Thursday, February 23, 2006
Sometimes, like yesterday, the comments stream is a lot more interesting than the blog note that provoked it. Some of Nada’s comments – that my own poetry could be examined along the axes of those four questions I asked concerning flarf and uncreative writing – were both pointed & to the point.
Still, I found it beyond fascinating that a discussion that could include the first list I’ve ever seen of flarf books – 17 to date – included not one example of uncreative writing, so-called. The only comment I could detect as to why these two literary tendencies – which in some respects appear to have so very much in common – are not instances or faces of the same larger social phenomenon appears to be a question of joy? As in Flarf is fun, Uncreative Writing is not? Let’s take a third literary tendency – Canadian Neo-Oulipo, an example of which might be Christian Bök’s Eunoia – and just think how they run up against these four questions (warning - generalizations ahead):
One set of questions has to do with systematization, the use of computers, games, any sort of gimmickry in the construction of the poem
Uncreative Writing utilizes systems ruthlessly to achieve its goal, such as every weather report for the year 2003, or all of the New York Times, or the uses of thongs in Google.
Flarf uses systems sometimes – Michael Magee’s My Angie Dickinson would seem to be the clearest instance – but more accurately utilizes Google sculpting in a variety of ways to come up with texts, and need not use systems to achieve its effects.
Neo-Oulipo employs systems, but where uncreative writing does so with the eye of an historicist, focusing on the origin of the content, Neo-Oulipo tends to focus on the system itself.
A second set of questions has to do with the anti-aesthetic, the deliberately awful, the troubling.
Flarf is interested in the idea of poetry as kitsch, as well as poetry as linguistic disaster – it’s desire to reach the “so bad it’s good” stage, what I think of as the Ed Wood effect, is not unrelated to some aspects of New York School heritage.
Uncreative Writing is interested in social uses of language on display and seeks, as Kenny Goldsmith has written, to be boring. This seems to be a test of sorts, but it’s a radically different mode of awful than flarf.
Neo-Oulipo is unafraid of beauty. Eunoia has become the best-selling book of poetry in Canadian history precisely because it is so aurally gorgeous.
A third set has to do with the appropriation of non-literary materials.
All art does this to some degree. The Russian Formalists saw it as the historic imperative of new art, to show what has emerged in society.
Uncreative Writing is interested in the non-literary as social documentation. Again, this is the poetics of New Historicism.
Flarf is interested in the non-literary as language – these poets mostly deploy anti-literary discourses, but do so with an aesthetic frame that is fine-tuned to the level of word and phrase. Uncreative Writing might see that as a residual form of creativity and as something to be stamped out.
Neo-Oulipo seems neutral on the issue of social language as a source for its work, but fascinated in identifying new ways of using language that are not necessarily within the traditional frame of literature.
A fourth set has to do with the role of acquaintance & friendship in the creation of literary tendencies.
Flarf came into existence because of the internet – its sense of what is possible here has been fueled by the ways that the web is reorganizing social space. Flarf is not centered around a single strong male personality, such as Bök or Goldsmith.
Uncreative Writing rose earlier and seems only peripherally involved with the internet. Its practitioners are spread out geographically, however, but have made less use of the web in establishing their sense of group identity.
Canadian Neo-Oulipo is the most old-fashioned of these groups, in that it can be placed with regards to specific cities in a way that neither of the other two modes of writing can.
One might argue further that all of these are, to one degree or another, an outgrowth of a broader phenomenon, conceptual poetics, essentially the incursion of conceptual art into poetry. Tho, from John Perrault & Hannah Weiner & Steve Benson, there have been precursors, tho perhaps more performance oriented. Kathy Acker once did a piece that consisted of sending three of her current & former lovers to discuss her. Jim Rosenberg “published” an oscilloscope print-out of one of Pound’s Cantos. He put words on clear plastic that could float in a swimming pool so that readers could paddle from one word to the next. But none of this work took on the quality of literary movement or tendency. But in
Interestingly, while conceptual art was making a large splash in the visual arts world in the
Now, however, we see a similar impulse popping up in group formations, but from the impoverished side of the visual art/poetry border. Nada is not wrong to wonder
And frankly, the endless reification and echoic verbiage on all sides is to me at once totally annoying and utterly flarfy. Like... how did this happen? From
That, Nada, sounds exactly right.
comments:
<< Home
The extent to which most of the reactions in yesterday’s comments box seem to merely rehash purely western attitudes without any apparent understanding of cultural, social and religious development worldwide is troubling to me.
Many on the Flarflist Collective have developed our sense of the meaning of appropriation not simply through western example, but through decades of studying popular, folk, and so-called “ethnic” music worldwide. As any study of music, as it has actually developed throughout the world will reveal, appropriation is what in fact keeps music a living, vital artform in so many cultures.
The impulse to step in to "save" others -- which seems to be the main trust of most of those posting yesterday -- might itself be described as an imperialist gesture. One might recall the many and various instances of U.S. "intervention" here. But, finally, these analogies, from both sides, seem forced.
I personally see no value in retreat. This includes retreating into projections of idealized spaces or selves.
The "Temporary Autonomous Zone" is a purely western idea, one fraught with problems, the most notable of which is that the retreat into an idealized, projected space easily leads to self-marginalization, self-cancellation, auto-irrelevance.
I would also like to recommend to Dan Hoy, in light of what he argues with respect to the use of Google and its presumed trappings, that he consider Santería or La Regla Lucumí, especially its manifestation in the Americas, where it is hidden behind the facade of Catholicism.
Finally, it might be worth suggesting that "ethics" and "morals" may not be quite the same thing. Political correctness, as it is generally understood and practiced in the United States, seems to belong in the latter camp.
I believe in ethical treatment, and I'm certain that most of the Collective does as well. This would seem to require some basic understanding of the cultural, social, and religious development around the world. Moral treatment merely requires that one adhere to a particular culture’s codes.
In the case of many of the comments made yesterday, it is clear that some are conflating expected adherence to western moral codes with a general sense of ethics.
To put it simply: Moral adherence requires, merely, adherence. Ethics requires thought and empathy.
It seems from Tom Orange's statement that he might be unhappy if the Dan Hoy essay resulted in a few of these books produced by the Collective being read by some people. I'm not sure how else to read Tom there.
Obviously, not reading the work itself allows the critic to say, with no responsibility to either reader or artist, anything the critic wishes to say about the work. An engagement with the work, which Tom seems to be decrying against, would make any critic's job infinitely more complicated.
In that light, it is understandable why a critic might find actual engagement with the work untenable. One writes criticism, typically, under deadline, and often -- as I've been told may be the case of Hoy's essay -- out of the simple need to meet an academic requirement.
Finally, as to why my list included the books & articles it included:
The list was simply a catalog of work by people involved in the Collective itself. No other distinction was intended.
--Gary Sullivan
Many on the Flarflist Collective have developed our sense of the meaning of appropriation not simply through western example, but through decades of studying popular, folk, and so-called “ethnic” music worldwide. As any study of music, as it has actually developed throughout the world will reveal, appropriation is what in fact keeps music a living, vital artform in so many cultures.
The impulse to step in to "save" others -- which seems to be the main trust of most of those posting yesterday -- might itself be described as an imperialist gesture. One might recall the many and various instances of U.S. "intervention" here. But, finally, these analogies, from both sides, seem forced.
I personally see no value in retreat. This includes retreating into projections of idealized spaces or selves.
The "Temporary Autonomous Zone" is a purely western idea, one fraught with problems, the most notable of which is that the retreat into an idealized, projected space easily leads to self-marginalization, self-cancellation, auto-irrelevance.
I would also like to recommend to Dan Hoy, in light of what he argues with respect to the use of Google and its presumed trappings, that he consider Santería or La Regla Lucumí, especially its manifestation in the Americas, where it is hidden behind the facade of Catholicism.
Finally, it might be worth suggesting that "ethics" and "morals" may not be quite the same thing. Political correctness, as it is generally understood and practiced in the United States, seems to belong in the latter camp.
I believe in ethical treatment, and I'm certain that most of the Collective does as well. This would seem to require some basic understanding of the cultural, social, and religious development around the world. Moral treatment merely requires that one adhere to a particular culture’s codes.
In the case of many of the comments made yesterday, it is clear that some are conflating expected adherence to western moral codes with a general sense of ethics.
To put it simply: Moral adherence requires, merely, adherence. Ethics requires thought and empathy.
It seems from Tom Orange's statement that he might be unhappy if the Dan Hoy essay resulted in a few of these books produced by the Collective being read by some people. I'm not sure how else to read Tom there.
Obviously, not reading the work itself allows the critic to say, with no responsibility to either reader or artist, anything the critic wishes to say about the work. An engagement with the work, which Tom seems to be decrying against, would make any critic's job infinitely more complicated.
In that light, it is understandable why a critic might find actual engagement with the work untenable. One writes criticism, typically, under deadline, and often -- as I've been told may be the case of Hoy's essay -- out of the simple need to meet an academic requirement.
Finally, as to why my list included the books & articles it included:
The list was simply a catalog of work by people involved in the Collective itself. No other distinction was intended.
