WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.442 align:middle line:90% Welcome back, everybody. 00:00:01.442 --> 00:00:02.400 align:middle line:90% Thanks for coming back. 00:00:02.400 --> 00:00:05.320 align:middle line:90% 00:00:05.320 --> 00:00:07.765 align:middle line:84% This is-- I'll give you a little bit of history. 00:00:07.765 --> 00:00:10.140 align:middle line:84% I will tell you that the other times that I've done this, 00:00:10.140 --> 00:00:13.710 align:middle line:84% I've done it in much smaller groups 00:00:13.710 --> 00:00:16.860 align:middle line:84% with a goal of instigating some conversation, 00:00:16.860 --> 00:00:19.680 align:middle line:84% and getting people to talk about what their responses 00:00:19.680 --> 00:00:22.660 align:middle line:90% and reactions are. 00:00:22.660 --> 00:00:25.210 align:middle line:84% So I encourage that, even in this much larger space. 00:00:25.210 --> 00:00:26.170 align:middle line:90% Please don't be shy. 00:00:26.170 --> 00:00:30.090 align:middle line:84% Feel free to speak up, to raise your hand if you need to. 00:00:30.090 --> 00:00:35.760 align:middle line:84% But otherwise, this is an exercise in identification 00:00:35.760 --> 00:00:38.730 align:middle line:84% and how sometimes classification can be more 00:00:38.730 --> 00:00:41.020 align:middle line:90% difficult than other times. 00:00:41.020 --> 00:00:44.880 align:middle line:84% This started when Poetry Magazine had a special issue 00:00:44.880 --> 00:00:46.530 align:middle line:90% on visual poetry. 00:00:46.530 --> 00:00:51.480 align:middle line:84% And a couple of months later, a gentleman 00:00:51.480 --> 00:00:55.140 align:middle line:84% sent a letter to the editor which I took umbrage with. 00:00:55.140 --> 00:01:00.240 align:middle line:84% His letter said, in part, look, let's call visual poetry 00:01:00.240 --> 00:01:01.620 align:middle line:90% what it really is. 00:01:01.620 --> 00:01:02.820 align:middle line:90% Visual art. 00:01:02.820 --> 00:01:04.769 align:middle line:84% Some of us are in love with language 00:01:04.769 --> 00:01:08.820 align:middle line:84% in the way in which words, just words, can be put together 00:01:08.820 --> 00:01:11.100 align:middle line:84% in relationships that say something. 00:01:11.100 --> 00:01:14.130 align:middle line:84% Let's not continue to water down the concept of poetry 00:01:14.130 --> 00:01:16.675 align:middle line:84% anymore than it already has been. 00:01:16.675 --> 00:01:18.900 align:middle line:90% [AUDIENCE LAUGHS] 00:01:18.900 --> 00:01:22.230 align:middle line:84% Thank you for laughing, because that was my initial response. 00:01:22.230 --> 00:01:27.060 align:middle line:84% Because, I thought to myself, when is a poem ever that? 00:01:27.060 --> 00:01:28.950 align:middle line:90% When it's in your head, sure. 00:01:28.950 --> 00:01:30.660 align:middle line:84% That's what it is when it's in your head. 00:01:30.660 --> 00:01:34.620 align:middle line:84% But once you put it into any transmissible format 00:01:34.620 --> 00:01:36.960 align:middle line:84% it becomes an object, and that object 00:01:36.960 --> 00:01:39.690 align:middle line:84% has qualities which can be manipulated or exploited 00:01:39.690 --> 00:01:41.850 align:middle line:90% for poetic intent. 00:01:41.850 --> 00:01:45.840 align:middle line:84% Now, I've never been the kind of person to curse the darkness. 00:01:45.840 --> 00:01:48.180 align:middle line:84% I would rather try to light a candle. 00:01:48.180 --> 00:01:55.170 align:middle line:84% So what I did was, I put together a series of pieces. 