetry’ is not merely a bunch of words jumbled on a page.It is an aesthetics of existence. It’s how one lives their lives. Plural. Just because you feel hopeless, doesn’t mean you have to accept the conditions of this culture. Hopelessness is the offspring of this culture.
It is precisely the uselessness of ‘poetry’ that makes it so dangerous. The problem, for me, revolves around dissemination.
Remember: ‘poetry’ is not merely a bunch of words jumbled on a page.It is an aesthetics of existence. It’s how one lives their lives. Plural. Just because you feel hopeless, doesn’t mean you have to accept the conditions of this culture. Hopelessness is the offspring of this culture.
Thank you for your summary.
W/r/t my opinion about capitalism, I’ll say this: I’ve been afforded a very comfortable, very alienated existence. I grow more scared for culture every day. I look for outs. But at the same time I, when grumpy as hell as I am now, sort of enjoy railing against those that talk about a position that has been clearly elucidated before instead of practicing what’s preached — to use a half-assed religious metaphor — or finding a way to break something, a mold, a conception, something! I also like to disparage an approach that doesn’t seem effective in my mind… like, ‘HEY. GO PUNCH PEOPLE AND SHOUT AT THEM THAT POETRY IS THE ANSWER’ or something, something Not Talking.
I lack reason.
Yeah, and the incursion of product placement into art is pretty much infuriating, I agree.
Like I said, I’m looking for outs, and am trying to speed the process of societal evolution with my private meddling, i.e. art.
OH! And Jeremy: Thanks for the critical thought, and letting HTMLGiant house it. I’m very happy to have it here. And thanks again, Justin.
Thank you for your summary.
W/r/t my opinion about capitalism, I’ll say this: I’ve been afforded a very comfortable, very alienated existence. I grow more scared for culture every day. I look for outs. But at the same time I, when grumpy as hell as I am now, sort of enjoy railing against those that talk about a position that has been clearly elucidated before instead of practicing what’s preached — to use a half-assed religious metaphor — or finding a way to break something, a mold, a conception, something! I also like to disparage an approach that doesn’t seem effective in my mind… like, ‘HEY. GO PUNCH PEOPLE AND SHOUT AT THEM THAT POETRY IS THE ANSWER’ or something, something Not Talking.
I lack reason.
Yeah, and the incursion of product placement into art is pretty much infuriating, I agree.
Like I said, I’m looking for outs, and am trying to speed the process of societal evolution with my private meddling, i.e. art.
OH! And Jeremy: Thanks for the critical thought, and letting HTMLGiant house it. I’m very happy to have it here. And thanks again, Justin.
the only reason why poetry lies outside of the mainstream is because the mainstream doesn’t want it.
the “man” with the $$$ comes a knocking and you’ll see all your precious poets sell out like any one else.
this argument is silly. i’m sorry.
poets == issue.
issue != society.
the only reason why poetry lies outside of the mainstream is because the mainstream doesn’t want it.
the “man” with the $$$ comes a knocking and you’ll see all your precious poets sell out like any one else.
this argument is silly. i’m sorry.
poets == issue.
issue != society.
“poets could walk the streets like real authors, with book deals and money”—who argues this? Like Walt Whitman, shouting his poems in the street between odd jobs; Edgar Allen Poe, dying in another; Percy Shelley, calling on us to run away from everything, streets and all, up to his eyeballs in debt? (“You with the unpaid bill, Despair,—/You, tiresome verse-reciter, Care,—/I will pay you in the grave/—Death will listen to your stave.”) Arthur Rimbaud, walking home from Paris, his career over at 19? Emily Dickinson, remaking the poetic line having hardly left the house? Sappho, in exile in Sicily? Langston Hughes, capturing the sound of the street, but deciding he needed to break his lines into more lines because he was paid by the line?
When has poetry ever been a success?
This piece was well written and thought-provoking, and I hope to see more, but I don’t like poetry, in a broad sense, as resistance to any political-economic system (Jereme made this point really well). It doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but to say whether poetry resists one thing or supports the other still confines the art to having a prescribed “use.” Poetry is of no use, or not one I think we ought to trouble ourselves to get a handle on. The answer to what poetry does lies somewhere out there in the Mojave Desert with Sylvia Plath’s “glittery fictions of spilt water/That glide ahead of the very thirsty.”
And it’s not dead—it’s everywhere!
