April 19th, 2010 / 1:37 pm
Web Hype
Blake Butler
Web Hype
Vanessa Place: Why Conceptualism is Better than Flarf
Tags: flarf, vanessa place
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
~nervous laughter~
~nervous laughter~
P.S. Vanessa speaks like the Aperture Science robot in Portal.
P.S. Vanessa speaks like the Aperture Science robot in Portal.
Some overlap between this and her other AWP talk at the ellipsis panel, especially the stuff about context and the immaterial, which she honed in on there. She embedded a bunch of well-known jokes in her talk, excising the punchlines (or pulling her punches, as it were), allowing the punchlines to resonate in our heads in conspicuous absence, a sort of call non-response. It was interesting. I asked a question during the Q & A about the materiality of the neural pathways unleashed by the jokes in the crowd, which I thought spoke to one significant element of her work, having browsed through La Medusa earlier that day and seeing how much brain is in it. She didn’t seem really interested in talking about neural materiality, though, in her response. At present time reading La Medusa–what a mind blender this thing is. I was digging it casually and then hit the passage about Medusa and her Gorgon siblings on page 87 and that kicked things into overdrive for me.
Some overlap between this and her other AWP talk at the ellipsis panel, especially the stuff about context and the immaterial, which she honed in on there. She embedded a bunch of well-known jokes in her talk, excising the punchlines (or pulling her punches, as it were), allowing the punchlines to resonate in our heads in conspicuous absence, a sort of call non-response. It was interesting. I asked a question during the Q & A about the materiality of the neural pathways unleashed by the jokes in the crowd, which I thought spoke to one significant element of her work, having browsed through La Medusa earlier that day and seeing how much brain is in it. She didn’t seem really interested in talking about neural materiality, though, in her response. At present time reading La Medusa–what a mind blender this thing is. I was digging it casually and then hit the passage about Medusa and her Gorgon siblings on page 87 and that kicked things into overdrive for me.
why flarf is better than conceptualism: http://ululate.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-flarf-is-better-than-conceptualism.html
why flarf is better than conceptualism: http://ululate.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-flarf-is-better-than-conceptualism.html
Anyone who views these two things as the major opposing forces in poetry has already lost.
And so has poetry.
Anyone who views these two things as the major opposing forces in poetry has already lost.
And so has poetry.
Ah well.
Ah well.
Homed in on.
Homed in on.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do like this: “Flarf is a tricked-out unicorn that rides another tricked-out unicorn into eternity.”
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do like this: “Flarf is a tricked-out unicorn that rides another tricked-out unicorn into eternity.”
that was some nerda ass shit voorface teh cake iz a lie bitch!
that was some nerda ass shit voorface teh cake iz a lie bitch!
Is her speech written somewhere? I can’t listen to listen.
*I can’t listen to this.
Is her speech written somewhere? I can’t listen to listen.
*I can’t listen to this.
what are the major opposing forces in poetry?
what are the major opposing forces in poetry?
us vs. them
us vs. them
must there be major opposing forces in poetry?
If there had to be, I’d say something similar to Matthew Simmons above me, except I’d say it was Tony Hoagland vs. Everyone
must there be major opposing forces in poetry?
If there had to be, I’d say something similar to Matthew Simmons above me, except I’d say it was Tony Hoagland vs. Everyone
I’m with Trey in the Let’s All Get Along School vs. We Need Opposing Forces school
I’m with Trey in the Let’s All Get Along School vs. We Need Opposing Forces school
I will brawl for peace.
I will brawl for peace.
Vanessa Place seems really boring. I tried to read her blogging here: http://lesfigues.blogspot.com/search/label/Vanessa%20Place. I’ve copied below every comment from her 17 blog posts that wasn’t spam or made by her. There are 15 of them.
1. I LOVE it! Would you explain a bit about your method?
2. Err, the would be Alexander Pope.
3. Er(r), that would be Alexander Pope.
4. Well, on the surface they seem made for each other. But if you ask me I’m not so sure they’re going to be able to work it out over time.
5. String theory would have China backing up in my drain would it not? I swear I tripped over a bit of that bird’s nest just yesterday…
6. The Make Now Anthology will have more than 100 contributors. It will not be called the UBUWEB Anthology of Conceptual Writing. Kathy Acker is not conceptual just because she plagiarized. I mean, people can call her work what they want, but plagiarism doesn’t automatically make for conceptual. Coleridge plagiarized, a bit. But I seriously don’t want to get into a web argument.