00:01:55.170 --> 00:01:56.970 align:middle line:84% Like I said earlier, the continuum 00:01:56.970 --> 00:01:59.230 align:middle line:84% between the visual and textual is vast. 00:01:59.230 --> 00:02:01.230 align:middle line:84% I mean, there are some pieces that are clearly-- 00:02:01.230 --> 00:02:02.940 align:middle line:84% there's no text involved in this at all. 00:02:02.940 --> 00:02:04.950 align:middle line:84% This is-- I shouldn't say nothing, 00:02:04.950 --> 00:02:08.889 align:middle line:84% but this is solely a visual piece. 00:02:08.889 --> 00:02:10.889 align:middle line:84% And there are other pieces that you can look at, 00:02:10.889 --> 00:02:15.060 align:middle line:84% and you can say, this is just text. 00:02:15.060 --> 00:02:16.980 align:middle line:84% And then there's some pieces that are 00:02:16.980 --> 00:02:18.582 align:middle line:90% text with the visual component. 00:02:18.582 --> 00:02:20.290 align:middle line:84% And there are some pieces that are visual 00:02:20.290 --> 00:02:21.630 align:middle line:90% with the textual component. 00:02:21.630 --> 00:02:24.330 align:middle line:84% But it really gets interesting to me when you get to this spot 00:02:24.330 --> 00:02:29.325 align:middle line:84% where, well, I'm not really sure what that is. 00:02:29.325 --> 00:02:32.580 align:middle line:84% This is a guy named Bronek Konarski. 00:02:32.580 --> 00:02:33.330 align:middle line:90% This is a poem. 00:02:33.330 --> 00:02:34.350 align:middle line:90% This is the whole poem. 00:02:34.350 --> 00:02:36.360 align:middle line:90% "Waves lapping against a shore. 00:02:36.360 --> 00:02:39.210 align:middle line:90% Waves lapping against a shore." 00:02:39.210 --> 00:02:43.020 align:middle line:90% Is this visual or textual? 00:02:43.020 --> 00:02:45.540 align:middle line:90% Personally, I mean, yeah. 00:02:45.540 --> 00:02:46.440 align:middle line:90% It's all text. 00:02:46.440 --> 00:02:48.120 align:middle line:84% And I suppose it works auditorily, 00:02:48.120 --> 00:02:50.120 align:middle line:84% but I don't think it works anywhere near as well 00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:52.500 align:middle line:90% auditorily as it works visually. 00:02:52.500 --> 00:02:58.110 align:middle line:84% I think this is a piece that the visual component is inseparable 00:02:58.110 --> 00:03:00.660 align:middle line:90% from the textual component. 00:03:00.660 --> 00:03:02.290 align:middle line:84% So I would have a hard time, myself, 00:03:02.290 --> 00:03:06.300 align:middle line:84% saying whether this piece is purely textual. 00:03:06.300 --> 00:03:08.910 align:middle line:84% And please chime in and call me an idiot, a liar, 00:03:08.910 --> 00:03:11.100 align:middle line:90% if you think I'm wrong. 00:03:11.100 --> 00:03:13.110 align:middle line:84% This is a piece that's a double acrostic. 00:03:13.110 --> 00:03:17.250 align:middle line:84% Because it's been done with a fixed pitch font, 00:03:17.250 --> 00:03:20.520 align:middle line:84% every line is the same number of characters and or spaces 00:03:20.520 --> 00:03:22.950 align:middle line:84% which allows you to make it acrostic on both 00:03:22.950 --> 00:03:26.220 align:middle line:90% the left and right side. 00:03:26.220 --> 00:03:30.162 align:middle line:84% It's not intended to be printed with the ends colored. 