what's poetry then?
I frequently try to figure out what I'm doing as an artist - where my poetry is coming from and where it's going. These are some of the thoughts I've had in answer to those questions. But first a little background.
Those of you who have read my thoughts before may be aware that I'm more interested in other artforms than I am in poetry. In particular, pop/rock music and movies have a greater influence on me than any poet, living or dead.
A particular inspiration recently was the Cremaster Cycle of movies by installation/video artist Matthew Barney. This wasn't an especially commercial undertaking, although well promoted and critically praised. One of the things that interested me about the films was the potential they demonstrated for artists in all media to explore new ideas. They did this by the extremely simple idea of crossing related but distinct forms. In the case of the Cremaster films the forms were first, video and site-specific installations, and second, narrative film making.
By taking video and site-specific installation work and giving it a more linear and static form some unpredictability and transience is lost. But by changing the context and expectations of the work the film becomes the performance and affords the audience a fuller view of all its aspects. For film the implications are far more radical. Narrative and characterisation become irrelevant and the visual primacy of the form is restored.
This compelled me to wonder what the analogue in writing might be. Given what centuries of writers have done with words, what can be achieved now? Can we still shock and defamiliarise, still excite readers with visceral novelty?
These thoughts set me decyphering the differences between film and writing on the page. For me these were primarily fivefold -
1 temporal - film can utilise real time as well as compressing long periods or attenuating brief moments. These last two can be achieved in writing, but without supporting performance, reference to the act of reading, or to the reader's actions, the printed word simply can't use real time.
2 detail - this refers specifically to texts (filmed or written) which are 'realistic', and not mainly designed as a puzzle. It's easier to hide, throw away, or encode detail in visual information. In a written text the reader can still miss information, but usually it is clearer and more obvious, less untangling has to take place. In other words the writer describes or hints at everything they want to show you, leaving it clearly in front of you. The film maker can put everything on screen, but in a full and moving frame details are bound to be missed.
3 senses - most films use sound now, even if they don't use dialogue and/or colour. At best, unless you're adding sound or pictures, writing uses the sense you're reading with and depends on a greater engagement of the imagination. If there is additional stimulus then your writing begins to become something else, and the words might remain entirely conventional.
4 fixity of meaning - contentious this, as many philosophers, linguists, and others would argue that language is never unambiguous, and I would have to agree. And in terms of images, advertising and the pictograms used in road signs etc, teach us that images, shapes and colours can have very specific and inflexible meanings in context. Despite this when I write 'a man' it has a very rigid definitions, when I show a man on film it means much more. Of course both of these examples can be concealing something. The man could be a woman in disguise, or intended to be a specific individual whose identity will be revealed later (though writing is better at this last one).
Additionally language is a system developed as purposive. By its nature we expect meaning, whatever form that might take. Where writing fails to provide this consistently it becomes difficult to read and concentrate on. For instance, Tristan Tzara and James Joyce, especially in Finegans Wake, can only really be read in short bursts. Both these writers demonstrate that it is very difficult to collapse expectation and meaning without providing some other structure to help the reader. Each of them uses puns and allusions, which however seriously intended lend themselves more easily to comic effects.
Film has no such basic utility before anything else, and so is freer to detach from its moorings.
I think for me this is the crucial aspect above all others inhibiting literature in escaping its most simple and obvious functions. If, like myself, you also want to be polemical, it's even harder to detach yourself from the basic communicative tools.
5 ability to utilise other media - crudely, film can incorporate anything that can be seen or heard with only minimal mediation, that can be presented as images or put on the soundtrack. Writers are stuck with words and still images, beyond which their writing becomes something else. There is, of course, no need to be so purist about writing, but it helps clarity to take things back to the most basic level. For instance I would regard performance as a legitimate element of writing, as are the incorporation of games, codes, and randomising features. But performance aside it remains clear that writing, whether or not incorporating illustration, is limited to what you can put on the page.
slightly irrelevant aside #1
It occurs to me that Joyce and Tzara mentioned earlier were both influenced by the political and technological developments of the day. They were writing during the infancy of film, radio, tv, telephone, mass communication, and regular and routine long-distance travel. Many developments remained to be made, and the shape of all these things was still very fluid, not yet settled in the forms we're accustomed to today. Some of the most audacious experiments were being carried out.
Today we are early in the history pcs, the internet, mobile phones, digital film/photography, cds, mp3s, genetic technology, nanotechnology etc. The skill of any artist lies not only in responding to and utilising the technologies available to her. It lies in incorporating them, and lessons learned from them, without being obvious or clumsy. The key is to use them with freedom, and not just as novelties or a ticklist of contemporary texture.
Having identified where film and writing differ it remains to be determined how one can use this information to achieve new effects in writing. It would be easy to devise fairly sterile and uninteresting experiments, but these would be of limited, academic interest. One answer is to be less abstract, to apply experiments within a genre for instance. Art that is perceived as throwaway, for a small specialised audience (eg children), or subject to various strictures (eg of genre) often allows greater leeway for experimentation. Having firmly defined outer limits means that what takes place inside is less subject to other rules.
This is one reason why pornography and horror are among the first users of new technology. Their search for novelty and sensation is one of the reasons why these forms will also experiment and innovate with what the technology can do. Now I'm not advocating pornography as an artistic statement, or suggesting that the pursuit of sensation will yield fantastic results. What I do believe though, is that the more an audience can relate to the frame you're working in, the more you can get away with. I recognise of course that this is not always desirable and can even be unhelpful. But it is a valuable reminder that art is not a special, separate entity outside of ordinary experience. It is instead a heightening and focusing of what we commonly experience.