7. Also looking forward to the Make Now Anthology, and rather hoping the definition or presentation of “conceptual” there also has fuzzy borders. Just thinking of appropriation (and this seems to me not the only method of conceptual writing), how much appropriation, and just what kinds of uses or framing of such appropriation, make a work conceptual? I would hope we don’t leap to pin this down too precisely.
8. Whenever it comes to genre definitions, I always think of Wittgenstein’s comment regarding definition that “Isn’t a loose definition often exactly what we need?” This is particularly true in innovative artistic practice, I think, in which one element is often a desire to take a prior definition of a practice and reshape it for new possibilities. And of course the other issue floating around here is that when it comes to anthologies or conferences or anything else regarding a gathering of art work and artists, the definition of a field inevitably implies issues of inclusion and exclusion. Defining a term in a certain way always goes hand in hand with defining what artists and works do or don’t fit the definition. Or as my friend Jeff Hansen once put it, “To edit an anthology is to be hated.” If one is lucky, now and then a few positive things do also happen because of anthologies. But I wouldn’t go getting all hopeful about that.
9. perhaps the idea of what it means to conceive differs by gender?
10. Coleridge was in many ways translating and interpreting (though that is all writing is(and conceptual is in the interpretation, but who cares; it is all oranges and oranges and more oranges)). Though it does not matter everything is always already conceptual when it hits the air of the human brain. Coleridge is an echo. As is everything else that is mired in mimesis–as all writing/language is. So Colerigde loved German philosophy–he worked it into his aesthetics and owned it. Owned it. Whatever that means. I am sure he didn’t think he was fooling anyone that he wrote Biographia Literaria for–such as his homosexual compadre/greatest lover, Wordsworth. All men or mostly men in a volume means that the typical hierarchy is at large and well–but the homosexual love of men it there too. Patriarchy = Homosexuality(and this part is cool). Yes this is fun and games to an extent. Heather Lewis wrote the book Notice. The book is all in the body. All over the body. From the main character who is nameless being raped repeatedly to having her pubic hair and pubic hair pelt removed with a knife. It is sheer laziness that women are not tracked down for anthologies of any sort. and it is hate that keeps them out. Anyway you slice it you can hang that pelt around your neck in a glass vile. a chunk of rotting flesh. a token of the kill.
11. Good to know about this. Poets & Writers now sponsors readings in Tucson (though I’m not sure how read-aloud-able some conceptual poetry is…).
12. Hi Cheryl. With, as Vanessa has said, the “fuzzy box” without walls that conceptual poetry may be, I think plenty of works are quite readable. At the symposium, many were read. Maybe we’ll test this in Tucson, and Chax Press will apply for some of that Poets & Writers funding in the next year.
13. Vanessa, I really liked what you read at our panel. It was good to meet you at the symposium.
14. talking of reading/read-aloud-able One of my favorite sound poems is Charles Bernstein’s 1-100…follow this link to have a listen http://www.ubu.com/sound/bernstein.html. Now this sound poem definitely wouldn’t work on the space of the page.
15. An intriguing post, Vanessa. I’m fascinated–if that’s the way to put it–by your concept here of the “fascist’s fascist,” by which I take you to mean not someone who allies him or herself to fascism out of some combination of confusion, opportunism, or intellectual naivete, but who clear-eyed and knowingly advances the fascist political agenda whenever possible. Who are some other Modernists that you feel deserve the name? I don’t know enough about contemporary Marinetti scholarship to know if he’s been “vivified and applauded” in general, but I can certainly think of one or two cases definitely where that has happened–and it’s certainly one danger that results from trying to see avant garde practice as a pure aestheticism removed from political and cultural frameworks. I also wonder if it might have a little to do with “U.S. hating” Americans (whom I’m not trying to attack here) and others, in that it’s much more common to decry the fascist implications of current U.S. government and corporate actions than to note that similar ideologies are alive and well in other countries, if not so robustly successful at the moment. I mean–and I’m half kidding, but only half–a lot of American writers really would prefer to be in Rome because they believe it’s more sophisticated, which it may well be, and it might be in bad taste to criticize your hosts when there are more high profile targets available. Criticizing Pound is one of the least socially complex ways of distancing oneself from fascism.
Vanessa Place seems really boring. I tried to read her blogging here: http://lesfigues.blogspot.com/search/label/Vanessa%20Place. I’ve copied below every comment from her 17 blog posts that wasn’t spam or made by her. There are 15 of them.