“poets could walk the streets like real authors, with book deals and money”—who argues this? Like Walt Whitman, shouting his poems in the street between odd jobs; Edgar Allen Poe, dying in another; Percy Shelley, calling on us to run away from everything, streets and all, up to his eyeballs in debt? (“You with the unpaid bill, Despair,—/You, tiresome verse-reciter, Care,—/I will pay you in the grave/—Death will listen to your stave.”) Arthur Rimbaud, walking home from Paris, his career over at 19? Emily Dickinson, remaking the poetic line having hardly left the house? Sappho, in exile in Sicily? Langston Hughes, capturing the sound of the street, but deciding he needed to break his lines into more lines because he was paid by the line?
When has poetry ever been a success?
This piece was well written and thought-provoking, and I hope to see more, but I don’t like poetry, in a broad sense, as resistance to any political-economic system (Jereme made this point really well). It doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but to say whether poetry resists one thing or supports the other still confines the art to having a prescribed “use.” Poetry is of no use, or not one I think we ought to trouble ourselves to get a handle on. The answer to what poetry does lies somewhere out there in the Mojave Desert with Sylvia Plath’s “glittery fictions of spilt water/That glide ahead of the very thirsty.”
And it’s not dead—it’s everywhere!
Hey, Ken, down here!
I agree with you in part for sure. Obscure artistic behavior does not equal resistance per se.But, it is a lot of fun and it sometimes gets people to think otherwise about things, relations.
‘Poetry’–whether it wants to or not–questions the way we structure our experiences. Sometimes it provides us with new ears to listen to things, new eyes to see stuff, etc. I differ with Justin, though. ‘Poetry’ is not a space ‘outside’ anything. It is as confused with the market as the market is with it. It just seems, to me, that the market informs poetry far more than poetry informs the market–and that, for me, is a problem.
Hey, Ken, down here!
I agree with you in part for sure. Obscure artistic behavior does not equal resistance per se.But, it is a lot of fun and it sometimes gets people to think otherwise about things, relations.
‘Poetry’–whether it wants to or not–questions the way we structure our experiences. Sometimes it provides us with new ears to listen to things, new eyes to see stuff, etc. I differ with Justin, though. ‘Poetry’ is not a space ‘outside’ anything. It is as confused with the market as the market is with it. It just seems, to me, that the market informs poetry far more than poetry informs the market–and that, for me, is a problem.
I’m putting the gold star on my forehead. Thank you.
I’m putting the gold star on my forehead. Thank you.
[…] from the Poets 2009 June 18 by paxamericana Jeremy Schmall has a post over at HTML Giant that argues that poetry’s larger cultural irrelevance makes it a useful site of resistance […]
And as for the Washington Post, it still runs its “Poet’s Corner” column as it has for some time now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061202290.html.
What the future holds for newspapers in general is another question.
And as for the Washington Post, it still runs its “Poet’s Corner” column as it has for some time now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061202290.html.
What the future holds for newspapers in general is another question.
I love your spirit here, but I gotta disagree. Jereme didn’t make any point. To say “use” is to reduce struggle to simple dialectics. Nothing in culture resists in one direction. There is no “prescribed use” here. To reduce “resistance” to a single vector would be to say art is but a lever, pulley or screw.
Art has uses. Many uses. Unintended uses. Insidious uses. From getting laid to selling cars to provoking violence (arent the photoshopped images of pro-Iran rallies right now “art”?), we are surrounded by art’s uses.
Whitman, your example above wanted his writing to change the ideology of America. he wanted Leaves of Grass to be an American Bible. He was not the careless loafer of his poetic construct. Shelley was essentially an anarchist. he wrote political pamphlets constantly. They are more like what you argue against in your second paragraph. Poe was just an asshole.
What you say about Dickinson seems inline with Jeremy’s argument. She changed the world of art because of her indifference to a marketplace of literature & scholarship. Which means that everyone who’s had the top of their head taken off by her is changed by her in a way that could not have happened if she was making money.
I love your spirit here, but I gotta disagree. Jereme didn’t make any point. To say “use” is to reduce struggle to simple dialectics. Nothing in culture resists in one direction. There is no “prescribed use” here. To reduce “resistance” to a single vector would be to say art is but a lever, pulley or screw.
Art has uses. Many uses. Unintended uses. Insidious uses. From getting laid to selling cars to provoking violence (arent the photoshopped images of pro-Iran rallies right now “art”?), we are surrounded by art’s uses.
Whitman, your example above wanted his writing to change the ideology of America. he wanted Leaves of Grass to be an American Bible. He was not the careless loafer of his poetic construct. Shelley was essentially an anarchist. he wrote political pamphlets constantly. They are more like what you argue against in your second paragraph. Poe was just an asshole.
