At 12:24 PM 6/21/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Pedro et al:
>Sorry to take so long to respond further to this matter - I've been on a
>retreat (during which I took a field trip to the Sackner Archive of
>Concrete and Visual Poetry in /Miami Beach) - but as to defining What
>visual poetry is, that's a tough one. I tend to think of it as anything
>in which there is a visual element to the work (that is, SEEING it is part
>of the experience). That, however, could well include almost all poetry,
>so I think it also includes a quality of the work which makes it in one
>way or another totemic and/or talismanic. That is, its physical presence
>is part of the thing; it's not just "abstract" like a purely linguistic
>artifact is.
That's useful, yet doesn't cut much out.
It seems that most "non-visual poetry" could be experienced aurally
and not visually without losing too much.
Would you agree with that?
Pedro
>The Sackner archive is AMAZING - there's nothing else like it anywhere.
>
>Onword,
>John
>
