Computer printers
|
July 1: in something I just posted to Spidertangle, I said, "I think, as I often say, that a visual poet as a poet should just try to make the best art he can. Unfortunately, he has to consider marketing his work--by which I mean, get an audience for it--unless he's satisfied to be a solipsist (for which he needs an independent income). So it is not foolish or aesthetically immoral to try to work up a brand name of some sort. It certainly helped the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets make it (so many of them being fast-lane academics was more important, though). It's how these (mostly) dopey flarf "poets" are making it.
"That's different from what the responsible literary taxonomist does--which is define as objectively and detailedly as possible the varieties of poetries and show how they relate to each other in order to facilitate discussion. I continue to believe that getting our poetry discussed is as important as getting it seen."
I was hoping today to discuss the reaction to my PBS-type video documentary on visual poetry idea, but there hasn't been any. Is it really that uninteresting a suggestion?
|