--Gary Sullivan
Hi Ron, my guess, as someone who has seen the Collective at work from the inside, is that this:
"Flarf is not centered around a single strong male personality, such as Bök or Goldsmith."
will prove to be more significant than it may currently seem...
"Flarf is not centered around a single strong male personality, such as Bök or Goldsmith."
will prove to be more significant than it may currently seem...
Either you're a LANGUAGE poet or you're not. As much as I might wanna join that club, they're not taking on new members. And without being on the flarflist and being in on that exchange, it's silly to lump in unconnected artists. The 3rd singer from Van Halen, it would be stupid for him to have claimed to be in Van Halen all along. Or to be in it now. He was in it for a few weeks and then SEE YA. The tone of flarf work seems to be the key to those approaches. It is not important for that term to be big tent: it's a specific thing. Patrick Herron and the uncreatives can use another literary term: Smamfreddy. You can use that...
xxxjimmy
xxxjimmy
Add to my list of yesterday, the following forthcoming titles:
Boyer, Anne, Poundcasts (Typo/ Narwhal Press, forthcoming)
Peterson, Tim, [title still TK] (Chax Press, forthcoming)
Smith, Rod, You Bête (Interrupting Cow, forthcoming)
--Gary Sullivan
Boyer, Anne, Poundcasts (Typo/ Narwhal Press, forthcoming)
Peterson, Tim, [title still TK] (Chax Press, forthcoming)
Smith, Rod, You Bête (Interrupting Cow, forthcoming)
--Gary Sullivan
gary,
sales of poetry books never make me unhappy, quite the contrary!
i was just observing that hoy's essay and the ensuing controversy -- this happens all the time, with everything from "the passion of the christ" to james frey -- may end up being the best thing that ever happened to flarf in terms of book sales, because now believers and skeptics alike have the impetus, the prescription even
("These should be read by anyone who wonders..." you wrote) to buy and read the books.
one could read cynical intent into my calling it a "marketing strategy," but i wouldn't put too much stock in that. (i've heard anecdotal speculation among flarfers that hoy was a plant too.) in the world of publication, poetry is business, that's a fact of realpoetik. i'm not dissing that.
and i would never discourage engagement with any work a reader/critic feels compelled to engage. i don't see where anything i said would lead one to that conclusion.
bests,
t.
sales of poetry books never make me unhappy, quite the contrary!
i was just observing that hoy's essay and the ensuing controversy -- this happens all the time, with everything from "the passion of the christ" to james frey -- may end up being the best thing that ever happened to flarf in terms of book sales, because now believers and skeptics alike have the impetus, the prescription even
("These should be read by anyone who wonders..." you wrote) to buy and read the books.
one could read cynical intent into my calling it a "marketing strategy," but i wouldn't put too much stock in that. (i've heard anecdotal speculation among flarfers that hoy was a plant too.) in the world of publication, poetry is business, that's a fact of realpoetik. i'm not dissing that.
and i would never discourage engagement with any work a reader/critic feels compelled to engage. i don't see where anything i said would lead one to that conclusion.
bests,
t.
Sullivan raises some interesting points:
"rehash purely western attitudes"
The reference to a "western" mystique seems oddly inappropriate to me. Is Flarf then to be regarded as a kind of pan-theistic, cross-cultural phenomenon, with its own broad ethical distinctions (or tolerance)? Trying to criticize from a position of cultural difference, would seem to narrow the focus, rather than clarify it.
"appropriation is what in fact keeps music a living, vital artform in so many cultures"
I fail to see how the process of imitation which has always been apparent in the descent of musical style would be interpreted as a special quality of flarf. At the least, we need more specificity in this assertion.
"One might recall the many and various instances of U.S. "intervention" here"
The idea that a search engine (or an attitude towards the concoction of an art form derived from it) could be regarded as an "imperialist" intervention is a paranoid delusion. These are parallel conditions, not opposing sides of a dilemma.
"I personally see no value in retreat"
It seems an enormous presumption to consider a reservation about the value of secondary or "derived" aesthetic construction as a form of "retreat." Aesthetic engagement is not--or not simply or importantly--a conflict. To dismiss a body of work does not necessarily constitute a retreat; I'm not retreating from Billy Collins, I'm just not going to read him because he's boring. It can be, and usually is, that simple.
"This includes retreating into projections of idealized spaces or selves"
This seems the most naive dismissal of Western Art & Literature ever. In the New World, there will be no authors ,with the prickly egos and "problematic" spaces. There will only be anonymous, disembodied works--eerily ungrammatical, non-syntactic, gratuitously suggestive word "sculptures", without form or historical trappings, the unintended and unplanned products of mechanical programming devices.
""Temporary Autonomous Zone" is a purely western idea, one fraught with problems, the most notable of which is that the retreat into an idealized, projected space easily leads to self-marginalization, self-cancellation, auto-irrelevance"
I can see how, with this relevation, that what all Western writing has been for the last 3000 years, is pitiful self-delusion, cancellation, and auto-irrelevance. This is why literature as we know it is dead. Computers have killed it. Search engines made from programs have killed it. And not a moment too soon.
"An engagement with the work, which Tom seems to be decrying against, would make any critic's job infinitely more complicated"
"decrying against" is redundant and ungrammatical. The sarcasm here is withering. If I were Hoy, I'd head for cover fast, not because I hadn't sampled the merchandise, but because my subject had morphed into Darth Vader. I know that I need to be more ethical, not just moral. My sympathies are much looser than my morals will allow.
If I had to depend upon Sullivan to provide a pretext for investigating the "Collective", I would doubtless proceed with caution and skepticism. It is always important to know before-hand, what one's liabilities and shortcomings are, and what inherent dangers and pitfalls await the unsuspecting reader. Flarf isn't just for anyone. An initiation would seem in order. A helmet might be useful, or an asbestos suit.
Hoist the Jolly Roger, you're entering my Temporary Autonomous Zone. I rule this Zone. I rent it from Walt Disney, and it ain't cheap. Duck your head--the entrance is low.
"rehash purely western attitudes"
The reference to a "western" mystique seems oddly inappropriate to me. Is Flarf then to be regarded as a kind of pan-theistic, cross-cultural phenomenon, with its own broad ethical distinctions (or tolerance)? Trying to criticize from a position of cultural difference, would seem to narrow the focus, rather than clarify it.
"appropriation is what in fact keeps music a living, vital artform in so many cultures"
I fail to see how the process of imitation which has always been apparent in the descent of musical style would be interpreted as a special quality of flarf. At the least, we need more specificity in this assertion.
"One might recall the many and various instances of U.S. "intervention" here"
The idea that a search engine (or an attitude towards the concoction of an art form derived from it) could be regarded as an "imperialist" intervention is a paranoid delusion. These are parallel conditions, not opposing sides of a dilemma.
"I personally see no value in retreat"
It seems an enormous presumption to consider a reservation about the value of secondary or "derived" aesthetic construction as a form of "retreat." Aesthetic engagement is not--or not simply or importantly--a conflict. To dismiss a body of work does not necessarily constitute a retreat; I'm not retreating from Billy Collins, I'm just not going to read him because he's boring. It can be, and usually is, that simple.
"This includes retreating into projections of idealized spaces or selves"
This seems the most naive dismissal of Western Art & Literature ever. In the New World, there will be no authors ,with the prickly egos and "problematic" spaces. There will only be anonymous, disembodied works--eerily ungrammatical, non-syntactic, gratuitously suggestive word "sculptures", without form or historical trappings, the unintended and unplanned products of mechanical programming devices.
""Temporary Autonomous Zone" is a purely western idea, one fraught with problems, the most notable of which is that the retreat into an idealized, projected space easily leads to self-marginalization, self-cancellation, auto-irrelevance"
I can see how, with this relevation, that what all Western writing has been for the last 3000 years, is pitiful self-delusion, cancellation, and auto-irrelevance. This is why literature as we know it is dead. Computers have killed it. Search engines made from programs have killed it. And not a moment too soon.
"An engagement with the work, which Tom seems to be decrying against, would make any critic's job infinitely more complicated"
"decrying against" is redundant and ungrammatical. The sarcasm here is withering. If I were Hoy, I'd head for cover fast, not because I hadn't sampled the merchandise, but because my subject had morphed into Darth Vader. I know that I need to be more ethical, not just moral. My sympathies are much looser than my morals will allow.
If I had to depend upon Sullivan to provide a pretext for investigating the "Collective", I would doubtless proceed with caution and skepticism. It is always important to know before-hand, what one's liabilities and shortcomings are, and what inherent dangers and pitfalls await the unsuspecting reader. Flarf isn't just for anyone. An initiation would seem in order. A helmet might be useful, or an asbestos suit.
Hoist the Jolly Roger, you're entering my Temporary Autonomous Zone. I rule this Zone. I rent it from Walt Disney, and it ain't cheap. Duck your head--the entrance is low.
I find it difficult to see Hoy's dim google lecture a real boon (not like sitting across the couch from a furious Oprah): Joyelle McSweeney's Constant Critic piece is waaay smarter.
xxxjimmy
xxxjimmy
Thanks, Tom. And I apologize that I misread your comment.