1. I LOVE it! Would you explain a bit about your method?
2. Err, the would be Alexander Pope.
3. Er(r), that would be Alexander Pope.
4. Well, on the surface they seem made for each other. But if you ask me I’m not so sure they’re going to be able to work it out over time.
5. String theory would have China backing up in my drain would it not? I swear I tripped over a bit of that bird’s nest just yesterday…
6. The Make Now Anthology will have more than 100 contributors. It will not be called the UBUWEB Anthology of Conceptual Writing. Kathy Acker is not conceptual just because she plagiarized. I mean, people can call her work what they want, but plagiarism doesn’t automatically make for conceptual. Coleridge plagiarized, a bit. But I seriously don’t want to get into a web argument.
7. Also looking forward to the Make Now Anthology, and rather hoping the definition or presentation of “conceptual” there also has fuzzy borders. Just thinking of appropriation (and this seems to me not the only method of conceptual writing), how much appropriation, and just what kinds of uses or framing of such appropriation, make a work conceptual? I would hope we don’t leap to pin this down too precisely.
8. Whenever it comes to genre definitions, I always think of Wittgenstein’s comment regarding definition that “Isn’t a loose definition often exactly what we need?” This is particularly true in innovative artistic practice, I think, in which one element is often a desire to take a prior definition of a practice and reshape it for new possibilities. And of course the other issue floating around here is that when it comes to anthologies or conferences or anything else regarding a gathering of art work and artists, the definition of a field inevitably implies issues of inclusion and exclusion. Defining a term in a certain way always goes hand in hand with defining what artists and works do or don’t fit the definition. Or as my friend Jeff Hansen once put it, “To edit an anthology is to be hated.” If one is lucky, now and then a few positive things do also happen because of anthologies. But I wouldn’t go getting all hopeful about that.
9. perhaps the idea of what it means to conceive differs by gender?
10. Coleridge was in many ways translating and interpreting (though that is all writing is(and conceptual is in the interpretation, but who cares; it is all oranges and oranges and more oranges)). Though it does not matter everything is always already conceptual when it hits the air of the human brain. Coleridge is an echo. As is everything else that is mired in mimesis–as all writing/language is. So Colerigde loved German philosophy–he worked it into his aesthetics and owned it. Owned it. Whatever that means. I am sure he didn’t think he was fooling anyone that he wrote Biographia Literaria for–such as his homosexual compadre/greatest lover, Wordsworth. All men or mostly men in a volume means that the typical hierarchy is at large and well–but the homosexual love of men it there too. Patriarchy = Homosexuality(and this part is cool). Yes this is fun and games to an extent. Heather Lewis wrote the book Notice. The book is all in the body. All over the body. From the main character who is nameless being raped repeatedly to having her pubic hair and pubic hair pelt removed with a knife. It is sheer laziness that women are not tracked down for anthologies of any sort. and it is hate that keeps them out. Anyway you slice it you can hang that pelt around your neck in a glass vile. a chunk of rotting flesh. a token of the kill.
11. Good to know about this. Poets & Writers now sponsors readings in Tucson (though I’m not sure how read-aloud-able some conceptual poetry is…).
12. Hi Cheryl. With, as Vanessa has said, the “fuzzy box” without walls that conceptual poetry may be, I think plenty of works are quite readable. At the symposium, many were read. Maybe we’ll test this in Tucson, and Chax Press will apply for some of that Poets & Writers funding in the next year.
13. Vanessa, I really liked what you read at our panel. It was good to meet you at the symposium.
14. talking of reading/read-aloud-able One of my favorite sound poems is Charles Bernstein’s 1-100…follow this link to have a listen http://www.ubu.com/sound/bernstein.html. Now this sound poem definitely wouldn’t work on the space of the page.
15. An intriguing post, Vanessa. I’m fascinated–if that’s the way to put it–by your concept here of the “fascist’s fascist,” by which I take you to mean not someone who allies him or herself to fascism out of some combination of confusion, opportunism, or intellectual naivete, but who clear-eyed and knowingly advances the fascist political agenda whenever possible. Who are some other Modernists that you feel deserve the name? I don’t know enough about contemporary Marinetti scholarship to know if he’s been “vivified and applauded” in general, but I can certainly think of one or two cases definitely where that has happened–and it’s certainly one danger that results from trying to see avant garde practice as a pure aestheticism removed from political and cultural frameworks. I also wonder if it might have a little to do with “U.S. hating” Americans (whom I’m not trying to attack here) and others, in that it’s much more common to decry the fascist implications of current U.S. government and corporate actions than to note that similar ideologies are alive and well in other countries, if not so robustly successful at the moment. I mean–and I’m half kidding, but only half–a lot of American writers really would prefer to be in Rome because they believe it’s more sophisticated, which it may well be, and it might be in bad taste to criticize your hosts when there are more high profile targets available. Criticizing Pound is one of the least socially complex ways of distancing oneself from fascism.
