At Spidertangle there’s been a discussion of how visual poetry sells. Poorly, needless to say. Along the way, John M. Bennett said, “Yes, the discussions about vispo can sometimes be interesting – a game, as you say – - – tho i think what they tend to miss is that the poetry we’re trying to create is much more than simply visuality. for me at least, the poem i try to make functions visually, sonorously, textually, conceptually, formally, metaphysically, metaphorically, ambiguously, performatively, etc etc etc and all equally importantly and at the same time. so from that perspective a discussion about vispo or soundpo or whatever misses most of the picture. or, it’s a game, something sui generis, of interest as a kind of thinking in its own category.”
I added: “Further thoughts: that there are two kinds of poetry: people poetry and a different kind I haven’t thought of a good name for. A people poem either states an opinion about human life which those who like the poem like it because they agree with the opinion; or it expresses a human feeling that those who like it empathize with. The other kind may also express an opinion and/or feeling (actually, it can’t avoid doing this to some degree), but has what I think of as larger interests of the kind John listed. The most important of these for me are aesthetic—what the elements of a given poem are doing rather than what they are saying. I think there is only a very small audience for such poetry, similar to the audience for avant garde music or mathematics.”