Just for the record, I don't believe Hoy to be a plant, myself. My sense -- merely a sense -- is that the piece was written as part of an academic requirement, and under deadline.
This at least explains to me why, for instance, he didn't bother contacting anyone involved with Collective prior to writing his piece. (It would simply take too much time.)
That said, I do believe he is interested in Internet culture, and poetry, generally.
But had he simply wrote to a few of us with some well-considered questions, he would have realized that his basic premise -- that we do not understand the tools we are working with -- was wrong.
He claims not to be interested in writing about the work in that essay. But then, after speculating incorrectly about what we are up to & why, he uses the fruits of this mere speculation to beat the one or two examples of the work he's bothered to read (via Google, one wonders?) over the head.
I can imagine this sort of approach from someone under deadline to get a paper in. I can't imagine it from someone genuinely interested in developing their critical chops.
I could be wrong, though.
--Gary Sullivan
Just for the record, I don't believe Hoy to be a plant, myself. My sense -- merely a sense -- is that the piece was written as part of an academic requirement, and under deadline.
This at least explains to me why, for instance, he didn't bother contacting anyone involved with Collective prior to writing his piece. (It would simply take too much time.)
That said, I do believe he is interested in Internet culture, and poetry, generally.
But had he simply wrote to a few of us with some well-considered questions, he would have realized that his basic premise -- that we do not understand the tools we are working with -- was wrong.
He claims not to be interested in writing about the work in that essay. But then, after speculating incorrectly about what we are up to & why, he uses the fruits of this mere speculation to beat the one or two examples of the work he's bothered to read (via Google, one wonders?) over the head.
I can imagine this sort of approach from someone under deadline to get a paper in. I can't imagine it from someone genuinely interested in developing their critical chops.
I could be wrong, though.
--Gary Sullivan
Dear flarfs, a question from an innocent bystander frm Amsterdam - have you guys ever discussed anthologising? Or was the A-word to be avoided?
(incidentally, the word verification for this comment is the word "gaxed", which I find very suggestive and beautiful and describes more or less how I feel, it definitely ought to be in the English language if it isn't already)
(incidentally, the word verification for this comment is the word "gaxed", which I find very suggestive and beautiful and describes more or less how I feel, it definitely ought to be in the English language if it isn't already)
Hi Curtis,
I do feel a strong connection with non-western cultural production, in great part because it's what I've mostly been preoccupied with in the last decade or so. It's not a lens through which I would expect anyone to read flarf, generally.
I am indeed personally dismayed -- and I speak only for myself here -- at seeing so much emphasis put on western ideas in this debate, not because there is anything wrong with them, but I suppose out of a general frustration that nothing else ever seems to be considered in these debates.
Other cultures have indeed informed my own writing & my attitudes towards it. I had to delete my blog, Elsewhere, for work-related reasons, but for three or four years I was trying to use it as a way of opening up discussion about contemporary American poetry to include Bollywood, Arabic music, Japanese manga, etc., etc., etc.
My work has been informed to great extent by all of it. It's just frustrating to have to answer to attacks on my work that come largely out of western ideology or moral positioning, when I'm not really able, or interested, in doing that -- my head is elsewhere.
If you want, I'll send you a copy of my comic, Elsewhere. It might make my own concerns, or at least where I'm coming from, somewhat clearer.
If interested, send your address to me via e-mail: gpsullivan at hotmail dot com.
I do feel a strong connection with non-western cultural production, in great part because it's what I've mostly been preoccupied with in the last decade or so. It's not a lens through which I would expect anyone to read flarf, generally.
I am indeed personally dismayed -- and I speak only for myself here -- at seeing so much emphasis put on western ideas in this debate, not because there is anything wrong with them, but I suppose out of a general frustration that nothing else ever seems to be considered in these debates.
Other cultures have indeed informed my own writing & my attitudes towards it. I had to delete my blog, Elsewhere, for work-related reasons, but for three or four years I was trying to use it as a way of opening up discussion about contemporary American poetry to include Bollywood, Arabic music, Japanese manga, etc., etc., etc.
My work has been informed to great extent by all of it. It's just frustrating to have to answer to attacks on my work that come largely out of western ideology or moral positioning, when I'm not really able, or interested, in doing that -- my head is elsewhere.
If you want, I'll send you a copy of my comic, Elsewhere. It might make my own concerns, or at least where I'm coming from, somewhat clearer.
If interested, send your address to me via e-mail: gpsullivan at hotmail dot com.
There has never been a short cut to good writing. Stealing was often useful. Chance methods got some press. But mechanical devices with soft search engines hold promise.
I think Berrigan beat us to it with The Sonnets.
In the meantime, I'm sticking by my guns.
You guys are fakes.
********************************
You just posted an overture. OK. faville@batnet.com
I think Berrigan beat us to it with The Sonnets.
In the meantime, I'm sticking by my guns.
You guys are fakes.
********************************
You just posted an overture. OK. faville@batnet.com
If anyone was ever in need of being pushed down a flight of stairs by girl scouts, it is the Bore Curtis Faville. They shall come bearing cookies! And your demise!
xxxjimmy
xxxjimmy
Hey * I don't see where Patrick Herron wants either himself or me for that matter to be called a Flarfist. Where did you gather that? Or an uncreative--does he want to be considered an uncreative? Do I want to be considered an uncreative? Hmm. But the latter, maybe I just don't understand the term "uncreative." In hindsight our work does have more in common with Goldsmith's or Peters', but my work and Patrick's has so many voices they lack any sort of consistency, whether it be consistency of line, texture, vocabulary, appropriation, automatism, spelling, and especially quality. The only stuff central or consistent seems to be a diavowal of the singular voice and the function of linguistic familiarity, distance, gesture. It's why he called it "proximism," and clearly he needed medication badly. Poets who start explaining their poetics in novel political theories are simply not to be trusted.
Gary, if Hoy wanted to interview human subjects for a literary study in an academic setting, wouldn't he have to fill out a sort of internal review board document that would take like days to fill out and weeks to get approval on? At my university any research on human subjects--which includes anonymous unstructured interviews of human "subjects"--requires an ethics review before a student or faculty member can proceed. God that would be a pain in the ass & sure would take too much time indeed as you say.
But there's something else a bit strange about your expectation of being consulted. People quite often review literary work without interviewing the author. I'd say that's the norm rather than the exception. I've had my books reviewed without being consulted. So what. I mean, that's a bizarro expectation, isn't it, to think the Collective should be consulted before one speaks of said Collective's labours? that sounds like a Flarfy directive turned upside-down.
Further, truth be told, I haven't seen evidence that Flarfists *do* thoroughly understand the tools they're working with (other than the tool of the written language). But from what I understand, that shouldn't matter, according to other Flarfists, and even according to your own backchannel take, that it's all really jokes between friends. And that's the core difference of opinion: whether the lack of understanding matters or not. The public highseriousness IS Flarf, but is Flarf still Flarf when Flarf gets greedy about public perceptions?
Gary, if Hoy wanted to interview human subjects for a literary study in an academic setting, wouldn't he have to fill out a sort of internal review board document that would take like days to fill out and weeks to get approval on? At my university any research on human subjects--which includes anonymous unstructured interviews of human "subjects"--requires an ethics review before a student or faculty member can proceed. God that would be a pain in the ass & sure would take too much time indeed as you say.
But there's something else a bit strange about your expectation of being consulted. People quite often review literary work without interviewing the author. I'd say that's the norm rather than the exception. I've had my books reviewed without being consulted. So what. I mean, that's a bizarro expectation, isn't it, to think the Collective should be consulted before one speaks of said Collective's labours? that sounds like a Flarfy directive turned upside-down.
Further, truth be told, I haven't seen evidence that Flarfists *do* thoroughly understand the tools they're working with (other than the tool of the written language). But from what I understand, that shouldn't matter, according to other Flarfists, and even according to your own backchannel take, that it's all really jokes between friends. And that's the core difference of opinion: whether the lack of understanding matters or not. The public highseriousness IS Flarf, but is Flarf still Flarf when Flarf gets greedy about public perceptions?
I was dissapointed to check back into the comment blog this afternoon -- this morning I thought "the Flarf Files" was the collective voice of all things Flarfy (all the 'we' and 'our' and etc): either the underlying overvoice of the entire project, or else all committed Flarfers in a room together around the same laptop, each offering a flarfy finger in true collective utterance.
But then I checked back in now and see that it's just Gary . . .
Wait . . let's get back to the lack of a central male presence in Flarf.
But then I checked back in now and see that it's just Gary . . .
Wait . . let's get back to the lack of a central male presence in Flarf.
When are the Flarfists going to let everyone know they're just being Flarfed? Don't people get that they're being put on when Tim whips out Nada's artificial walrus dick amidst discussion? So by continuing this discussion, aren't you just Flarfing me? And everyone else reading this?