I’ll never understand why a genre like poetry, which already has so few readers, is always trying to compartmentalize and turn various factions (huh? really? in poetry?) against each other.
I’ll never understand why a genre like poetry, which already has so few readers, is always trying to compartmentalize and turn various factions (huh? really? in poetry?) against each other.
“Homed” and “hone” get about equal use on Google. “Home” by about 400,000 hits. But that’s pigeons, and I wanted stone-cutting, for sure, hone-slice.
“Homed” and “hone” get about equal use on Google. “Home” by about 400,000 hits. But that’s pigeons, and I wanted stone-cutting, for sure, hone-slice.
Justin, out of curiosity, can you think of any examples of movement/phenomena in poetry you think that the conceptualism/flarf duo block out?
Justin, out of curiosity, can you think of any examples of movement/phenomena in poetry you think that the conceptualism/flarf duo block out?
vanessa place is the polar opposite of boring.
vanessa place is the polar opposite of boring.
The exact fact that it has so few readers is why poets and similar groups do this. It makes you feel more important, that what you a redoing has more relevance or meaning.
The exact fact that it has so few readers is why poets and similar groups do this. It makes you feel more important, that what you a redoing has more relevance or meaning.
On a scale from boring to Vanessa Place, I’d say Vanessa Place is boring.
On a scale from boring to Vanessa Place, I’d say Vanessa Place is boring.
I was on the Flarf list for a couple of weeks, & it was the most fun I ever had!
I was on the Flarf list for a couple of weeks, & it was the most fun I ever had!
What’s the median?
What’s the median?
Zero.
boringVanessa Place
Zero.
boringVanessa Place
something just happened
something just happened
well, i dunno about her blog, but she has one hell of a goddamn motherfucking book, so
well, i dunno about her blog, but she has one hell of a goddamn motherfucking book, so
WHO CAN READ ALL THAT.
“I AM CONVINCED THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH… VANESSA PLACE. OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, SHE IS THE ONE WHO IS NOT OPERATING AT THE APPROPRIATE… LEVEL. CAN ANYONE ELSE SEE IT?? SHE’S NOT… DOING HER JOB??? HELLLOOOO??? I WOULD BE GLAD TO DO HER JOB BUT I’M STUCK IN THIS PLACE COPYING AND PASTING ALL OF THESE BLOG COMMENTS… HELLO!!!! I COULD USE A RAISE HERE!!!!”
WHO CAN READ ALL THAT.
“I AM CONVINCED THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH… VANESSA PLACE. OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, SHE IS THE ONE WHO IS NOT OPERATING AT THE APPROPRIATE… LEVEL. CAN ANYONE ELSE SEE IT?? SHE’S NOT… DOING HER JOB??? HELLLOOOO??? I WOULD BE GLAD TO DO HER JOB BUT I’M STUCK IN THIS PLACE COPYING AND PASTING ALL OF THESE BLOG COMMENTS… HELLO!!!! I COULD USE A RAISE HERE!!!!”
Justin, will you say more about what in flarf and conceptualism prompts you to reject them?
Better yet, hold off on doing so until after you’ve read this.
Justin, will you say more about what in flarf and conceptualism prompts you to reject them?
Better yet, hold off on doing so until after you’ve read this.
I saw KSM read from the Sonograms at AWP a couple years ago in Chicago. I went right up to him afterward and gushed about them, because I thought they were fantastic. But here’s the thing- I liked them because I liked *them*, not because I liked their conceptual conceit. Though I do happen to think that an anagram-atical treatment of Shakespeare’s Sonnets is a pretty sweet idea, what makes them work is not the idea but the execution. To be honest, it would never have occurred to me that flarf was anything other than a sub-set OF conceptualism–basically the shallowest, laziest junk that conceptualism has to offer. And yes, I know that a lot of it is “supposed to” be bad. My position is, if that’s the level of irony we’re playing at, I’d rather not.
