The last paragraph in Erin’s essay sums up the question I’ve been asking myself throughout her entire piece: “‘Literal graphic material is able to entirely and suddenly transform spatial perception and, at the same time, it creates an entirely new space for itself, for inscription and for reading, it creates the potential for a new experience of language’ (Cayley). New Media poetry is just that—a new experience of language.” And I guess that’s what you call a great conclusion, too.
But if we are going to call this form of poetry a “new experience of language,” then shouldn’t we give it a whole name altogether? We have the novel, the short story, the poem, the non-fiction piece, why can’t we have the “new experience piece” (we’d give it a different name, of course). “New media poetry” doesn’t cut it—it puts it INTO the category of poetry, making it a form of poetry. And honestly, I don’t think this new form deserves to be considered a form of poetry. It’s too different from poetry itself—the “real” poetry we know.
This new media poetry takes a skill—and a different skill than “real” poets use. You need to be technologically savvy and able to work those java whatever programs, but do you really have to be word savvy? Poetry is one of the hardest forms of writing, one many writes constantly struggle with. Even once you have perfected one poem, perfecting the next is equally as difficult. But once you have perfected the java whatevers, it’s second nature, you just add the words. New media poetry may start out hard but it becomes easier…”real” poetry starts out hard and remains hard.
If we continue to call this new media form of language a type of poetry, we may be posing a threat to poetry itself. I can so easily see this happening, like how our society has so easily made the shift from snail mail to e-mail: right now, new media poetry isn’t all that popular, it’s still kind of making the rounds, being introduced to audiences. But before we know it, instead of taking poetry classes and creative writing classes, students will begin taking new medium classes, “online poetry” classes. Future generations won’t even know how to write a “real” poem, perhaps even know what one is, what constitutes one. But is this inevitable? Will changing the name of this “language form” really save anything? Is this just the workings of our culture combined with the influence of technology and its constant advancement? Is there any hope? And, on a side note, will snail mail eventually diminish or will we always have a need for it? And that said, will we have a need for “real” poetry?
To even start to attempt to answer these questions, we have to look beyond the concept of language and writing to a sociological perspective. How our culture deals with these new media forms of language will depend on our willingness for change and on our appreciation for history and art. We like change, if it’s going to make things run quicker, more efficiently and most importantly, easier. And these new media forms of language present this threat. O’Conner considers this new media poetry a form of art and says poetry is equally an art. But will our society cherish the artistic values of “real” poetry enough to continue its concept throughout the future? Or will technology take over our appreciation, our values? How big of a threat is new media poetry to “real” poetry? If it does diminish will we continue to teach it as an important piece of history?
9 comments:
I think print poetry will survive because it satisfies deep human desires. Actually, I think the web will bring print poetry to more people, spread it around. A person will no longer have to read certain magazines and journals or seek out poetry in the library or bookstore; she might just happen on it or be introduced to various poetry sites in school. If everyday language via mass culture and mainstream media is impoverished, then poetry may be experienced as an oasis. It’s worked this way for a long time and I don’t see why it won’t continue to work. So-called “new media poetry” might well serve as a bridge for some people between mainstream media slop and well-wrought poetic expression of all kinds—as in, “oh, this is interesting . . . I didn’t know poetry could be so dynamic.” In other words, maybe new media language art will turn people’s attention back to the old media poetry. I guess I don’t think poets can lose. For one, they’ve already lost (poets very rarely make a living writing poems: people aren’t clamoring for poetry now); for another, images, as our class has tended to confirm, cannot replace words: we long for words, for the right word, for the beautiful word. We want to be spoken to, not overwhelmed with images. As for sounds, poetry and music pretty much go hand in hand, just as each have their own place, too.
In the end, I see all this work as a creative explosion enabled by technology but not necessarily over-determined by it. I still think writers can be free, whether they are using new media tools or pen and paper, and the technology can only aid and abet writers and writing in the end. I say, bring it on, whatever you call it . . . poetry can handle it.
I agree with how new media poetry should be called something else. Poetry's focus is about utilizing words creatively in a limited amount of space. New media poetry seems to be merging poetry and art, thinking of new ways to relate an experience to the reader. While doing this can elevate a poem, sometimes this causes poets to rely too much on the art. Sometimes, art cannot work for poetry because the contents are too abstract or focus more on ideas or emotions rather than objects. Not that I love the poem or anything, but what is "O Captain, My Captain" had a big flash picture of Abraham Lincoln behind it...would we still think of the poem in the same light? Would we give the poem as much credit as it is attributed? Would we come out with the same notions Walt Whitman is trying to express? Sometimes poetry is void of illustration for a reason, so therefore those that rely on illustration to get their point across should have their own category.