I mean, Patrick Flarfed an entire town with a shitty poem wholly written by design to the tastes of the contest judge. The worst fucking poem imaginable. And it made him Poet Laureate. But he used the opportunity to take the local folks out of the dark ages of poetry (southern school of quietude crap, readings full of sleeping people taking their cultural medicine) and bring them some damn good poets--people like Murat and Linh and Bok--he used the title to create the Carrboro Poetry Festival. And then at the end of his reign har har he told everyone they'd been Flarfed. He didn't use that word, but since that's the right word for it.... The poem was not a personal confession, he told them. this confession of making love to the pavement of the town was a fucking joke. that the poem was absolutely horrid, and by now some of them should have heard enough poetry other than redneck soq to know. Heck that winning poem, it wasn't even anywhere near the sort of thing he wrote. He lifted entire tropes from the favorite local poet of the contest judge. Southern SoQ. Zzzzz. But he let them known the joke was on them. Either that, or he should start believing the bullshit. Because when you run a big festival, there's no end to the amount of bullshit sunshine being blown up your ass. It can get disgusting how people jockey to be in the Festival.
When are you going to let *us* know that the Flarf critique is Flarf? That Basboll is the most unwitting dupe to being Flarfed? I mean, we actually read poetry and stay awake at poetry readings. Some of us in the audience do have a pulse. I'm a dummy and I at least can hear.
Or are you starting to *believe* the bullshit? Isn't that the real; issue here? It seems to me that you are. Maybe Ron thinks *everyone* believes the bullshit, and maybe he does too, maybe the UPenn people and the Village Voice people and publishers and bloggers here and there believe it, but it's clear that *not* everyone believes it.
I mean, Patrick Flarfed an entire town with a shitty poem wholly written by design to the tastes of the contest judge. The worst fucking poem imaginable. And it made him Poet Laureate. But he used the opportunity to take the local folks out of the dark ages of poetry (southern school of quietude crap, readings full of sleeping people taking their cultural medicine) and bring them some damn good poets--people like Murat and Linh and Bok--he used the title to create the Carrboro Poetry Festival. And then at the end of his reign har har he told everyone they'd been Flarfed. He didn't use that word, but since that's the right word for it.... The poem was not a personal confession, he told them. this confession of making love to the pavement of the town was a fucking joke. that the poem was absolutely horrid, and by now some of them should have heard enough poetry other than redneck soq to know. Heck that winning poem, it wasn't even anywhere near the sort of thing he wrote. He lifted entire tropes from the favorite local poet of the contest judge. Southern SoQ. Zzzzz. But he let them known the joke was on them. Either that, or he should start believing the bullshit. Because when you run a big festival, there's no end to the amount of bullshit sunshine being blown up your ass. It can get disgusting how people jockey to be in the Festival.
When are you going to let *us* know that the Flarf critique is Flarf? That Basboll is the most unwitting dupe to being Flarfed? I mean, we actually read poetry and stay awake at poetry readings. Some of us in the audience do have a pulse. I'm a dummy and I at least can hear.
Or are you starting to *believe* the bullshit? Isn't that the real; issue here? It seems to me that you are. Maybe Ron thinks *everyone* believes the bullshit, and maybe he does too, maybe the UPenn people and the Village Voice people and publishers and bloggers here and there believe it, but it's clear that *not* everyone believes it.
Believes *your* bullshit, Puppy? Because no one's on board there...sit back, shut up and enjoy the flarf...
xxxjimmy
xxxjimmy
Although I do hope the wounded & jealous comment character you've created is part of some 1,000 page epic poem you've been working on for hours.
Otherwise you might try a little Scope.
xxxjimmy
Otherwise you might try a little Scope.
xxxjimmy
Sorry to disappoint you, Tony.
Curtis, I know exactly what you mean when you say "you guys are fakes." It's what I would have said in the 80s about language writing, had there been blogs and comments boxes.
Fortunately, there weren't. As I wound up reading & loving a lot of the people associated with the movement or trend over the years since then.
--Gary Sullivan
Curtis, I know exactly what you mean when you say "you guys are fakes." It's what I would have said in the 80s about language writing, had there been blogs and comments boxes.
Fortunately, there weren't. As I wound up reading & loving a lot of the people associated with the movement or trend over the years since then.
--Gary Sullivan
You're right, *, no one believes my bullshit. You tell the truth! You're right, so right. I never was a very good salesman. Whatever you sell, I buy entirely. I love you. You are very handsome. You are most textually alpha and I defer.
I prefer listerine. Do you like puppets who smell like listerine? Oh! The Places My Arm Can Go!
Oh, by the way, can you send me that link of you in your underwear again? That's hott. Two t's, to tease, hott. I never imagined what a neuter porn star would look like, that smooth Ken-doll pelvis, but with more hair! Hott. Perfect for a puppet like me to have sex with. We could procreate and create two-headed self-cannibalizing dollies! I love you! Spectacular.
I prefer listerine. Do you like puppets who smell like listerine? Oh! The Places My Arm Can Go!
Oh, by the way, can you send me that link of you in your underwear again? That's hott. Two t's, to tease, hott. I never imagined what a neuter porn star would look like, that smooth Ken-doll pelvis, but with more hair! Hott. Perfect for a puppet like me to have sex with. We could procreate and create two-headed self-cannibalizing dollies! I love you! Spectacular.
Because I'm a fan of the bitterness poets show to other poets when other poets get *coverage*. God knows I am, monkey. As if their *coverage* precludes your *coverage*. Hire a publicist! I could probably get you the May cover of ASSHOLE magazine...backchannel me, woody.
xxxjimmy
xxxjimmy
Touch my monkey.
Monkey see, monkey do.
What you monkey, all you monkey.
The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him.
More giddy in my desires than a monkey.
Lecherous as a monkey, and the whores called him mandrake.
The strain of man's bred out into baboon and monkey.
And there I saw a monkey. Just like me.
Monkey see, monkey do.
What you monkey, all you monkey.
The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him.
More giddy in my desires than a monkey.
Lecherous as a monkey, and the whores called him mandrake.
The strain of man's bred out into baboon and monkey.
And there I saw a monkey. Just like me.
i have *no* coverage. because i suck. that's why people steal from me and call it their own, and then get plenty o coverage calling it their own in ivy institutions and the Village Voice. god I want tenure as a poetry professor. my life's ambition, to hand out my little annotated editions. that, and i live in a little redneck village surrounded by other monkeys who suck.
all this, because apparently attribution is an unreasonable request. then the rubber tongue rolls out! i am jealous underneath it all; i'm not asking the little university employers to contemplate issues of plagiarism.
i won't tell anyone you date-raped me, promise.
ninny ninny, poo poo, etc etc etc
you've been FLARFED. not only did i invent flarf. I gave birth to all of them. thery were no one until they came into my presence. I AM YOUR FATHER, BURRLEE.
Now go to your room and draw an insolent little cartoon about it. You must destroy me. Follow your phallic impulse, oh my favorite hairy kenn-doll. Destroy me. Make love to me, naegatively so.
all this, because apparently attribution is an unreasonable request. then the rubber tongue rolls out! i am jealous underneath it all; i'm not asking the little university employers to contemplate issues of plagiarism.
i won't tell anyone you date-raped me, promise.
ninny ninny, poo poo, etc etc etc
you've been FLARFED. not only did i invent flarf. I gave birth to all of them. thery were no one until they came into my presence. I AM YOUR FATHER, BURRLEE.
Now go to your room and draw an insolent little cartoon about it. You must destroy me. Follow your phallic impulse, oh my favorite hairy kenn-doll. Destroy me. Make love to me, naegatively so.
it's soooo cute wittle burlee! do that AGAIN! i sure wish you could make it bigger. ahh i dare to dream.
obviously you have a problem with alternative sexuality. is that why you must thrust your pee pee upon me? o cute little rapist.
obviously you have a problem with alternative sexuality. is that why you must thrust your pee pee upon me? o cute little rapist.
Hi Ron. I don't think anybody on HumPo ever suggested that Linh Dinh's work was "deliberately flarfy," if by that you mean that Linh was in some way nodding toward the poems of the flarf collective when he wrote his own.
I'd been examining some of the claims made for flarf, specifically these words from Gary Sullivan's blog: "The poetics of flarf harkens back to John Wieners' statement about how he wrote his own work, which--to paraphrase--was 'I think of the most embarrassing thing I can, and write it down.'"
This struck me as very far off the mark, as much as I love some flarf poems. The best ones are scathing and hilarious but don't seem (to me anyway) to be drawn from a well of embarrassment. Linh's poems, on the other hand, do immediately come to mind in light of the Wieners statement, and I brought a couple of them in to our discussion at HumPo as examples.
Katie Degentesh then said that Linh's work struck her as "flarfy," but I don't think she meant that Linh was writing "flarf," narrowly defined, in an intentional way. Katie can correct me if I'm wrong.
Just wanted to put this on the record--more to come of course when we publish the HumPo files!
I'd been examining some of the claims made for flarf, specifically these words from Gary Sullivan's blog: "The poetics of flarf harkens back to John Wieners' statement about how he wrote his own work, which--to paraphrase--was 'I think of the most embarrassing thing I can, and write it down.'"