What you say about Dickinson seems inline with Jeremy’s argument. She changed the world of art because of her indifference to a marketplace of literature & scholarship. Which means that everyone who’s had the top of their head taken off by her is changed by her in a way that could not have happened if she was making money.
you look cute with it!
did you read about the girl in europe who fell asleep while getting facial tattoos & the tattoo artist gave her like 60 instead of 3?
that’s what I’m gunna do to you.
you look cute with it!
did you read about the girl in europe who fell asleep while getting facial tattoos & the tattoo artist gave her like 60 instead of 3?
that’s what I’m gunna do to you.
The dwelling on of foolish grammatical inconsistencies makes no sense. Who cares? Seriously, you obviously have nothing of worth or value to say, so you pick the easy Grammar Pedagogue out by showing that a simple ‘the’ was italiziced even though your website says differently.
And you go even as far to not have your own thoughts or words by putting in a simple link to someone else (which I didn’t read because I don’t care about what you agree or disagree with….wait, better fix that preposition at the end of the sentence–I’m sure you have websites explaining those contrivances as well…I should have said “I don’t care about that which you agree or disagree.”)
Seriously, PHM (Pathetic Hudibrasitc Mongoloid?), get yourself some creativity and some actual input. The best of authors threw that bathwater out but kept the baby…no one cares but you.
The dwelling on of foolish grammatical inconsistencies makes no sense. Who cares? Seriously, you obviously have nothing of worth or value to say, so you pick the easy Grammar Pedagogue out by showing that a simple ‘the’ was italiziced even though your website says differently.
And you go even as far to not have your own thoughts or words by putting in a simple link to someone else (which I didn’t read because I don’t care about what you agree or disagree with….wait, better fix that preposition at the end of the sentence–I’m sure you have websites explaining those contrivances as well…I should have said “I don’t care about that which you agree or disagree.”)
Seriously, PHM (Pathetic Hudibrasitc Mongoloid?), get yourself some creativity and some actual input. The best of authors threw that bathwater out but kept the baby…no one cares but you.
“art” created for marketing purposes is not earnest and the opposite of art.
the same applies to poetry.
my opinion.
“art” created for marketing purposes is not earnest and the opposite of art.
the same applies to poetry.
my opinion.
Poetry is merely a bunch of words jumbled on a page. Poetry is the aesthetics of a poets existence. the aesthetics of existence are things like clouds and carpet and babies.
Poetry is merely a bunch of words jumbled on a page. Poetry is the aesthetics of a poets existence. the aesthetics of existence are things like clouds and carpet and babies.
I don’t disagree with any of your examples—Whitman had his intentions, Shelley had his, Plath had hers. And so on. And I’m glad they do—I’m just as glad that Apollinaire had his protesting bent and his calligrammes as I am that he stood on Mirabeau Bridge watching love roll down the Seine (to name a popular one of his). Even there—within a single poet’s work—there’s great variation. So assigning poetry as a whole a use is like trying to pinpoint a calculus limit.
I don’t disagree with any of your examples—Whitman had his intentions, Shelley had his, Plath had hers. And so on. And I’m glad they do—I’m just as glad that Apollinaire had his protesting bent and his calligrammes as I am that he stood on Mirabeau Bridge watching love roll down the Seine (to name a popular one of his). Even there—within a single poet’s work—there’s great variation. So assigning poetry as a whole a use is like trying to pinpoint a calculus limit.
first of all, michael j, i doubt that you know who you’re arguing with. i think he probably has access to some numbers you might find interesting. then again, i could be totally wrong.
but, in response to mr. johnson’s claim that “Your generation’s interest in poetry is actually a creation of the media you pretend to despise…just a slightly edgier version of that media.” i would like to say that, i think our generation’s interest in poetry is certainly a creation of the media, but not because the edgier media is creating it. rather, our interest is created by the very lack of interest in poetry from the mainstream. it’s sort of like when mother nature reacts to things, i think it’s our impulse to attempt to bring about a balance, if only because we’re little more than stubborn motherfuckers.
and it’s not so much our generation, but this particular subculture, that is interested in the lack of media attention in poetry. subcultures being, of course, defined by their resistance to the mainstream. subcultures are always smaller than they appear to those within them, that is, until being co-opted in order to serve the interest of those who stand to profit from packaging and marketing certain aspects of the subculture back to the mainstream, which is somewhat unlikely (or at least less likely) to happen in the case of contemporary poetry – perhaps thankfully.
alternatively, i could just say, i don’t know.
first of all, michael j, i doubt that you know who you’re arguing with. i think he probably has access to some numbers you might find interesting. then again, i could be totally wrong.
