I want to take this seriously. I really do. But this format, this gaudy attempt at second layer of expression, I don't understand it. I have seen others utilize it and I just don't understand it. If you want to illustrate something, pick up a fucking set of watercolours. At the very best it helps highlight parts of the poem or convey certain tones while making the transition to the next group of words. But even then, only the author really understands the intentions of the layout.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't know. I'm an advocate of experimentation with arts on all fronts. But I just...don't agree with it.
On a unrelated note, I've noticed a theme of anatomy and forms of energy (i.e. fire, light, electricity) in your work. Is this intentional?
I'm not quite sure what the problem you actually have with this poem is. Do you just not like concrete poetry as a whole? If so, that's fine, but simply writing it off as a poor attempt at illustration doesn't do it justice. At the same time, I'll admit that most people don't get any more ambitious than simply going "oh here I drew a bunny with ma words lololol". You say you don't understand it, and I don't want to seem pretentious but that much is clear. You make a very good point about how it highlights certain parts or conveys certain tones, but my experimenting here isn't to see how well I can draw: it's to see how well I can utilize white space. Space also influences pacing, the visual association of words with others, the flow of the reader's eye, etc. As it is, this poem definitely needs a lot more work in that regard, and I definitely do as well. As for "only the author really understands the intentions of the layout", I'd argue that only the artist ever really understands their art, and even then that's not always the case. There has been a tendency away from art that is completely transparent, because there's the feeling that if something can be glanced at and immediately understood, why take the time and effort to create it in the first place?
I'm not entirely sure what it is you disagree with though.
As for your final point, I don't intentionally have recurring themes, but some things constantly weigh on my mind and some topics fade in and out of interest.
Concrete poetry, is that what it's called? I don't have a favourable opinion of it, but it's just that: an opinion. I hadn't thought of how it might utilize white space, though.
3 comments:
I want to take this seriously. I really do. But this format, this gaudy attempt at second layer of expression, I don't understand it. I have seen others utilize it and I just don't understand it. If you want to illustrate something, pick up a fucking set of watercolours. At the very best it helps highlight parts of the poem or convey certain tones while making the transition to the next group of words. But even then, only the author really understands the intentions of the layout.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't know. I'm an advocate of experimentation with arts on all fronts. But I just...don't agree with it.
On a unrelated note, I've noticed a theme of anatomy and forms of energy (i.e. fire, light, electricity) in your work. Is this intentional?
I'm not quite sure what the problem you actually have with this poem is. Do you just not like concrete poetry as a whole? If so, that's fine, but simply writing it off as a poor attempt at illustration doesn't do it justice. At the same time, I'll admit that most people don't get any more ambitious than simply going "oh here I drew a bunny with ma words lololol". You say you don't understand it, and I don't want to seem pretentious but that much is clear. You make a very good point about how it highlights certain parts or conveys certain tones, but my experimenting here isn't to see how well I can draw: it's to see how well I can utilize white space. Space also influences pacing, the visual association of words with others, the flow of the reader's eye, etc. As it is, this poem definitely needs a lot more work in that regard, and I definitely do as well. As for "only the author really understands the intentions of the layout", I'd argue that only the artist ever really understands their art, and even then that's not always the case. There has been a tendency away from art that is completely transparent, because there's the feeling that if something can be glanced at and immediately understood, why take the time and effort to create it in the first place?
I'm not entirely sure what it is you disagree with though.
As for your final point, I don't intentionally have recurring themes, but some things constantly weigh on my mind and some topics fade in and out of interest.
Concrete poetry, is that what it's called? I don't have a favourable opinion of it, but it's just that: an opinion. I hadn't thought of how it might utilize white space, though.
Post a Comment