This struck me as very far off the mark, as much as I love some flarf poems. The best ones are scathing and hilarious but don't seem (to me anyway) to be drawn from a well of embarrassment. Linh's poems, on the other hand, do immediately come to mind in light of the Wieners statement, and I brought a couple of them in to our discussion at HumPo as examples.
Katie Degentesh then said that Linh's work struck her as "flarfy," but I don't think she meant that Linh was writing "flarf," narrowly defined, in an intentional way. Katie can correct me if I'm wrong.
Just wanted to put this on the record--more to come of course when we publish the HumPo files!
See Nada Gordon's academic paper written in the 1980s on Bernadette Mayer, here: http://home.jps.net/~nada/mayer1.htm
She interviewed Bernadette, and a few other associated poets, by mail, as part of an effort to deepen her understanding of Bernadette's work. I believe some of her interview is in the paper, identified as such.
--Gary Sullivan
She interviewed Bernadette, and a few other associated poets, by mail, as part of an effort to deepen her understanding of Bernadette's work. I believe some of her interview is in the paper, identified as such.
--Gary Sullivan
I think both Jimmy and little Jimmy are getting too much coverage.
Here's a question: is some use of a search engine engine necessary for flarf? Is an intentionality of pranksterism necessary for flarf? Much of the flarfy writing I've seen is very similar to what i write when in a hypnagogic state. Would it be 'flarfy' to submit this writing as search-engine generated, if only as an aid to its publication?
Here's a question: is some use of a search engine engine necessary for flarf? Is an intentionality of pranksterism necessary for flarf? Much of the flarfy writing I've seen is very similar to what i write when in a hypnagogic state. Would it be 'flarfy' to submit this writing as search-engine generated, if only as an aid to its publication?
Gary -
Reading from one of those links (the first one, the intro) paper makes me think that Flarf might be more properly undersood as an extension of New York School rather than Langpo. (Partaking of both, ultimately, but maybe one a little more than another?) To wit, what Nada wrote: "It is important to keep in mind what the writers of the New York School were reacting to and against: the overbearing erudition and political conservatism of Eliot, the manic and fascistic demands of Pound, the squeaky-clean rhymed translations of Wilber, the recommendations of the New Critics that the poem be considered as an object-in-itself, eternal, out of time, divorceable from the conditions of the life in which it was conceived."
This is why I'm calling BS on Flarf, because I think that descriptions of Flarf seem to be true of Flarf, but *up to a point*. I wouldn't say that Google is paradigmatic of Flarf, but pranksterism *is*. Flarf seems punk, or at least it did seem punk. But then that punk seems to vanish...like if the Yes Men stopped kidding without telling us.
Incidentally, back when I was formulating my own crappy poetic (see Behrle, Jim for an analysis), I gleaned the dimension of confrontationalism from the video work of Vito Acconci. It was only after I was writing in such a vain for a while that Alan Sondheim let me know about Mayer's relationship with Acconci on 0 to 9 and the fact that Acconci was a poet before he was making films and environments.
Can you or Nada compare/contrast Bernadette's own work with Acconci's writing? I don't have *any* examples of Acconci's writing, so I'm truly interested in what someone who might know has to say about it. I owe so much (of nothing? see Behrle, Jim) to Acconci, and maybe to Mayer as well....
I imagine there's some issue of *materiality* involved, of tweaking the substance being exchanged for effect, letting you know *it's a body.* That's a huge part of Acconci's fimmaking and it seems to be to figure large in Mayer's work. And then that's where I read another connection between Flarf and NYPo and Langpo all at once.
Reading from one of those links (the first one, the intro) paper makes me think that Flarf might be more properly undersood as an extension of New York School rather than Langpo. (Partaking of both, ultimately, but maybe one a little more than another?) To wit, what Nada wrote: "It is important to keep in mind what the writers of the New York School were reacting to and against: the overbearing erudition and political conservatism of Eliot, the manic and fascistic demands of Pound, the squeaky-clean rhymed translations of Wilber, the recommendations of the New Critics that the poem be considered as an object-in-itself, eternal, out of time, divorceable from the conditions of the life in which it was conceived."
This is why I'm calling BS on Flarf, because I think that descriptions of Flarf seem to be true of Flarf, but *up to a point*. I wouldn't say that Google is paradigmatic of Flarf, but pranksterism *is*. Flarf seems punk, or at least it did seem punk. But then that punk seems to vanish...like if the Yes Men stopped kidding without telling us.
Incidentally, back when I was formulating my own crappy poetic (see Behrle, Jim for an analysis), I gleaned the dimension of confrontationalism from the video work of Vito Acconci. It was only after I was writing in such a vain for a while that Alan Sondheim let me know about Mayer's relationship with Acconci on 0 to 9 and the fact that Acconci was a poet before he was making films and environments.
Can you or Nada compare/contrast Bernadette's own work with Acconci's writing? I don't have *any* examples of Acconci's writing, so I'm truly interested in what someone who might know has to say about it. I owe so much (of nothing? see Behrle, Jim) to Acconci, and maybe to Mayer as well....
I imagine there's some issue of *materiality* involved, of tweaking the substance being exchanged for effect, letting you know *it's a body.* That's a huge part of Acconci's fimmaking and it seems to be to figure large in Mayer's work. And then that's where I read another connection between Flarf and NYPo and Langpo all at once.
Gary wrote:
"Just for the record, I don't believe Hoy to be a plant, myself. My sense -- merely a sense -- is that the piece was written as part of an academic requirement, and under deadline.
This at least explains to me why, for instance, he didn't bother contacting anyone involved with Collective prior to writing his piece. (It would simply take too much time.)"
Gary,
Why don't you contact him and try to find out if the piece was indeed written "as part of an academic requirement"? He'd *probably* give you a straight answer.
Best,
Christopher
"Just for the record, I don't believe Hoy to be a plant, myself. My sense -- merely a sense -- is that the piece was written as part of an academic requirement, and under deadline.
This at least explains to me why, for instance, he didn't bother contacting anyone involved with Collective prior to writing his piece. (It would simply take too much time.)"
Gary,
Why don't you contact him and try to find out if the piece was indeed written "as part of an academic requirement"? He'd *probably* give you a straight answer.
Best,
Christopher
bringham-
the mark of mining google searches is the combination of term fixation and diverse usage examples in the text (true of most live search engines...semantics is just now trickling into google because that's what grad school info retrieval researchers are only now learning how to do). plain and simple.
google works without semantics. words are meaningless symbols. to google, every "penguin" is the same, whether we're talking about the Linux mascot or Batman's enemy or antarctic birds or the name of burley's little pink bits. term fixation as such, because of the lack of semantics, implies multiple senses of the meaning of the term. it generates ambiguities all on its own. that gives it a rather natural poetic-ish punch.
but the flarfists knew that, right? umm. i'm sure they do now, and therefore have always known it. ahem. anyway, i digress.
the pussy popsicle piece is excellent as an example of term fixation and diverse usage examples. pussy used so many ways in so many voices. now google is neither necessary for term fixation. someone *could* write that way. especially if one were familiar with core issues of computational linguistics and information retrieval. but you can see pussy deployed in so many ways, semantically and contextually. smacks of google.
the mark of mining google searches is the combination of term fixation and diverse usage examples in the text (true of most live search engines...semantics is just now trickling into google because that's what grad school info retrieval researchers are only now learning how to do). plain and simple.
google works without semantics. words are meaningless symbols. to google, every "penguin" is the same, whether we're talking about the Linux mascot or Batman's enemy or antarctic birds or the name of burley's little pink bits. term fixation as such, because of the lack of semantics, implies multiple senses of the meaning of the term. it generates ambiguities all on its own. that gives it a rather natural poetic-ish punch.
but the flarfists knew that, right? umm. i'm sure they do now, and therefore have always known it. ahem. anyway, i digress.
the pussy popsicle piece is excellent as an example of term fixation and diverse usage examples. pussy used so many ways in so many voices. now google is neither necessary for term fixation. someone *could* write that way. especially if one were familiar with core issues of computational linguistics and information retrieval. but you can see pussy deployed in so many ways, semantically and contextually. smacks of google.
Hi Patrick,
I saw your comment on Lucipo about Arabic music.
Actually, both Egyptian music in particular (esp. the compositions of Mohamed Abdel Wahab, see http://engr.smu.edu/~saad/abdelwahab/), and Bollywood, come with similar sorts of contradictions as you are pointing out with respect to flarf and what was said about it (three or four years ago).
It's probably easier to describe in Bollywood, where you have what looks like a gangster film, that then becomes a musical with dance numbers, that then becomes a love story, and then is interrupted by a comedy routine, followed by another song & dance routine, then becomes a sort of social satire, and so on.
Some have described Bollywood, generally, as a "cinema of interruptions" (there's an academic book on Indian action cinema with that title, & I've seen the phrase elsewhere).
The narratives tend to be fairly complicated and twisty, too.
Think of poetics -- the stories that people tell about their work or the work of others -- as a kind of narrative. People do seem to have trouble with the idea that flarf can't be both completely kidding one moment and deadly serious next. Or that what the Collective produces over time seems to change in focus or intent or something.