but, in response to mr. johnson’s claim that “Your generation’s interest in poetry is actually a creation of the media you pretend to despise…just a slightly edgier version of that media.” i would like to say that, i think our generation’s interest in poetry is certainly a creation of the media, but not because the edgier media is creating it. rather, our interest is created by the very lack of interest in poetry from the mainstream. it’s sort of like when mother nature reacts to things, i think it’s our impulse to attempt to bring about a balance, if only because we’re little more than stubborn motherfuckers.
and it’s not so much our generation, but this particular subculture, that is interested in the lack of media attention in poetry. subcultures being, of course, defined by their resistance to the mainstream. subcultures are always smaller than they appear to those within them, that is, until being co-opted in order to serve the interest of those who stand to profit from packaging and marketing certain aspects of the subculture back to the mainstream, which is somewhat unlikely (or at least less likely) to happen in the case of contemporary poetry – perhaps thankfully.
alternatively, i could just say, i don’t know.
Your behavior offends me.
Your behavior offends me.
Yeah. I think that’s a good idea. I’ve tried leaving little booklets around and I think that’s a good way to do it too. I think the “poet” has to make an effort to engage with “non-poets” or whatever if she’s really interested in what she does, not that that’s a way to make money or anything. Just maybe better than putting your work in slim little chapbooks no one will ever read, though you can do both, I’ve got nothing against the chapbook.
Yeah. I think that’s a good idea. I’ve tried leaving little booklets around and I think that’s a good way to do it too. I think the “poet” has to make an effort to engage with “non-poets” or whatever if she’s really interested in what she does, not that that’s a way to make money or anything. Just maybe better than putting your work in slim little chapbooks no one will ever read, though you can do both, I’ve got nothing against the chapbook.
this entire thread is like manure in my guts and what is wrong with poetry.
a writer posts an essay on a blog read mostly by writers.
a bunch of “poets” sitting around bitching to each other about their esoteric world.
now the cutesy belittling remarks.
gold stars and blah blah blah.
fuck all of you.
you are what is wrong with poetry.
i always carry one of sam pink’s poetry books with me to give out to random people, people who look sad or interesting or alone or good humored, normal people i meet during my commute on this shitty earth.
i have given out 3 books thus far.
i’ll never give a poetry book to a writer or poet.
you people are the fucking problem and i applaud you.
this entire thread is like manure in my guts and what is wrong with poetry.
a writer posts an essay on a blog read mostly by writers.
a bunch of “poets” sitting around bitching to each other about their esoteric world.
now the cutesy belittling remarks.
gold stars and blah blah blah.
fuck all of you.
you are what is wrong with poetry.
i always carry one of sam pink’s poetry books with me to give out to random people, people who look sad or interesting or alone or good humored, normal people i meet during my commute on this shitty earth.
i have given out 3 books thus far.
i’ll never give a poetry book to a writer or poet.
you people are the fucking problem and i applaud you.
Although, I am not a practitioner of ‘prescriptive’ grammar (see PHM above), I do believe that grammar is important in evaluating arguments. Sometimes, a preposition or a comma can effect an interpretation.
So, I guess the question I would ask PHM is: How does the italicization of ‘the’ in ‘the New York Times’ effect Schmall’s argument(s)? And same goes with the italicization of the city PHM cites. How does it effect the argument(s)?
Although, I am not a practitioner of ‘prescriptive’ grammar (see PHM above), I do believe that grammar is important in evaluating arguments. Sometimes, a preposition or a comma can effect an interpretation.
So, I guess the question I would ask PHM is: How does the italicization of ‘the’ in ‘the New York Times’ effect Schmall’s argument(s)? And same goes with the italicization of the city PHM cites. How does it effect the argument(s)?
We definitely need more stuff about ‘poetry’ and politics.
We definitely need more stuff about ‘poetry’ and politics.
Actually, I have never of Cadence Weapon. Until now, of course. Although, I have to admit, he kind of sounds like a douche bag. Kidding.
Actually, I have never of Cadence Weapon. Until now, of course. Although, I have to admit, he kind of sounds like a douche bag. Kidding.
I wish I coulda spent the last however many hours monitoring this thread before it blew up, because now I kind of don’t want to filter through all the comments…
I spent all that time listening to The Cool Kids and poetry podcasts, eating chili, cleaning the bathroom, writing a poem, watching King of Queens, and reading a creative essay on the Gaza raid of 2001, and burning a pot of rice.
Dunno though Jerms, its like, you got a lot of anger. Seems like the only way for someone to be on your ‘good’ side in this is if they aren’t a poet (like you, I guess, ‘cuz then you’d be calling yourself the problem). But I only read the post above this, so, I’m kinda in a weird place.
Chili is good.