00:03:30.162 --> 00:03:31.620 align:middle line:84% I've just done that so that you can 00:03:31.620 --> 00:03:34.950 align:middle line:84% see that, as you read it down, it says, 00:03:34.950 --> 00:03:39.300 align:middle line:84% "Every good question is written in the down. 00:03:39.300 --> 00:03:43.617 align:middle line:84% The answer isn't written in the down. 00:03:43.617 --> 00:03:47.290 align:middle line:90% 00:03:47.290 --> 00:03:50.860 align:middle line:84% Every good question is well hidden, sir." 00:03:50.860 --> 00:03:52.060 align:middle line:90% A poem like this, again-- 00:03:52.060 --> 00:03:56.620 align:middle line:84% I think it calls into question whether it is visual 00:03:56.620 --> 00:03:59.350 align:middle line:90% or not, or purely textual. 00:03:59.350 --> 00:04:01.570 align:middle line:90% EE Cummings, prime example-- 00:04:01.570 --> 00:04:03.760 align:middle line:84% What I love about this particular piece, 00:04:03.760 --> 00:04:10.910 align:middle line:84% and why I included it, is for the title, 00:04:10.910 --> 00:04:12.940 align:middle line:90% which is "Grasshopper." 00:04:12.940 --> 00:04:15.550 align:middle line:84% But to me has always called to mind-- 00:04:15.550 --> 00:04:19.660 align:middle line:84% And if you've ever stumbled on a grasshopper in the grass, 00:04:19.660 --> 00:04:22.330 align:middle line:84% they just sort of explode out when they come. 00:04:22.330 --> 00:04:26.800 align:middle line:84% So if this were sort of a type of structure 00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:28.900 align:middle line:84% that may look exactly like a grasshopper, 00:04:28.900 --> 00:04:31.540 align:middle line:84% I would have no problem saying this piece is primarily visual. 00:04:31.540 --> 00:04:35.200 align:middle line:84% But because he's done that with it, that, to me, 00:04:35.200 --> 00:04:37.360 align:middle line:84% hearkens or calls to mind the echo 00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:39.680 align:middle line:90% of an action that's happening. 00:04:39.680 --> 00:04:44.072 align:middle line:84% I'm not sure that this would work otherwise. 00:04:44.072 --> 00:04:47.090 align:middle line:90% FT Marinetti. 00:04:47.090 --> 00:04:47.590 align:middle line:90% Futurism. 00:04:47.590 --> 00:04:50.136 align:middle line:90% 00:04:50.136 --> 00:04:51.560 align:middle line:90% Is this a piece of visual art? 00:04:51.560 --> 00:04:52.400 align:middle line:90% Or is this a text? 00:04:52.400 --> 00:04:53.730 align:middle line:84% It's certainly not a readable text. 00:04:53.730 --> 00:04:55.063 align:middle line:90% Well, I mean, i think it can be. 00:04:55.063 --> 00:04:57.560 align:middle line:84% There's people who actually do perform text like this, 00:04:57.560 --> 00:05:00.230 align:middle line:84% and Joerg Piringer is a guy who does do that. 00:05:00.230 --> 00:05:03.230 align:middle line:84% They take these as scores for auditory poems 00:05:03.230 --> 00:05:05.150 align:middle line:84% which problematizes it even further. 00:05:05.150 --> 00:05:06.620 align:middle line:90% Is it textual? 00:05:06.620 --> 00:05:10.130 align:middle line:84% Is it the score for something auditory? 00:05:10.130 --> 00:05:13.280 align:middle line:90% Or is it visual? 00:05:13.280 --> 00:05:14.200 align:middle line:90% TypeScript? 00:05:14.200 --> 00:05:14.870 align:middle line:90% Type scrapped? 00:05:14.870 --> 00:05:17.540 align:middle line:90% 00:05:17.540 --> 00:05:19.460 align:middle line:90% Another bpNichol piece. 00:05:19.460 --> 00:05:21.585 align:middle line:84% "Along the horizon grew an unbroken line of trees." 00:05:21.585 --> 00:05:24.105 align:middle line:90% 00:05:24.105 --> 00:05:24.790 align:middle line:90% I don't know. 00:05:24.790 --> 00:05:27.530 align:middle line:84% Is that a text, or is that a picture? 