I’m bothered to note that I have failed to blog two days in a row. What really bothers me is that I didn’t even notice I hadn’t blogged. Oh, well, I have something for today.
I scribbled this for the graffiti wall at the Bowery Poetry Club in New York where some of us will be doing some sort of reading 10 July. Go to Gregory Eratio blog to see the wall. (I don’t think my poem is on it although I sent it to John sims, the organizer of the reading and in charge of the wall, and asked him to add it to the wall.
Recently I also wrote the following:
.
. insigh(insigh(insigh)t)t)t
.
I’m not sure what it is. I lean toward believing it “just” the representation of a rilly great insight that expands–and not a mathematical poem although I’d like it to be one.
. . . explan
In my opinion, the first poem would make more sense if the position of “mathematics” and “spring” were reversed. The second is a great parenthetical comment, though I agree not a mathematical function. It is a visual poem in my book, since the meaning does not come across by just reading it aloud–you need to see it.
Thanks for the comments, Connie, but I don’t see (feel?) how multiplying mathematics times number could give you arithmetic. What I think I’m showing is the blossoming of number into arithmetic due to the influence of spring, and joking that mathematics is just arithmetic plus hubris.
And I an ENRAGED at your calling my second piece a visual poem–but forgive you because you may have triggered one of my better responses to the opinion that a poem is visual if you need to see it to appreciate it. The problem with that definition for me is that I believe a visual poem should do something that is of significant direct visual value. It must be significantly visio-aesthetic.
I consider it infraverbal–a poem whose aesthetic effect depends on what is done with its textemes–or textual elements within words–rather than what is done with its words. This term talls us much more what kind of poem it is than “visual poem” would. more important, nothing about it is visio-aesthetic. I would add that actually you don’t need to see it to get it, though it works better seen than declaimed. Spoken, it would be “insigh, open parenthesis, insigh, open parenthesis, insigh, close parenthesis, tuh, close parenthesis, tuh, close parenthesis, tuh.
Similarly my mathemaku about spring and number is not visual because you supposedly have to see it to appreciate it. It can easily be spoken as “number into mathematics gives you spring with a sub-dividend product of arithmetic and a remainder of hubris.” Even if that were not the case, though, the same problem keeps it from being visual poetry: it will not give any normal person direct visual pleasure.
Thanks for giving me a chance to rant for the seven thousand thirty-second time on the definition of poetry.
Bob
I have to agree with Connie on all issues.
Cheers,
K
Wow, Kaz, I find that amazing. It almost makes me not want my poem on the wall. Can you explain how multiplying number by mathematics would give you spring? I do rather like the idea that spring is aritmetic with hubris.
As for visual poetry being any text you have to see to appreciate, all I can say is that it’s taxonomically counter-productive, the point of taxonomy being to try to limit each sub-category to very similar objects, not to get as many objects in it as you can. And I can’t see why one would want to call a poem of no visual interest a visual poem. I guess my basic belief here is that symbolic elements are different from visual elements even though both generally inhabit a page.
–Bob
Bob, thank you for explaining the mathematics poem. What I was initially thinking was that spring is a larger quantity/concept than mathematics, at least on an emotional level. But then again, thinking about spring conjures blooming flowers and chirping birds–basically biology. And all biology is essentially chemistry, all chemistry is in reality physics, and all physics is essentially mathematics, so…maybe the hubris is not unwarranted?? (She said half-joking) Actually, I did sort of get the hubris comment and I liked it.
I was not going to comment further on the hot button issue, except to say that even though you can read the second entry out loud–the hearer still must visualize the words in context with the symbols to get the full meaning. As written, your “insight” is in fact visually interesting, because parentheses are used in an unusal way.
–Connie