I wish I coulda spent the last however many hours monitoring this thread before it blew up, because now I kind of don’t want to filter through all the comments…
I spent all that time listening to The Cool Kids and poetry podcasts, eating chili, cleaning the bathroom, writing a poem, watching King of Queens, and reading a creative essay on the Gaza raid of 2001, and burning a pot of rice.
Dunno though Jerms, its like, you got a lot of anger. Seems like the only way for someone to be on your ‘good’ side in this is if they aren’t a poet (like you, I guess, ‘cuz then you’d be calling yourself the problem). But I only read the post above this, so, I’m kinda in a weird place.
Chili is good.
Hey Jereme, I hear you, but a little over the top? For a second I was like, man, he must really not like that Washington Post column, but I see that was silly, it’s everything.
I mean, the “Coronado Poet” on that link’s a pretty decent poem. But, anyway.
Sylvia, as antidote?
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/bee.html
Hey Jereme, I hear you, but a little over the top? For a second I was like, man, he must really not like that Washington Post column, but I see that was silly, it’s everything.
I mean, the “Coronado Poet” on that link’s a pretty decent poem. But, anyway.
Sylvia, as antidote?
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/bee.html
[…] future reference, Bookslut will be linking to all posts connecting Slavoj Zizek to the topic of contemporary poetry & its failure in the market. (Via […]
haha… he might be a douchebag. I don’t know. But at least the kids can relate.
haha… he might be a douchebag. I don’t know. But at least the kids can relate.
I’m not a poet, nor do I read very much of it, so I don’t know how qualified I am to weigh in here. But that being said… I can appreciate the point that because of the lack of mainstream interest in it, poetry gets to exist sort of outside of the system, which is not a bad thing. But for every art, aren’t there plenty of people existing outside of the system regardless of whether there is still a mainstream form of what they’re doing? The existence of James Patterson hasn’t killed, or even harmed, the small press world that operates outside of that kind of mainstream realm. The existence of Thomas Kinkade doesn’t hurt real painters. Big budget, major studio blockbuster movies don’t make it impossible for someone to be an indie filmmaker with a unique vision. And so on, and so forth. If there were books of poetry that were being advertised on subways, I don’t really think that would impact the ability of small press poets to exist “outside of the box,” so to speak.
Of course, I’ve never really been one to care one way or the other how much attention the new Grisham or Clancy or whatever gets. I think it’s nice when people read at all, as sadly few do in the grand scheme of things. And who knows, maybe a few people who first get into reading for pleasure via the things they see on subway ads will eventually venture into reading more of a variety of things. Maybe the same thing would happen if there was such a thing as “mainstream poetry.”
I’m not a poet, nor do I read very much of it, so I don’t know how qualified I am to weigh in here. But that being said… I can appreciate the point that because of the lack of mainstream interest in it, poetry gets to exist sort of outside of the system, which is not a bad thing. But for every art, aren’t there plenty of people existing outside of the system regardless of whether there is still a mainstream form of what they’re doing? The existence of James Patterson hasn’t killed, or even harmed, the small press world that operates outside of that kind of mainstream realm. The existence of Thomas Kinkade doesn’t hurt real painters. Big budget, major studio blockbuster movies don’t make it impossible for someone to be an indie filmmaker with a unique vision. And so on, and so forth. If there were books of poetry that were being advertised on subways, I don’t really think that would impact the ability of small press poets to exist “outside of the box,” so to speak.
Of course, I’ve never really been one to care one way or the other how much attention the new Grisham or Clancy or whatever gets. I think it’s nice when people read at all, as sadly few do in the grand scheme of things. And who knows, maybe a few people who first get into reading for pleasure via the things they see on subway ads will eventually venture into reading more of a variety of things. Maybe the same thing would happen if there was such a thing as “mainstream poetry.”
I would say it makes him seem less serious to let something as simple as that slide. It certainly distracted me.
I would say it makes him seem less serious to let something as simple as that slide. It certainly distracted me.
Everybody stop.
Everybody stop.
No.
To the argument that to those within a subculture the subculture appears bigger than it really is, lemme say, I haven’t always been a part of this supposed poetry ‘sub’culture. Most of the people I hung around with didn’t write or read poetry regularly. Most were interested. But didn’t do it. And you know what it took for them to gain a little more interest? Reading some of my stuff. They didn’t like it all, but what they did like made them look at me differently. Made them look at poetry differently. And they started reading more. It’s one person at a time here. It’s fluctuations. Hitler did what he did by going door to door almost and convincing people of his rhetoric. I think it’s gonna be impossible to make the term ‘reverse-Hitler’ popular, but, uhh, I do think its just a matter of time. Give the generation who grew up on Transformers and Mario Bros. a little time to change the status of poetry. (And this is where I disagree, I believe, with Jeremy S.) Poetry can exist as it is now, but it shouldn’t. And it doesn’t mean it must become some perverted thing. The generation that had poetry star-studded and ready to roll are in the high numbers. The generation coming up under them were following that previous generation’s coat-tails. And now we’re here. And now we have a generation doing the same with us. We have a chance, with the many tools at our disposal, to do some good-damage. And I say let’s do the damn thing.
