you got me thinking that morphemes are like notes in a score, or some other scoring mark, that must be interpreted by the performer. and there is room for various meanings thru this demand for interpretation. whereas with **** and ****, the indeterminacy in their choir will come from the bodies of participants, different ways their bodies articulate phonemes, express themselves etc.
the “art strike” poem assumes the poem doesn’t have to written at all. that what the poet does is poetry.
I guess if we stop making/talking about poetry it might become more palatable/embodied, even if we still have dirty thots abt poetry
let’s take a Sabbatical and see what happens. let’s do something else and see if anything can be furthered by this.
all we can do really is maladaptation it seems. wherever we are in relation to institutions.
the problem seems that you already are doing what the art strike would ask you to commit to ****. you see yr self as doing this, as I do also to an extent. but there are so many who don’t see things this way. they cld give a shit abt the basic framework/set of terms for our discussion. this shift of seeing seems important in terms of a larger discourse and how to shift whole frameworks. it is about changing the mind-set that breeds the institutional/cultural behaviors we seem stuck with. it is interventionary as opposed to suffusing (since we, and ****, and many others all already suffuse to the nth degree). drawing a line, and pointing at this line. documenting the drama of making this line and pointing at it. documenting what happens when the line is drawn
poetry as Peace Corps? public service? am I being too duty bound?
**** tried to make the argument yesterday for a poetics of hedge-funds. her argument was completely disingenuous and coy, but the proposition is at least in the ballpark.
And by this, an elevation of the poem as something with the power of action, or the decision to undo
Archive
Mobile
RSS
Revista Theme
Tumblr