If someone can produce a superior work of art (poem/sequence/chapbook/book/etc) then the theoretical underpinnings or inspirations for the project might–MIGHT–be of some interest. Conceptualism’s problem is it wants to go further than putting the cart before the horse–at its heart, I think, it wishes it could dispense with the horse entirely. I’m not interested in sitting in a cart with no horse attached, headed nowhere. That’s just me.
I saw KSM read from the Sonograms at AWP a couple years ago in Chicago. I went right up to him afterward and gushed about them, because I thought they were fantastic. But here’s the thing- I liked them because I liked *them*, not because I liked their conceptual conceit. Though I do happen to think that an anagram-atical treatment of Shakespeare’s Sonnets is a pretty sweet idea, what makes them work is not the idea but the execution. To be honest, it would never have occurred to me that flarf was anything other than a sub-set OF conceptualism–basically the shallowest, laziest junk that conceptualism has to offer. And yes, I know that a lot of it is “supposed to” be bad. My position is, if that’s the level of irony we’re playing at, I’d rather not.
If someone can produce a superior work of art (poem/sequence/chapbook/book/etc) then the theoretical underpinnings or inspirations for the project might–MIGHT–be of some interest. Conceptualism’s problem is it wants to go further than putting the cart before the horse–at its heart, I think, it wishes it could dispense with the horse entirely. I’m not interested in sitting in a cart with no horse attached, headed nowhere. That’s just me.
So we share a common ground of admiration for Kasey’s Sonnagrams. That’s a start. And thank you for disclosing what rubs you the wrong way about flarf — you view it as shallow and lazy, a garbage-in-garbage-out infantile presentation of shit as creative gift. I think you’re mistaking the publicity process for the work, which is a fair response, given that flarf has continuously engaged the publicity process, and therefore you’ve heard enough about it to hate it. I mean, I don’t hear you hating on say Charles Harper Webb, who comes up with a lot of the same effects as flarf by entirely traditional means, or the truly wack genital adornment narratives in David Huddle’s Louisiana State University Press book, Glory River. They’re part of that great undifferentiated mass of poetry you were defending up there earlier in this thread. I like them a lot, but I read everything, and I can tell you they don’t need defending from flarf.
If flarf were just gimmicks or shock effects, I’d be right there with you. I don’t care for much oulipo, for example. I defend its right to exist but my god what nerds. Flarf is something else.
What if flarf isn’t a sub-oulipian procedural, but an attempt to work through the language as it’s actually spoken online… you know, the mirror-to-life argument.
A lot of recent fiction is “supposed to” be bad, too.
So we share a common ground of admiration for Kasey’s Sonnagrams. That’s a start. And thank you for disclosing what rubs you the wrong way about flarf — you view it as shallow and lazy, a garbage-in-garbage-out infantile presentation of shit as creative gift. I think you’re mistaking the publicity process for the work, which is a fair response, given that flarf has continuously engaged the publicity process, and therefore you’ve heard enough about it to hate it. I mean, I don’t hear you hating on say Charles Harper Webb, who comes up with a lot of the same effects as flarf by entirely traditional means, or the truly wack genital adornment narratives in David Huddle’s Louisiana State University Press book, Glory River. They’re part of that great undifferentiated mass of poetry you were defending up there earlier in this thread. I like them a lot, but I read everything, and I can tell you they don’t need defending from flarf.
If flarf were just gimmicks or shock effects, I’d be right there with you. I don’t care for much oulipo, for example. I defend its right to exist but my god what nerds. Flarf is something else.
What if flarf isn’t a sub-oulipian procedural, but an attempt to work through the language as it’s actually spoken online… you know, the mirror-to-life argument.
A lot of recent fiction is “supposed to” be bad, too.
To me there seems to be a serious disconnect between:
1) Vanessa Place the public persona/reader (boring, deadpan, passive/blatant disregard for audience; and talk about disaffection – she makes Tao Lin seem warm and charming)
and
2) Vanessa Place the writer.
What, if any, message in intended in her affect/persona/spoken delivery of words?
Because her words would mean something different if delivered with different affect, I think.
To me there seems to be a serious disconnect between:
1) Vanessa Place the public persona/reader (boring, deadpan, passive/blatant disregard for audience; and talk about disaffection – she makes Tao Lin seem warm and charming)
and
2) Vanessa Place the writer.
What, if any, message in intended in her affect/persona/spoken delivery of words?