J-j-j-j-jeah
No.
To the argument that to those within a subculture the subculture appears bigger than it really is, lemme say, I haven’t always been a part of this supposed poetry ‘sub’culture. Most of the people I hung around with didn’t write or read poetry regularly. Most were interested. But didn’t do it. And you know what it took for them to gain a little more interest? Reading some of my stuff. They didn’t like it all, but what they did like made them look at me differently. Made them look at poetry differently. And they started reading more. It’s one person at a time here. It’s fluctuations. Hitler did what he did by going door to door almost and convincing people of his rhetoric. I think it’s gonna be impossible to make the term ‘reverse-Hitler’ popular, but, uhh, I do think its just a matter of time. Give the generation who grew up on Transformers and Mario Bros. a little time to change the status of poetry. (And this is where I disagree, I believe, with Jeremy S.) Poetry can exist as it is now, but it shouldn’t. And it doesn’t mean it must become some perverted thing. The generation that had poetry star-studded and ready to roll are in the high numbers. The generation coming up under them were following that previous generation’s coat-tails. And now we’re here. And now we have a generation doing the same with us. We have a chance, with the many tools at our disposal, to do some good-damage. And I say let’s do the damn thing.
J-j-j-j-jeah
yup. concurrence.
yup. concurrence.
(((((((===============8888888888888
(((((((===============8888888888888
[…] Poetry, Capitalism, & Accessibility Jeremy Schmall on HTMLGIANT discusses the relationship between poetry and global capitalism: […]
what do you want to do again? sorry, i was watching transformers.
what do you want to do again? sorry, i was watching transformers.
lets write quatrains in ode to hasbro.
fruits of capitalism indeed.
lets write quatrains in ode to hasbro.
fruits of capitalism indeed.
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
what the hell is a quatrain?
But the fact stands that you’re wrong, PHM. You do know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, right? And that different sources of prescriptive grammar/punctuation disagree, mainly because the context (newspaper, magazine, book, scientific article), column widths, word counts, etc. that they’re meant to be applied to differ. And that prescription would mean shit all, in the end, if you had the ability to form an independent thought in your head, or wherever it is you form them.
But the fact stands that you’re wrong, PHM. You do know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, right? And that different sources of prescriptive grammar/punctuation disagree, mainly because the context (newspaper, magazine, book, scientific article), column widths, word counts, etc. that they’re meant to be applied to differ. And that prescription would mean shit all, in the end, if you had the ability to form an independent thought in your head, or wherever it is you form them.
i like reading about prescriptive/descriptive grammar.
i like reading about prescriptive/descriptive grammar.
CMoS 15th ed. represent!
CMoS 15th ed. represent!
Poetry remains produced, but has escaped becoming a product, and is perhaps one of the few endeavors of human effort that remains as such. The production of poetry as product, which can be bought, sold, and most importantly, counted, has dropped in numbers, but poetry as a relevant art and practiced art continues. I was unfortunately at the funeral of a fellow student who’s death was sudden and untimely, at which his sister read a poem written by their mother, a prominent figure in local politics. This poem was true to the Sound and Sense rhythm and rhyme of poetry and was in no way an experimental forum thunk up in an urban area walk-up. It will never be counted in the grand 2009 poetry census review of such and such, but it continues to exist, and was printed on hundreds of memorial service fliers.
Poetry is most definitely a people’s art because it is brief, unlike it’s spot-light stealing step-sister the novel, doesn’t require excruciating musical training, unlike the center stage cousin musical lyric who’s infamy and glory it might night never live up to, and is actually practical for occasions such as deaths, births, and all the other rigmarole of life, something it’s godmother installation art, will never totally accept or understand. With grave sincerity I urge you to direct your attention the the following sentence. Poetry ‘ain’t dead.
Poetry remains produced, but has escaped becoming a product, and is perhaps one of the few endeavors of human effort that remains as such. The production of poetry as product, which can be bought, sold, and most importantly, counted, has dropped in numbers, but poetry as a relevant art and practiced art continues. I was unfortunately at the funeral of a fellow student who’s death was sudden and untimely, at which his sister read a poem written by their mother, a prominent figure in local politics. This poem was true to the Sound and Sense rhythm and rhyme of poetry and was in no way an experimental forum thunk up in an urban area walk-up. It will never be counted in the grand 2009 poetry census review of such and such, but it continues to exist, and was printed on hundreds of memorial service fliers.