As yet this train of thought remains a bit inconclusive. There will be further essays on the issues raised here, and on other matters relating to my poetry writing.
Those of you who have read my thoughts before may be aware that I'm more interested in other artforms than I am in poetry. In particular, pop/rock music and movies have a greater influence on me than any poet, living or dead.
A particular inspiration recently was the Cremaster Cycle of movies by installation/video artist Matthew Barney. This wasn't an especially commercial undertaking, although well promoted and critically praised. One of the things that interested me about the films was the potential they demonstrated for artists in all media to explore new ideas. They did this by the extremely simple idea of crossing related but distinct forms. In the case of the Cremaster films the forms were first, video and site-specific installations, and second, narrative film making.
By taking video and site-specific installation work and giving it a more linear and static form some unpredictability and transience is lost. But by changing the context and expectations of the work the film becomes the performance and affords the audience a fuller view of all its aspects. For film the implications are far more radical. Narrative and characterisation become irrelevant and the visual primacy of the form is restored.
This compelled me to wonder what the analogue in writing might be. Given what centuries of writers have done with words, what can be achieved now? Can we still shock and defamiliarise, still excite readers with visceral novelty?
These thoughts set me decyphering the differences between film and writing on the page. For me these were primarily fivefold -
1 temporal - film can utilise real time as well as compressing long periods or attenuating brief moments. These last two can be achieved in writing, but without supporting performance, reference to the act of reading, or to the reader's actions, the printed word simply can't use real time.
2 detail - this refers specifically to texts (filmed or written) which are 'realistic', and not mainly designed as a puzzle. It's easier to hide, throw away, or encode detail in visual information. In a written text the reader can still miss information, but usually it is clearer and more obvious, less untangling has to take place. In other words the writer describes or hints at everything they want to show you, leaving it clearly in front of you. The film maker can put everything on screen, but in a full and moving frame details are bound to be missed.
3 senses - most films use sound now, even if they don't use dialogue and/or colour. At best, unless you're adding sound or pictures, writing uses the sense you're reading with and depends on a greater engagement of the imagination. If there is additional stimulus then your writing begins to become something else, and the words might remain entirely conventional.
4 fixity of meaning - contentious this, as many philosophers, linguists, and others would argue that language is never unambiguous, and I would have to agree. And in terms of images, advertising and the pictograms used in road signs etc, teach us that images, shapes and colours can have very specific and inflexible meanings in context. Despite this when I write 'a man' it has a very rigid definitions, when I show a man on film it means much more. Of course both of these examples can be concealing something. The man could be a woman in disguise, or intended to be a specific individual whose identity will be revealed later (though writing is better at this last one).
Additionally language is a system developed as purposive. By its nature we expect meaning, whatever form that might take. Where writing fails to provide this consistently it becomes difficult to read and concentrate on. For instance, Tristan Tzara and James Joyce, especially in Finegans Wake, can only really be read in short bursts. Both these writers demonstrate that it is very difficult to collapse expectation and meaning without providing some other structure to help the reader. Each of them uses puns and allusions, which however seriously intended lend themselves more easily to comic effects.
Film has no such basic utility before anything else, and so is freer to detach from its moorings.
I think for me this is the crucial aspect above all others inhibiting literature in escaping its most simple and obvious functions. If, like myself, you also want to be polemical, it's even harder to detach yourself from the basic communicative tools.
5 ability to utilise other media - crudely, film can incorporate anything that can be seen or heard with only minimal mediation, that can be presented as images or put on the soundtrack. Writers are stuck with words and still images, beyond which their writing becomes something else. There is, of course, no need to be so purist about writing, but it helps clarity to take things back to the most basic level. For instance I would regard performance as a legitimate element of writing, as are the incorporation of games, codes, and randomising features. But performance aside it remains clear that writing, whether or not incorporating illustration, is limited to what you can put on the page.
slightly irrelevant aside #1
It occurs to me that Joyce and Tzara mentioned earlier were both influenced by the political and technological developments of the day. They were writing during the infancy of film, radio, tv, telephone, mass communication, and regular and routine long-distance travel. Many developments remained to be made, and the shape of all these things was still very fluid, not yet settled in the forms we're accustomed to today. Some of the most audacious experiments were being carried out.
Today we are early in the history pcs, the internet, mobile phones, digital film/photography, cds, mp3s, genetic technology, nanotechnology etc. The skill of any artist lies not only in responding to and utilising the technologies available to her. It lies in incorporating them, and lessons learned from them, without being obvious or clumsy. The key is to use them with freedom, and not just as novelties or a ticklist of contemporary texture.
Having identified where film and writing differ it remains to be determined how one can use this information to achieve new effects in writing. It would be easy to devise fairly sterile and uninteresting experiments, but these would be of limited, academic interest. One answer is to be less abstract, to apply experiments within a genre for instance. Art that is perceived as throwaway, for a small specialised audience (eg children), or subject to various strictures (eg of genre) often allows greater leeway for experimentation. Having firmly defined outer limits means that what takes place inside is less subject to other rules.
This is one reason why pornography and horror are among the first users of new technology. Their search for novelty and sensation is one of the reasons why these forms will also experiment and innovate with what the technology can do. Now I'm not advocating pornography as an artistic statement, or suggesting that the pursuit of sensation will yield fantastic results. What I do believe though, is that the more an audience can relate to the frame you're working in, the more you can get away with. I recognise of course that this is not always desirable and can even be unhelpful. But it is a valuable reminder that art is not a special, separate entity outside of ordinary experience. It is instead a heightening and focusing of what we commonly experience.
As yet this train of thought remains a bit inconclusive. There will be further essays on the issues raised here, and on other matters relating to my poetry writing.
Comments