People seem to find that problematic. (Unless I'm misunderstanding.)
I'm not saying that Bollywood or Egyptian composition is responsible for the apparent discrepancies. But more that b/c I've been watching & listening to this stuff almost exclusively, I don't see problems with it in the way that some people do.
There's been a *lot* of "this doesn't add up!" sort of talk here. It may not add up. But, it does for me.
Don't you also above talk about your own (or Lester's) contradictions? I prefer Bollywood to Hollywood b/c the apparent contradictions, the way it's pieced together, feels somehow more "real" to me than the smooth consistent narrative of western cinema. (Generally.)
--Gary Sullivan
I saw your comment on Lucipo about Arabic music.
Actually, both Egyptian music in particular (esp. the compositions of Mohamed Abdel Wahab, see http://engr.smu.edu/~saad/abdelwahab/), and Bollywood, come with similar sorts of contradictions as you are pointing out with respect to flarf and what was said about it (three or four years ago).
It's probably easier to describe in Bollywood, where you have what looks like a gangster film, that then becomes a musical with dance numbers, that then becomes a love story, and then is interrupted by a comedy routine, followed by another song & dance routine, then becomes a sort of social satire, and so on.
Some have described Bollywood, generally, as a "cinema of interruptions" (there's an academic book on Indian action cinema with that title, & I've seen the phrase elsewhere).
The narratives tend to be fairly complicated and twisty, too.
Think of poetics -- the stories that people tell about their work or the work of others -- as a kind of narrative. People do seem to have trouble with the idea that flarf can't be both completely kidding one moment and deadly serious next. Or that what the Collective produces over time seems to change in focus or intent or something.
People seem to find that problematic. (Unless I'm misunderstanding.)
I'm not saying that Bollywood or Egyptian composition is responsible for the apparent discrepancies. But more that b/c I've been watching & listening to this stuff almost exclusively, I don't see problems with it in the way that some people do.
There's been a *lot* of "this doesn't add up!" sort of talk here. It may not add up. But, it does for me.
Don't you also above talk about your own (or Lester's) contradictions? I prefer Bollywood to Hollywood b/c the apparent contradictions, the way it's pieced together, feels somehow more "real" to me than the smooth consistent narrative of western cinema. (Generally.)
--Gary Sullivan
Christopher asks:
"Why don't you contact him and try to find out if the piece was indeed written "as part of an academic requirement"? He'd *probably* give you a straight answer."
I sort of half expected he might pop in here and give us the goods. But I'm happy to write him. What's his e-mail address?
--Gary
"Why don't you contact him and try to find out if the piece was indeed written "as part of an academic requirement"? He'd *probably* give you a straight answer."
I sort of half expected he might pop in here and give us the goods. But I'm happy to write him. What's his e-mail address?
--Gary
"Can you or Nada compare/contrast Bernadette's own work with Acconci's writing?"
Nada might be able to do that, Patrick. I don't know his early poetic work at all, myself.
But bear in mind that Nada wrote this paper in I think 1986-87, so it's 20 years ago.
I do think that many of us -- not just those of us on the list, but many poets I know of generally -- and that would include you, I would imagine, have been equally influenced by langpo & the NY School.
--Gary
Nada might be able to do that, Patrick. I don't know his early poetic work at all, myself.
But bear in mind that Nada wrote this paper in I think 1986-87, so it's 20 years ago.
I do think that many of us -- not just those of us on the list, but many poets I know of generally -- and that would include you, I would imagine, have been equally influenced by langpo & the NY School.
--Gary
Yimmy and Benjamin Barthsnatch in the death embrace of mutually assured annihilation. They deserve each other.
A parasite. A barnacle. A sucker fish. Think of all the wasted spermatazoa, Yimmy. Screaming in the muck "We're dying, dying, dying, Jimmy, save us, save us!!" Sucked under the primordial ooooozzzzze....
Evanescent as dothood.
A parasite. A barnacle. A sucker fish. Think of all the wasted spermatazoa, Yimmy. Screaming in the muck "We're dying, dying, dying, Jimmy, save us, save us!!" Sucked under the primordial ooooozzzzze....
Evanescent as dothood.
Was thae arabic thing directed to you, Gary? I got that comment from someone second-hand. Apologies for the rudeness.
Gary:
"I know exactly what you mean when you say 'you guys are fakes.' It's what I would have said in the 80s about language writing, had there been blogs and comments boxes.
Fortunately, there weren't. As I wound up reading & loving a lot of the people associated with the movement"
Actually, it wasn't me that said that. It was my alter-ego. My doppelganger.
The best thing is, people can never explain their poetry clearly enough to justify the power of their original inspiration. A movement is an illusion. If we have a choice between invention and borrowed recombinant database, I'll choose invention every time.
Flarf-flarf-flarf, little Sparrow, flarf-flarf-flarf.
"I know exactly what you mean when you say 'you guys are fakes.' It's what I would have said in the 80s about language writing, had there been blogs and comments boxes.
Fortunately, there weren't. As I wound up reading & loving a lot of the people associated with the movement"
Actually, it wasn't me that said that. It was my alter-ego. My doppelganger.
The best thing is, people can never explain their poetry clearly enough to justify the power of their original inspiration. A movement is an illusion. If we have a choice between invention and borrowed recombinant database, I'll choose invention every time.
Flarf-flarf-flarf, little Sparrow, flarf-flarf-flarf.
Hi,
Focues on poetry ... that is why I stopped here. I am passionate about
poetry, love it and always stop when there is some good reading about this topic.
Thanks!!
US mobile forum
Focues on poetry ... that is why I stopped here. I am passionate about
poetry, love it and always stop when there is some good reading about this topic.
Thanks!!
US mobile forum
here I am in the nude, which may be an onxymoron in my case since i don't have nudie bits:
http://tinyurl.com/jskbz
You know I don't have one of those thingies. I'm just not a man, not like you anyway! You are soo cute you brutal little kitty you! Meow! A brutal wittle kitty with a staff so huge!
That's like so completely poetry. Burley's pee pee on Silliman's blog. Po-tree.
Wow you've jedi mind tricked me again. Wait, I AM YOUR FATHER BURLY! Damn that's po-tree tooo. (Can I borrow your tweed blazer?)
Man this is fun Burly. You're pretty damn funny.
http://tinyurl.com/jskbz
You know I don't have one of those thingies. I'm just not a man, not like you anyway! You are soo cute you brutal little kitty you! Meow! A brutal wittle kitty with a staff so huge!
That's like so completely poetry. Burley's pee pee on Silliman's blog. Po-tree.
Wow you've jedi mind tricked me again. Wait, I AM YOUR FATHER BURLY! Damn that's po-tree tooo. (Can I borrow your tweed blazer?)
Man this is fun Burly. You're pretty damn funny.
I appreciate Ron's comments here about the importance of the issue of "joy" in this discussion. I also appreciate the legacy of conceptual art. However, I'm confused by the elaborate tripartite taxonomy. What purpose that would serve? To me this seems like a rather joyless activity, though perhaps Ron gains pleasure from it. It certainly doesn't seem like the kind of joy involved in Flarf, which seems to have more to do with evasiveness and general indefinability, the artist's gleeful perogative to be able to elude that taxonomy itself.
NOTE: My forthcoming book is not Flarf. I doubt I will actually publish a book of Flarf poetry, unless it happens by accident.
NOTE: My forthcoming book is not Flarf. I doubt I will actually publish a book of Flarf poetry, unless it happens by accident.
Let's go, Herron. The next thing I want to see in these comment fields is your apparently massive cock.
xxxjimmy
xxxjimmy
Gary,
I really don't mean to be a wiseguy, but copy & paste:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dan+hoy
I'm almost positive that there's contact info on his website. And speaking of which, did you delete your blog? If so, why? If the explanation to this question is obvious, I apologize; I'm out of the loop, so to speak.
Best,
Christopher
I really don't mean to be a wiseguy, but copy & paste:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dan+hoy
I'm almost positive that there's contact info on his website. And speaking of which, did you delete your blog? If so, why? If the explanation to this question is obvious, I apologize; I'm out of the loop, so to speak.
Best,
Christopher
I have three questions.
1. Who remembers David Benedetti? (Ron, you can't answer). I want to quote a few short passages from his work entitled Ideas Imagine Passion: " 'Ellen Zweig, seeing information, cored systematic smoke,' Alan Bernheimer reported. Likely, into the door. Nobody fucked Lyn Hejinian. Eating into and like Jack Shoemaker curiously began to fall. 'Bob Perelman fucks farmers, whih is concerning by and of speech with Bernadette Mayer into anorexic revolutionary cream cheese." . . . "Joe Safdie essentially desired the bastards beneath the lake', Maureen indicated. Geoff Young, reading of an arbitrarily mixed metaphor, relocated the robot. Bev destroyed several raccoons. Their hairs aggravated Jim's pride. David psychotically mentioned Leslie Scalapino. . . . Real garish Ted Berrigan had crossed Steve astride Keith. A skirt had been changing your suggestions with the neon kif of Bill Berkson. Edwin Denby, feeling Djuna Barnes's dog, remembered murky sheep."