Poetry is most definitely a people’s art because it is brief, unlike it’s spot-light stealing step-sister the novel, doesn’t require excruciating musical training, unlike the center stage cousin musical lyric who’s infamy and glory it might night never live up to, and is actually practical for occasions such as deaths, births, and all the other rigmarole of life, something it’s godmother installation art, will never totally accept or understand. With grave sincerity I urge you to direct your attention the the following sentence. Poetry ‘ain’t dead.
[…] poetry failing? Jump to Comments Jeremy Schmall argues that it […]
[…] June 22, 2009 by karaashley09 I read this article on what poetry is to our society by Jeremy Schmall. Very interesting and liberal. He said, “Poetry, as it exists today, is a spontaneous, self-organizing and utterly unprofitable source of culture…” and that poets are not a market, but a tribe. Since poets and their work don’t fit into globalization markets (since it doesn’t sell), they define themselves. If you care to read, go here. […]
samizdat! samizdat! samizdat!
samizdat! samizdat! samizdat!
[…] the one about Iranian interest in poetry, here is a snippet from Jeremy Schmall’s article Poetry as a Site of Resistance: But the question becomes, if poetry is irrelevant to the culture at large, if it doesn’t sell, […]
Great provocative post and enthralling debate, in which I will not engage, except to provide a view from a barbarian at the gate. As a former Phd student studying 18th century british lit and sometime writer now turned full-time marketing strategist, I find it now amazing that while my old writer/academic friends–many of whom i think are doing great work–continue to lament the ways capitalism is ravaging culture in a thousand different ways, most of my new pals in advertising think we are all on some happy quest to change the world for the better. Really and truly. Go check out an awards show and wallow in the utopianism. I think both sides are engaging in some degree of ideological self-delusion. Many former great forms continue to exist long after they have a marketplace, replaced by new, dominant forms of expression Capitalism may well be damaging mass culture, but it still leaves a lot of room for non-marketable expression (so long as you don’t need lots of people or equipment). Poetry was rarely if ever a marketable form. The few exceptions over the centuries do not make a market. If you want to paid for something, go make someone some money. That’s why I did. And i’m here to tell you, it’s a lot easier than teaching three sections of comp a year. If you don’t want to sell out like me, enjoy your time, your art, your community. Because if you join me, you’ll lose a whole bunch of that too. So poetry can well be a form resistance like any form of art that holds out a place for thoughtful engagement with the world against the forces of mass culture. But Capital doesn’t care, now or ever
Great provocative post and enthralling debate, in which I will not engage, except to provide a view from a barbarian at the gate. As a former Phd student studying 18th century british lit and sometime writer now turned full-time marketing strategist, I find it now amazing that while my old writer/academic friends–many of whom i think are doing great work–continue to lament the ways capitalism is ravaging culture in a thousand different ways, most of my new pals in advertising think we are all on some happy quest to change the world for the better. Really and truly. Go check out an awards show and wallow in the utopianism. I think both sides are engaging in some degree of ideological self-delusion. Many former great forms continue to exist long after they have a marketplace, replaced by new, dominant forms of expression Capitalism may well be damaging mass culture, but it still leaves a lot of room for non-marketable expression (so long as you don’t need lots of people or equipment). Poetry was rarely if ever a marketable form. The few exceptions over the centuries do not make a market. If you want to paid for something, go make someone some money. That’s why I did. And i’m here to tell you, it’s a lot easier than teaching three sections of comp a year. If you don’t want to sell out like me, enjoy your time, your art, your community. Because if you join me, you’ll lose a whole bunch of that too. So poetry can well be a form resistance like any form of art that holds out a place for thoughtful engagement with the world against the forces of mass culture. But Capital doesn’t care, now or ever
I think one of the earlier posters on this topic was just about right on.
Poetry is no longer culturally relevant in this country due to the advent of free verse. Many/most poets today write in free verse because it offers the most creative freedom. Or, if they do not write in strictly free verse, they modify traditional forms beyond recognition. Metered end-rhyming poetry is, by and large, a dinosaur of a cultural artifact. Poets pretend to like it, but don’t write it, and don’t approve of those who do write it with any regularity (they are a sub-sub-culture). Most poets put relatively masked formal elements into their poems, somehow hoping to connect with the past tradition of poetry, and also giving them some po-cred at the same time. It never serves the same function as rhyming poetry used to.
