Hello John,
Thanks very much for your response.
I have to confess, I've nowhere near your knowledge on the topic of Visual
Poetry.
Is there any chance I could get you to define what it is?
I've seen plenty of it, but I would be hard pressed to describe it to
someone who
had never seen it before...
Thanks,
Pedro
At 10:15 AM 5/25/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Dave & Pedro and all:
>
>Fluxlist is not a poetry site, but "poetry" (that is, playing with
>language for a variety of reasons/ends) is a part of it as it was/is with
>much of Fluxus activity. A listsite is what people make of it and put
>into it. I have no problem with changing the name but calling it Fluxlist
>seems fine, as it's a common point of reference for most people in it.
>
>I don't agree that "concrete poetry has aged the worst" , tho. I prefer
>the broader more inclusive term "visual poetry" (of which concrete poetry
>is a subtype) and in my experience, visual poetry is an extremely dynamic
>international activity, and growing livelier every day. Its history goes
>way back to the very beginnings of writing, and it is in all cultures with
>any form of written language. Much has been written about this. It was
>certainly part of Fluxus, however you want to define that movement. The
>current period of visual poetry you might say begins back at the beginning
>of the 20th century with the Russians. At least the use and
>social/cultural meaning or place of it as a kind of outside or alternative
>or avantgarde art begins about then. The futurists certainly gave it a
>big boost. And I would say Bern Porter does visual poetry, tho he may not
>think of it quite that way (or even care particularly).
>
>The *term* "visual poetry* is fairly recent in general usage; I'm not sure
>who came up with it first. I started using it maybe 20 years ago as a
>general term to include various things like concrete poetry, various kinds
>of drawn or calligraphic poetry, collage poetry, shaped poems,
>etc. Anything in which the visual experience of the text is a major
>element in the work. Of course one could say that ALL poetry may be
>visual in that it includes blank spaces at the ends of lines, which must
>be perceived visually. (Tho that can also be perceived as a marker for
>oral performance)
>
>Some thoughts on the matter...
>
>Onword,
>John
>
>
>
>At 06:33 AM 5/25/01 -0700, you wrote:
>>not sure how to phrase this. i really mean no offensive by it and it's not a
>>direct response to anyone in particular (i skim so fast i don't even know
>>who's who anymore). the question is
>>
>>when did this become a poetry site?
>>
>>i'm not opposed to poetry, but it has little in common with fluxus. you
>>could argue that concrete poetry overlapped into fluxus (a very little) but
>>of all the contributions fluxus made to culture (performance, events,
>>multiples, artists' books, etc) concrete poetry has aged the worst.
>>
>>i think of emmett williams as the only fluxus artist who would identify
>>him/herself as a poet first and foremost. and his output has been
>>consistently mediocre. has anyone /read/ his autobiography? his something
>>else press years (the best things he's done) are completely ignored due to
>>something that happened with dick higgins which he never forgave (an
>>interesting story for those in the know). that which is included, is
>>unbearably dull.
>>
>>i realize i am in the minority when i say that this list would benefit from
>>a more historical perspective. i am not against the idea of new art emerging
>>and being disseminated online. but if the concern is really NEW then start a
>>new forum. why call it fluxus? it's like those boring artists on ebay who
>>try to sell their work as genuine fluxus. it's not continueing a tradition
>>(and who wants to do that, anyway) - it's exploitation.
>>
>>fluxus was just a name chosen at random,from the dictionary. there are many
>>more.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>i'm sure this lives up to my passive/aggressive reputation. forgive me.