Ahem. This is from Section 116 of David's "computer-written prose poem," copyright 1983. It was, he says, generated by a program written by himself, using a 2300 word vocabulary collaboratively supplied by over 80 writers. It's sometimes very, very funny, but mostly, people who read it just looked for their names. It came out in 1983, 23 years ago.
Is it flarf? If not, why not?
2. I love Nada's work. I might even love Nada's work written by Ben Friedlander. I might even love Nada (sorry, Gary, but she did mention polyandry). So I have a question. When she says "the endless reification and echoic verbiage on all sides is to me at once totally annoying and utterly flarfy. Like . . . how did this happen?" Was that ever answered? Specifically, who causes reification? Is it Dan Hoy? Joyelle McSweeney? Ron Silliman? Is it the flarfists themselves, or is the people who write about them? WHO CREATES REIFICATION? And if it's just goofing around . . . why is everyone taking it so seriously?
3. An addendum to that, I guess to Gary: if flarf is "Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. 'Not okay.' " then . . . what does cultural provenance have to do with it? Who cares if it's multi-cultural or not, appropriation or not?
And finally (sorry, I know this is four), when Woody Allen said, "I would never join a club that would have me as a member" . . . was he serious? What does that say about embarrassment? (And yes, Rachel, let's leave John out of this!)
I love that command below the box here, "Choose an identity" . . .
Joe Safdie
1. Who remembers David Benedetti? (Ron, you can't answer). I want to quote a few short passages from his work entitled Ideas Imagine Passion: " 'Ellen Zweig, seeing information, cored systematic smoke,' Alan Bernheimer reported. Likely, into the door. Nobody fucked Lyn Hejinian. Eating into and like Jack Shoemaker curiously began to fall. 'Bob Perelman fucks farmers, whih is concerning by and of speech with Bernadette Mayer into anorexic revolutionary cream cheese." . . . "Joe Safdie essentially desired the bastards beneath the lake', Maureen indicated. Geoff Young, reading of an arbitrarily mixed metaphor, relocated the robot. Bev destroyed several raccoons. Their hairs aggravated Jim's pride. David psychotically mentioned Leslie Scalapino. . . . Real garish Ted Berrigan had crossed Steve astride Keith. A skirt had been changing your suggestions with the neon kif of Bill Berkson. Edwin Denby, feeling Djuna Barnes's dog, remembered murky sheep."
Ahem. This is from Section 116 of David's "computer-written prose poem," copyright 1983. It was, he says, generated by a program written by himself, using a 2300 word vocabulary collaboratively supplied by over 80 writers. It's sometimes very, very funny, but mostly, people who read it just looked for their names. It came out in 1983, 23 years ago.
Is it flarf? If not, why not?
2. I love Nada's work. I might even love Nada's work written by Ben Friedlander. I might even love Nada (sorry, Gary, but she did mention polyandry). So I have a question. When she says "the endless reification and echoic verbiage on all sides is to me at once totally annoying and utterly flarfy. Like . . . how did this happen?" Was that ever answered? Specifically, who causes reification? Is it Dan Hoy? Joyelle McSweeney? Ron Silliman? Is it the flarfists themselves, or is the people who write about them? WHO CREATES REIFICATION? And if it's just goofing around . . . why is everyone taking it so seriously?
3. An addendum to that, I guess to Gary: if flarf is "Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. 'Not okay.' " then . . . what does cultural provenance have to do with it? Who cares if it's multi-cultural or not, appropriation or not?
And finally (sorry, I know this is four), when Woody Allen said, "I would never join a club that would have me as a member" . . . was he serious? What does that say about embarrassment? (And yes, Rachel, let's leave John out of this!)
I love that command below the box here, "Choose an identity" . . .
Joe Safdie
Joe,
God, I wish I had a copy of that Benedetti book. I've never read it, or even heard about it, but I do know his name. Didn't he have an early Figures book? Nictitating Membrane. I used to have it. It looks like the Figures is still selling it online. (I just looked.)
Anyway it sounds flarfy, yes. I should see if abebooks has it.
Nada can't type b/c her RSI is very bad tonight. In fact, I have to go set up the TV for her in the bedroom.
Joe,
God, I wish I had a copy of that Benedetti book. I've never read it, or even heard about it, but I do know his name. Didn't he have an early Figures book? Nictitating Membrane. I used to have it. It looks like the Figures is still selling it online. (I just looked.)
Anyway it sounds flarfy, yes. I should see if abebooks has it.
Nada can't type b/c her RSI is very bad tonight. In fact, I have to go set up the TV for her in the bedroom.
--Gary
God, I wish I had a copy of that Benedetti book. I've never read it, or even heard about it, but I do know his name. Didn't he have an early Figures book? Nictitating Membrane. I used to have it. It looks like the Figures is still selling it online. (I just looked.)
Anyway it sounds flarfy, yes. I should see if abebooks has it.
Nada can't type b/c her RSI is very bad tonight. In fact, I have to go set up the TV for her in the bedroom.
Joe,
God, I wish I had a copy of that Benedetti book. I've never read it, or even heard about it, but I do know his name. Didn't he have an early Figures book? Nictitating Membrane. I used to have it. It looks like the Figures is still selling it online. (I just looked.)
Anyway it sounds flarfy, yes. I should see if abebooks has it.
Nada can't type b/c her RSI is very bad tonight. In fact, I have to go set up the TV for her in the bedroom.
--Gary
Everything about flarf is explained by the fact that the word "flarf" consists of the 6th, the 12th, the 1st, the 18th, and the 6th letters of the American & Georgian alphabet.
Don't try to make it more complicated than it really, truly, was.
Don't try to make it more complicated than it really, truly, was.
trouble is, I forget where the "George" part came in.
Is this written up in Freud's early monograph?
The "Geschlichtlichte Psychologie der Flarflistische Zimptome : Studien der Derr Kultur und Geschchshcchchshuntheit Asie"?
George? You there, my good man?
Is this written up in Freud's early monograph?
The "Geschlichtlichte Psychologie der Flarflistische Zimptome : Studien der Derr Kultur und Geschchshcchchshuntheit Asie"?
George? You there, my good man?
Meine "hogg"? Ist das meine "Georg"?
Zorro, Meester Jeem - me no speaky you eenglish - me no havee no hogg fo you todayyy -
Zorro, Meester Jeem - me no speaky you eenglish - me no havee no hogg fo you todayyy -
Schweinhund!
xxxjimmy
PS: Where is Patrick's cock? I want to see this allegedly magnificent splendor! Patrick's cock, Patrick's cock: Please pick up a red courtesy phone!
xxxjimmy
PS: Where is Patrick's cock? I want to see this allegedly magnificent splendor! Patrick's cock, Patrick's cock: Please pick up a red courtesy phone!
Jim, my friend, pal, guy, short person -
honestly, if I could oblige your command & obey your demand, I sure would -
but I'm stuck here on this bridge over the river in Paris (Seine, I believe) - been here for abayot 15 yayars nayow - hangin' muh limp ol' hand at muh side, lookin' mighty KYOOL -
cain't MOVE a MUSCLE !!! --
honestly, if I could oblige your command & obey your demand, I sure would -
but I'm stuck here on this bridge over the river in Paris (Seine, I believe) - been here for abayot 15 yayars nayow - hangin' muh limp ol' hand at muh side, lookin' mighty KYOOL -
cain't MOVE a MUSCLE !!! --
You must be far more cruel to Patrick before he wields His Holy Sceptre, Herr JimmyB. We still haven't seen yrs in full glory, however. Is there such a thing?
It's what people are paying for here.
Gary, Patrick says he is deeply sorry for the comment even if he didn;'t know the comment he attributed was referring to you. He says he has a deep respect for your taste in music.
It's what people are paying for here.
Gary, Patrick says he is deeply sorry for the comment even if he didn;'t know the comment he attributed was referring to you. He says he has a deep respect for your taste in music.
Gary I think what Christopher is getting at is that you’re being passive aggressive and disingenuous. If you’ve heard that I have academic requirements and deadlines, then you’re also aware that those requirements aren’t due until May. I’m assuming that your calling me out here on my academic status is some kind of attack on my credibility, and this is why you want me to answer your revelation in public rather than email me with a legitimate question. You’ve mentioned it 3 separate times today in the comments section of Silliman’s blog -- 4 times if you count the namedropping of Nada’s 20 year old academic paper. That you feel this is a relevant response to the questions that have been raised in regard to flarf is mystifying. The essay limits itself to the public claims made by you and others regarding flarf. It’s very clear on this, and provides links to those claims, some of which links are now dead, since you took down your website due to “work related reasons” hours after the essay appeared online. You say “I personally see no value in retreat.” And personally I don’t care why you committed bloggercide only to resurrect yourself as the flarf collective in the comments section of Silliman’s blog. But I’m sure you see how your virtual paper shredding could be viewed as a kind of backpeddling or retreat, which I’m guessing is why you keep reiterating that it was done for work related reasons.