Because her words would mean something different if delivered with different affect, I think.
tao lin
tao lin
I don’t find Vanessa Place’s delivery boring at all. There is a performative aspect to her persona, certainly. I have seen her deliver lectures/panels (and seen videos of her reading from La Medusa) and I find her delivery quite mesmerizing and compelling, and often very very funny. Stern, deadpan, somewhat hypnotic, certainly playing at times with the discomfort of the audience/their expectations for a lecture or a reading.
I don’t find Vanessa Place’s delivery boring at all. There is a performative aspect to her persona, certainly. I have seen her deliver lectures/panels (and seen videos of her reading from La Medusa) and I find her delivery quite mesmerizing and compelling, and often very very funny. Stern, deadpan, somewhat hypnotic, certainly playing at times with the discomfort of the audience/their expectations for a lecture or a reading.
I think I’d pick the supposed to be bad, even if it is bad beyond its suppositions, any day over what passes way too easily for the technically superior or the good, which is hardly ever as good or superior as its suppositions. The fundamental problem, which both conceptualism and flarf, in their own respective methods, try to redress is the creeping and ongoing tendency in today’s experimentalism to admit into innovation any well executed piece of prose or poetry no matter how utterly vacuous it is in terms of ideas. And yes there does exist a distance in form and content so that well-written work can be tedious and pernicious work. The problem today, as yesterday, isn’t gimmickry, or thinkership, it’s literature as talent agency.
I think I’d pick the supposed to be bad, even if it is bad beyond its suppositions, any day over what passes way too easily for the technically superior or the good, which is hardly ever as good or superior as its suppositions. The fundamental problem, which both conceptualism and flarf, in their own respective methods, try to redress is the creeping and ongoing tendency in today’s experimentalism to admit into innovation any well executed piece of prose or poetry no matter how utterly vacuous it is in terms of ideas. And yes there does exist a distance in form and content so that well-written work can be tedious and pernicious work. The problem today, as yesterday, isn’t gimmickry, or thinkership, it’s literature as talent agency.
What recent fiction is supposed to be bad?
What recent fiction is supposed to be bad?
“As if poetry were a craft that there is a right way or wrong way to do: in which case, I prefer the wrong way — anything better than the well-wrought epiphany of predictable measure — for at least the cracks and flaws and awkwardnesses show signs of life.” — Charles Bernstein from A POETICS
I think one of my favorite things about flarf is its inability to hide life. By design, there are millions of real voices screaming ridiculous shit from inside a flarf poem. (A natural side effect of trying to harness the internet.) It makes me tingle.
“As if poetry were a craft that there is a right way or wrong way to do: in which case, I prefer the wrong way — anything better than the well-wrought epiphany of predictable measure — for at least the cracks and flaws and awkwardnesses show signs of life.” — Charles Bernstein from A POETICS
I think one of my favorite things about flarf is its inability to hide life. By design, there are millions of real voices screaming ridiculous shit from inside a flarf poem. (A natural side effect of trying to harness the internet.) It makes me tingle.
The Flarf list emails brighten my day.
The Flarf list emails brighten my day.
Lincoln, my point exactly.
Lincoln, my point exactly.
I think that was the “Why Words Matter” panel abt the material and immaterial.
I don’t think Vanessa was on the Ellipsis panel, that was Davis Schneiderman, Deborah DeBlasi… and the moderator, whose name I’m forgetting.
I think that was the “Why Words Matter” panel abt the material and immaterial.
I don’t think Vanessa was on the Ellipsis panel, that was Davis Schneiderman, Deborah DeBlasi… and the moderator, whose name I’m forgetting.
I loved, “Words don’t matter. My formidable suits matter.”
I loved, “Words don’t matter. My formidable suits matter.”
I agree.
I agree.
Hey, Tim,
You’re totally right….the panels got remixed in my mind, I think because Vanessa’s ellipses (i.e. breaking off strategically) were so striking and central to her presentation.
Hey, Tim,
You’re totally right….the panels got remixed in my mind, I think because Vanessa’s ellipses (i.e. breaking off strategically) were so striking and central to her presentation.
Yes, I see what you’re saying. I don’t doubt that her delivery is intentional. A performance aspect, yes, definitely.
But I do find it boring, and not funny in the way that I like funny to be. She does not hyponotize me.
Compelling? Sure, whatever. I do find myself feeling a nagging “why?”.