Yet whenever I mention poetry to some random schmuck on the street, s/he tells me that she adores Frost, or Dickinson, Shakespeare, Dylan Thomas, Keats, Blake or Tennyson. Some people give me Plath or Ginsberg, but even those two were much more formal than most. I must admit that I too feel limited by rhyme, but maybe it’s because I, like most “poets,” am not a poet at all but a lover of words who likes to write them. I’m okay with that, but I don’t expect to be appreciated.
Ferlinghetti wrote an essay called “Modern Poetry is Prose (But It Is Saying Plenty).” I’d say that, as a whole, poetry is saying less now than it was when he wrote the essay, but his assessment was pretty much right–and it also means that poets have abandoned their role as makers of sonorous language that can be appreciated by just about anyone. This is why “spoken word” and rap today are more popular than “poetry.” Rhyme and meter have powerful effects.
But maybe we shouldn’t need rhyme–maybe poetry could have changed and remained relevant. It’s possible that our education system has failed us in this regard by emphasizing technical/job skills over the older model of a liberal arts education, creating an “upper class” that has all the money, but is all but ignorant of their own cultural history. Notice that this change in the American system was somewhat concurrent with the disappearance of rhyme from poetry. I’m not smart enough to figure out what, if anything, that means.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m okay with where “poetry” is, but some of you seem to want a diagnosis, as if this situation were something to be fixed. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. This article presents a somewhat valid perspective, but it is by no means a complete one. I feel that it descends into wishful thinking about the power of poetry at the end. He’s conflating poetry (which does not instruct us on the particulars of how to live) with poets (who tend to be politically idealistic and anti-commercial).
~shrug~ It’s easy to get all riled up about these things, but the fact is that we don’t have enough information to come to a concrete and incontestable truth on the subject. In the meantime, I’m going to continue being what I am and writing what I do.
I think one of the earlier posters on this topic was just about right on.
Poetry is no longer culturally relevant in this country due to the advent of free verse. Many/most poets today write in free verse because it offers the most creative freedom. Or, if they do not write in strictly free verse, they modify traditional forms beyond recognition. Metered end-rhyming poetry is, by and large, a dinosaur of a cultural artifact. Poets pretend to like it, but don’t write it, and don’t approve of those who do write it with any regularity (they are a sub-sub-culture). Most poets put relatively masked formal elements into their poems, somehow hoping to connect with the past tradition of poetry, and also giving them some po-cred at the same time. It never serves the same function as rhyming poetry used to.
Yet whenever I mention poetry to some random schmuck on the street, s/he tells me that she adores Frost, or Dickinson, Shakespeare, Dylan Thomas, Keats, Blake or Tennyson. Some people give me Plath or Ginsberg, but even those two were much more formal than most. I must admit that I too feel limited by rhyme, but maybe it’s because I, like most “poets,” am not a poet at all but a lover of words who likes to write them. I’m okay with that, but I don’t expect to be appreciated.
Ferlinghetti wrote an essay called “Modern Poetry is Prose (But It Is Saying Plenty).” I’d say that, as a whole, poetry is saying less now than it was when he wrote the essay, but his assessment was pretty much right–and it also means that poets have abandoned their role as makers of sonorous language that can be appreciated by just about anyone. This is why “spoken word” and rap today are more popular than “poetry.” Rhyme and meter have powerful effects.
But maybe we shouldn’t need rhyme–maybe poetry could have changed and remained relevant. It’s possible that our education system has failed us in this regard by emphasizing technical/job skills over the older model of a liberal arts education, creating an “upper class” that has all the money, but is all but ignorant of their own cultural history. Notice that this change in the American system was somewhat concurrent with the disappearance of rhyme from poetry. I’m not smart enough to figure out what, if anything, that means.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m okay with where “poetry” is, but some of you seem to want a diagnosis, as if this situation were something to be fixed. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. This article presents a somewhat valid perspective, but it is by no means a complete one. I feel that it descends into wishful thinking about the power of poetry at the end. He’s conflating poetry (which does not instruct us on the particulars of how to live) with poets (who tend to be politically idealistic and anti-commercial).
~shrug~ It’s easy to get all riled up about these things, but the fact is that we don’t have enough information to come to a concrete and incontestable truth on the subject. In the meantime, I’m going to continue being what I am and writing what I do.
[…] Laurel Review, Washington Square, and Forklift Ohio. His last essay for HTMLGiant was “Poetry as Site of Resistance” (6/18/09) He lives in New York City. Tags: David Berman, epistemological closure, Jeremy […]
[…] है, उनका शु्क्रिया; चित्र और पाठ यहाँ से […]