I understand you’re upset about the inferences the essay makes based on public statements made about flarf, and I’m not questioning the legitimacy of that reaction, but I hope this resentful evasiveness isn’t indicative of what you’re planning for the forthcoming response in Jacket. Your posts today are not about the questions that have been asked in regard to flarf, but about the credentials of yourself and the people asking them. You’ve supplied your CD collection (well stocked in world music) and your roommate’s term paper as qualifications for talking about flarf. Is this where I provide my copy of Europe’s “The Final Countdown” or Big in Japan’s self-titled hit? I’ll have to get back to you on my roommate’s high school report card.
As for Tim Peterson’s comment yesterday – Tim, if you’re going to put something I wrote in quotes, can you put what I actually wrote in the quote marks? You know I didn’t write "Flarf is just fucking stupid." What I wrote was a hypothetical question in response to your claim that flarf is “intentionally alienating and bizarre” and that “the experience of embarrassment or ‘gross-out’ potential is meant to repel, repeatedly, not to ‘create intimacy’.” Here’s my comment again: “the claim that the writer's own alienation from and embarrassment of his/her own material is necessarily transferred to the reader seems like a desperate aesthetic maneuver: what if I'm not alienated? what if I just think it's fucking stupid? will you say the reason I think it's stupid is because I'm alienated?” My point is that the material, whether embarrassing to the author or not, is intended to create intimacy with the audience, not alienate it as you claim -- a point which others, including Nada, agree with, even if she takes legitimate issue with my statement that anything branded ‘flarf’ is constructed out of an ironic detachment instead of a complicated empathy. I understand you have a problem with me writing an essay that isn’t favorable to the claims made about your friends’ work, but your preferred political tactic (here and on lucipo) of ‘discrediting’ me as a way of not addressing any of the questions that have been raised isn’t advancing the discussion any. I think it’s great that Ron’s questions will be answered in the special issue of Leonardo Electronic Almanac that you’re editing. Do we have to wait till then?
I understand you’re upset about the inferences the essay makes based on public statements made about flarf, and I’m not questioning the legitimacy of that reaction, but I hope this resentful evasiveness isn’t indicative of what you’re planning for the forthcoming response in Jacket. Your posts today are not about the questions that have been asked in regard to flarf, but about the credentials of yourself and the people asking them. You’ve supplied your CD collection (well stocked in world music) and your roommate’s term paper as qualifications for talking about flarf. Is this where I provide my copy of Europe’s “The Final Countdown” or Big in Japan’s self-titled hit? I’ll have to get back to you on my roommate’s high school report card.
As for Tim Peterson’s comment yesterday – Tim, if you’re going to put something I wrote in quotes, can you put what I actually wrote in the quote marks? You know I didn’t write "Flarf is just fucking stupid." What I wrote was a hypothetical question in response to your claim that flarf is “intentionally alienating and bizarre” and that “the experience of embarrassment or ‘gross-out’ potential is meant to repel, repeatedly, not to ‘create intimacy’.” Here’s my comment again: “the claim that the writer's own alienation from and embarrassment of his/her own material is necessarily transferred to the reader seems like a desperate aesthetic maneuver: what if I'm not alienated? what if I just think it's fucking stupid? will you say the reason I think it's stupid is because I'm alienated?” My point is that the material, whether embarrassing to the author or not, is intended to create intimacy with the audience, not alienate it as you claim -- a point which others, including Nada, agree with, even if she takes legitimate issue with my statement that anything branded ‘flarf’ is constructed out of an ironic detachment instead of a complicated empathy. I understand you have a problem with me writing an essay that isn’t favorable to the claims made about your friends’ work, but your preferred political tactic (here and on lucipo) of ‘discrediting’ me as a way of not addressing any of the questions that have been raised isn’t advancing the discussion any. I think it’s great that Ron’s questions will be answered in the special issue of Leonardo Electronic Almanac that you’re editing. Do we have to wait till then?
Dan, no poetics just does one thing, or has one goal. And I don't particularly care if you ask whether Flarf's goal (as perceived by you) does what a thinly-disguised-Dan-Hoy-speaker might "just think" is "fucking stupid." I think Flarf is probably supposed to be "fucking stupid," but then what do I know. I think Flarf is basically whatever the people on the Flarflist say it is, and any response from these people to your essay is probably going to try to evade the systems you're imposing on it. Heck, I think Flarf is pretty stupid myself. Glad to see we're in agreement.
It seems pretty pathetic that the best tactic available, short of, well, THAT little thing poking out from above, in discussing dan hoy's essay is to discredit him, to get all ad hominem on him. y'all can't handle a little friction before you have to blow your loads? "oh it's a college paper scoffjaw scoffjaw I already have my degree." "oh you're just jealous!" treat the kid's arguments with a little respect. you're acting like little neocons or scientologists: character assassination roolez!
Dan,
I deleted my blog because my boss was sending URLs to archived posts, some going back three or four years, to the HR department, complaining that I was distracting myself from work. You give yourself rather a bit too much credit inferring that I took it down because of one negative essay about flarf. Flarf has been attacked almost since the first day anyone mentioned it in public. I’m fairly used to it by now.
I wasn’t upset with your essay at all; although, no, I don’t think it’s either particularly well written or well researched. I was actually glad to see it, generally, and I laughed out loud several times reading it.
If we’re avoiding the terms of your essay it’s because the terms of your essay have almost nothing to do with us. There’s simply no reason for us to be beholden to Cage or Mac Low, although many of us love their work & have found it inspiring. I studied Cage while in music school in the 80s. He’s great, no question. I love Mac Low, too; I had him read at Segue, one of the high points for me of curating that series.
But I’m not doing what Mac Low or Cage did. And I’m doing what I do for very different reasons. I’ve rarely foregrounded procedure in my work.
You’re being completely disingenuous when you claim that your essay was not addressing the work. In fact, you make several evaluative statements in the essay, based on your understanding of Cage & Mac Low and Google, about the work.
--Gary
I deleted my blog because my boss was sending URLs to archived posts, some going back three or four years, to the HR department, complaining that I was distracting myself from work. You give yourself rather a bit too much credit inferring that I took it down because of one negative essay about flarf. Flarf has been attacked almost since the first day anyone mentioned it in public. I’m fairly used to it by now.
I wasn’t upset with your essay at all; although, no, I don’t think it’s either particularly well written or well researched. I was actually glad to see it, generally, and I laughed out loud several times reading it.
If we’re avoiding the terms of your essay it’s because the terms of your essay have almost nothing to do with us. There’s simply no reason for us to be beholden to Cage or Mac Low, although many of us love their work & have found it inspiring. I studied Cage while in music school in the 80s. He’s great, no question. I love Mac Low, too; I had him read at Segue, one of the high points for me of curating that series.
But I’m not doing what Mac Low or Cage did. And I’m doing what I do for very different reasons. I’ve rarely foregrounded procedure in my work.
You’re being completely disingenuous when you claim that your essay was not addressing the work. In fact, you make several evaluative statements in the essay, based on your understanding of Cage & Mac Low and Google, about the work.
--Gary
just for the record
Dave Barry, in 1994
sent a really bad poem
to poetry.com
to expose them
and wrote a great column about it
and in 2003
encouraged
his readers to all submit a poem there
using the name
Freemont
and the following line
"the dog ate mother's toes
hundreds showed up
on the site
poetry.com eventually moved them all to a special page
and spun publicity gold
from the dross
Dave Barry, in 1994
sent a really bad poem
to poetry.com
to expose them
and wrote a great column about it
and in 2003
encouraged
his readers to all submit a poem there
using the name
Freemont
and the following line
"the dog ate mother's toes
hundreds showed up
on the site
poetry.com eventually moved them all to a special page
and spun publicity gold
from the dross
I'm sure when his shackles are up
that jim's hogg is razorback lovely, patrick
and I ickree there is nothing lovely about poetry.com
that jim's hogg is razorback lovely, patrick
and I ickree there is nothing lovely about poetry.com
Dan wrote:
"Gary I think what Christopher is getting at is that you’re being passive aggressive and disingenuous."
To clarify: I reread my comment and didn't detect any "suggestions," or "hints," tho I can see how Dan understood my question in such a way. I didn't intend to suggest that Gary was "being passive agressive and disingenuous." I was, however, curious. Thanks for giving a straight answer, Gary.
"Gary I think what Christopher is getting at is that you’re being passive aggressive and disingenuous."
To clarify: I reread my comment and didn't detect any "suggestions," or "hints," tho I can see how Dan understood my question in such a way. I didn't intend to suggest that Gary was "being passive agressive and disingenuous." I was, however, curious. Thanks for giving a straight answer, Gary.
I'm going to be holding a conference on flarf in the year 2007 and I want all of you (even the guy with his wiener) to be there! We might do guy-vs-girl red rover and even a bit of jenga. And most definitely hash this out in a strict legal style.
The only question is what to call the conference. Nothing about cocks!
Or pussys.
Maybe both.
kevin
Post a Comment
The only question is what to call the conference. Nothing about cocks!
Or pussys.
Maybe both.
kevin
<< Home