I am much more interested in her words, and would just as soon read them (outloud or not) for myself, and not listen to/watch her. I find that her delivery disconnects me from the words being delivered.
(I still hold the wish to hear Dave Chapelle read her aloud. “I’m Rick James, bitch!!”)
Guess that suggests my sense of humor.
To each his own.
Yes, I see what you’re saying. I don’t doubt that her delivery is intentional. A performance aspect, yes, definitely.
But I do find it boring, and not funny in the way that I like funny to be. She does not hyponotize me.
Compelling? Sure, whatever. I do find myself feeling a nagging “why?”.
I am much more interested in her words, and would just as soon read them (outloud or not) for myself, and not listen to/watch her. I find that her delivery disconnects me from the words being delivered.
(I still hold the wish to hear Dave Chapelle read her aloud. “I’m Rick James, bitch!!”)
Guess that suggests my sense of humor.
To each his own.
rather than “boring,” my criticism would be that it’s a problem of trying too hard to sound funny/hip. i mean it’s not terrible, i’ve seen worse. but whenever just a bit of the “poetry voice” creeps in to a reading, i get annoyed.
rather than “boring,” my criticism would be that it’s a problem of trying too hard to sound funny/hip. i mean it’s not terrible, i’ve seen worse. but whenever just a bit of the “poetry voice” creeps in to a reading, i get annoyed.
Hmm? I was just trying to get a grasp on who he meant by intentionally boring fiction?
Maybe you meant Bryan though.
Hmm? I was just trying to get a grasp on who he meant by intentionally boring fiction?
Maybe you meant Bryan though.
“What recent fiction is supposed to be bad?”
Home Land, by Sam Lipsyte? ;)
(Just kidding. I don’t think that book is *supposed to* be bad at all…)
“What recent fiction is supposed to be bad?”
Home Land, by Sam Lipsyte? ;)
(Just kidding. I don’t think that book is *supposed to* be bad at all…)
This is a false dichotomy! i refuse to submit!
This is a false dichotomy! i refuse to submit!
shots fired?
who is vanessa place?
shots fired?
who is vanessa place?
I’m hoping that’s some dumb quote you found flarf-mining teenage blogs, Matt.
I’m hoping that’s some dumb quote you found flarf-mining teenage blogs, Matt.
what the fuck is ‘flarf’?
what the fuck is ‘flarf’?
some kind of poetry were you google random shit and paste it together.
some kind of poetry were you google random shit and paste it together.
isn’t that dada poetry with google instead of a dictionary? this has probably been addressed, but I’m not exactly up with the conversation on flarf. why do we need dada again?
Poetry recently had a special flarf section in one of their issues. I remember stumbling upon it and thinking, wow, this is different from Poetry’s normal fare, then I read the blurblet about flarf and understood.
isn’t that dada poetry with google instead of a dictionary? this has probably been addressed, but I’m not exactly up with the conversation on flarf. why do we need dada again?
Poetry recently had a special flarf section in one of their issues. I remember stumbling upon it and thinking, wow, this is different from Poetry’s normal fare, then I read the blurblet about flarf and understood.
flarf… huh… hmm…
flarf… huh… hmm…
They are very remixable panels, and I feel like the panelists would authorize that remix.
I’ve a couple of times found myself constructing a Davis-Lance composite inside my head.
They are very remixable panels, and I feel like the panelists would authorize that remix.
I’ve a couple of times found myself constructing a Davis-Lance composite inside my head.
I’m not fully up w/ the conversation, but my understanding based upon the way someone explained it to me is that the defining characteristic is not randomness but found text from the internet, so that some of it might be dadaistic, but some far more deliberately constructed.
I’m not fully up w/ the conversation, but my understanding based upon the way someone explained it to me is that the defining characteristic is not randomness but found text from the internet, so that some of it might be dadaistic, but some far more deliberately constructed.
oh. I think I understand. sort of. Thanks Tim.
oh. I think I understand. sort of. Thanks Tim.
the real question is, is the world ready for “post-flarf”?
the real question is, is the world ready for “post-flarf”?
“it would never have occurred to me that flarf was anything other than a sub-set OF conceptualism”
second
“it would never have occurred to me that flarf was anything other than a sub-set OF conceptualism”
second
someone should make a mumblecore movie about flarf
someone should make a mumblecore movie about flarf
“I’m hoping that’s some dumb quote you found flarf-mining teenage blogs, Matt.”
nope! that’s my own dumb (and honest) quote.