Fun essay by Erin. Seems to be in line with most of whats being said in our class: Whats the point? Why? Without substance..etc. So that was refreshing to read, that we arent just talking ourselves into a corner. Or maybe we are and its just a corner thats already occupied. Deep. I appriciate Prof Kerr's optimisim because I certainly lack it when it comes to this stuff. It sounds as if Khrista and Amanda feel the same. I think its interesting how we (the students) are so defensive about our prized words in their indigenous demensions. Im a terrible speller. But really, I wont speak for everyone, but Im a fairly apathetic person and then suddenly its like oh fuck dont take away the tangible poetry I loved so much as a kid. I think its pretty clear I didnt read much as a child so why do I care that suddenly poetry and prose is abandoning its former medium? I dunno but I do. I think our generation feels somewhat responsible for making sure things dont go to shit with the internet. THis might go along with what Khrista is saying at the end here. How do we deal with this stuff? If our class is any indication I think we "deal" with this paradigm shift by rejecting it. Im not saying this is bad or good. Maybe 1984 shouldnt have been required freshman and jr year in high school.
I thin Khrista brings up a great point. Perhaps it is all in how we define this new media—because I agree that it is not poetry.
I also agree with Tom. It is exciting to think about. Once poetry is put on the internet it opens it up to a larger audience. It’s not longer the student in a classroom analyzing rhyme scheme with a professor. It’s no longer trapped in creative journals. Business men can read them. Janitors can read them. (I could go on and on but I think you get it.) I’ve come to a point senior year, where everyone is pushing to publish. (Otherwise... what am I going to put on my resume!!!) I’ve had so much trouble finding a print space for my writing. I seem run into the same problem. It’s too creative for nonfiction. So what if the internet isn’t the most respectable place to publish, what if it sparked that passion in readers again. What if people begin to crave poetry again, once it is presented to a large, broad audience? Then maybe creative journals would gain more popularity. Just a thought
Also, I don’t think that this threat to poetry is a new one. Outside of the classroom, I find myself listening to my ipod. I listen for the lyrics. There you have it... the passion, the alliteration, the movement and rhythm.
Everyone brings up many useful points and justifiable explanations to this new media poetry. And as Dave reemphasizes, what’s the point? Why should we care what happens to poetry? Shouldn’t we be embracing these new and exciting forms of writing? I guess in my opinion, as what seems to be the concern with others in the class, is our level of responsibility. Growing up, my parents read to my brother and I each night before we went to bed. I am embarrassed to admit I still have many of the Beatrix Potter poems and Christopher Robin tales memorized, but regardless of that, I still remember the mental pictures I use to create as the poems and stories were read to me out loud. Maybe I am getting a little sentimental but will future generations be given the same opportunities for pure imagining as I did? If most of the poems read are filled with new media and artworks, will people begin to loose the once rich imagination generations ago had? Why have we decided that art should be combined with poetry anyway?
On a completely different note, I can completely relate to Jill’s frustrations with print today. As writers, we are expected to have these fabulous pieces of work published before we even leave college, well that’s the message I seem to have been given. So, maybe the internet is a promising opportunity for us budding writers in the end. And concluding with Jill’s thoughts, so what if the internet is our new entry into the publishing world. If it has gained an interest in readers, why aren’t we embracing it… in all its forms?
I completely agree with Khrista when she says that new media poetry is not poetry. It is something completely different. I don't even know if it should even be considered writing. All these peopel are doing is putting words into a form and they come out the way the worm wants them to.
I do also think that the internet is a good way to expand the audiance of regular poetry. I think it is a good way to become exposed to different writers and be esposed to unknown writers.
Poetry will indeed survive - I fail to see how new media will alter the fundamentals that define what poetry is. Instead, I see things like the internet as a medium with which to spread a traditional form. Poetry, like every other writing form, has evolved over the years. It has gone from purely structured arrangements of words to produce beautiful results to...well...anything we wish to label as poetry. Interestingly enough, I wonder if the traditions of poetry will survive. Does the presence of new media possibilities further this evolution? Will poetry as we know it become a relic? Will animated displays of words and letters become the new aesthetic standard?
It feels silly to say that art will progress thusly, but I believe that an "archaic" form (and I use the term very liberally, cause I like formal poetry, may not survive in a new medium of communication so long as that medium seeks to radically alter the structure of what it conveys. It would be like giving a soldier trained in rifle marksmanship a longbow. Yeah, he'll be able to understand the principles regarding how to aim and such, but because he exists in a modern realm, his equipment must find synergy with his training. So too must new media poetry find synergy with the medium in which it exists.
Post a Comment