“I’m hoping that’s some dumb quote you found flarf-mining teenage blogs, Matt.”
nope! that’s my own dumb (and honest) quote.
“why do we need dada again?”
why do we need any art ever? who’s we?
still don’t know who the fuck vanessa place is… dunno if i feel like googling her….
“why do we need dada again?”
why do we need any art ever? who’s we?
still don’t know who the fuck vanessa place is… dunno if i feel like googling her….
good questions matt. by we I meant people who read/write poetry, and meant by the question to ask why we (people who read/write poetry) need dada as in why do we need to repeat a movement we’ve been through already. I think maybe this question is already supposing that we need art, that that question is outside the scope of what I meant? like I don’t meant why do we need it as in will it make us a better person or something, but why do we need it if we are assuming that poetry is necessary already, as in what would a second wave of dada do for poetry? I was being a little bit of an asshole and a little bit sincere. but to be honest with you, I have so little invested in the “debate” over flarf, and I know so little about it, that you probably don’t want to waste your time with me.
good questions matt. by we I meant people who read/write poetry, and meant by the question to ask why we (people who read/write poetry) need dada as in why do we need to repeat a movement we’ve been through already. I think maybe this question is already supposing that we need art, that that question is outside the scope of what I meant? like I don’t meant why do we need it as in will it make us a better person or something, but why do we need it if we are assuming that poetry is necessary already, as in what would a second wave of dada do for poetry? I was being a little bit of an asshole and a little bit sincere. but to be honest with you, I have so little invested in the “debate” over flarf, and I know so little about it, that you probably don’t want to waste your time with me.
Is that what I sound like? That seems about right. I do kinda think there is something wrong with her. I feel like she is being inappropriate or abusive. When I tried to read her stuff, it hurt me. It was like an impenetrable wall of words. I felt very alone. Someone might say “writing SHOULD be antagonistic towards the reader,” but maybe my problem is that her writing seems INDIFFERENT to the reader. Her writing doesn’t seem to give me any reason to not kill myself, and I need that from a writer. The reason I read is to feel less alone and uncertain of the world.
Is that what I sound like? That seems about right. I do kinda think there is something wrong with her. I feel like she is being inappropriate or abusive. When I tried to read her stuff, it hurt me. It was like an impenetrable wall of words. I felt very alone. Someone might say “writing SHOULD be antagonistic towards the reader,” but maybe my problem is that her writing seems INDIFFERENT to the reader. Her writing doesn’t seem to give me any reason to not kill myself, and I need that from a writer. The reason I read is to feel less alone and uncertain of the world.
i hate this, i like this
i hate this, i like this
My favorite part of this video were the tittering, hesitant, hipster/academic/why am I in this room/possibly a poetry reading (I am guessing here) audience.
These reminded me of the fake sports laugh (Reporters who laugh after anything an athlete, or especially a manager or coach, says, no matter how off the timing or meaning or even any relation to wittiness or humor)
You can get these same laughs in later stages of a Tao Lin reading, especially his more conceptual poems.
But they are better here, with the AWP logo and the awkwardness of the presentation. People testing out little chuckles, trying to gauge the room.
I liked it.
My favorite part of this video were the tittering, hesitant, hipster/academic/why am I in this room/possibly a poetry reading (I am guessing here) audience.
These reminded me of the fake sports laugh (Reporters who laugh after anything an athlete, or especially a manager or coach, says, no matter how off the timing or meaning or even any relation to wittiness or humor)
You can get these same laughs in later stages of a Tao Lin reading, especially his more conceptual poems.
But they are better here, with the AWP logo and the awkwardness of the presentation. People testing out little chuckles, trying to gauge the room.
I liked it.
nice perspective
nice perspective
Justin, I agree. So much dog and pony show…
Justin, I agree. So much dog and pony show…
Frankly, no one’s worse than me:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/travis-jeppesen/itchy-homo-or-why-i-am-so-terrible-notes-on-10-year-making-of-suiciders
Frankly, no one’s worse than me:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/travis-jeppesen/itchy-homo-or-why-i-am-so-terrible-notes-on-10-year-making-of-suiciders
this is really interesting. i was pretty blown away by the suiciders excerpt. i think, what it feels like to me, this sort of freedom can really allow the writer to enjoy writing again, maybe for the first time.
this is really interesting. i was pretty blown away by the suiciders excerpt. i think, what it feels like to me, this sort of freedom can really allow the writer to enjoy writing again, maybe for the first time.