00:05:27.530 --> 00:05:28.828 align:middle line:90% It's a landscape. 00:05:28.828 --> 00:05:31.365 align:middle line:90% 00:05:31.365 --> 00:05:32.740 align:middle line:84% This is another Jim Andrews piece 00:05:32.740 --> 00:05:33.907 align:middle line:90% which I'm going to show you. 00:05:33.907 --> 00:05:36.820 align:middle line:90% This is called "Nio." 00:05:36.820 --> 00:05:41.920 align:middle line:84% "Nio" is a tool that anyone can use. 00:05:41.920 --> 00:05:43.075 align:middle line:90% It has nibs. 00:05:43.075 --> 00:05:50.350 align:middle line:84% And the nibs you can draw with, so you could-- 00:05:50.350 --> 00:05:54.310 align:middle line:84% Right now it's sort of in free mode showing you what it does. 00:05:54.310 --> 00:05:57.000 align:middle line:84% But you can-- These are all tips, nibs that you can take 00:05:57.000 --> 00:05:59.895 align:middle line:84% and you can draw with, if you wanted, yourself. 00:05:59.895 --> 00:06:03.720 align:middle line:90% 00:06:03.720 --> 00:06:07.200 align:middle line:84% Because the text is so visual, I can't really 00:06:07.200 --> 00:06:10.050 align:middle line:90% tell you which it is. 00:06:10.050 --> 00:06:12.690 align:middle line:90% Donald Finkel. 00:06:12.690 --> 00:06:15.450 align:middle line:84% "My arm sweeps down to pliant arc whatever 00:06:15.450 --> 00:06:17.680 align:middle line:84% I am streams through my negligent wrist: 00:06:17.680 --> 00:06:23.130 align:middle line:84% the poem uncoils like a whip, it snaps softly 00:06:23.130 --> 00:06:24.790 align:middle line:84% an inch from your enchanted face." 00:06:24.790 --> 00:06:32.094 align:middle line:90% 00:06:32.094 --> 00:06:34.012 align:middle line:84% It's the bubbles in champagne, by the way. 00:06:34.012 --> 00:06:36.323 align:middle line:90% 00:06:36.323 --> 00:06:38.240 align:middle line:84% Kind of a favorite poem by Aaron [? Shurin. ?] 00:06:38.240 --> 00:06:40.310 align:middle line:84% For the amount of money, it earned him a grant. 00:06:40.310 --> 00:06:49.070 align:middle line:90% 00:06:49.070 --> 00:06:50.690 align:middle line:84% This is my grandfather, actually. 00:06:50.690 --> 00:06:53.240 align:middle line:84% "Roses are red the violets are ready for plucking. 00:06:53.240 --> 00:06:58.292 align:middle line:84% I'm fresh out of high school and ready for college." 00:06:58.292 --> 00:06:59.750 align:middle line:84% But I think the same mechanism that 00:06:59.750 --> 00:07:03.980 align:middle line:84% makes this work is the same mechanism that makes this work. 00:07:03.980 --> 00:07:06.230 align:middle line:84% I guess that expectation of the line, which 00:07:06.230 --> 00:07:09.245 align:middle line:84% is a visual construct, it's an effect on the page. 00:07:09.245 --> 00:07:12.350 align:middle line:90% 00:07:12.350 --> 00:07:16.065 align:middle line:84% But this is a quadruple acrostic because-- 00:07:16.065 --> 00:07:16.580 align:middle line:90% Excuse me? 00:07:16.580 --> 00:07:17.270 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:07:17.270 --> 00:07:22.250 align:middle line:84% But that last one also just reminded me of stand up comedy. 00:07:22.250 --> 00:07:25.340 align:middle line:90% But the oral quality of-- 00:07:25.340 --> 00:07:27.920 align:middle line:90% Visually, it's simulated. 00:07:27.920 --> 00:07:29.150 align:middle line:90% And that's the timing-- 00:07:29.150 --> 00:07:29.745 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:07:29.745 --> 00:07:30.620 align:middle line:90% That's exactly right. 00:07:30.620 --> 00:07:31.120 align:middle line:90% --of that? 00:07:31.120 --> 00:07:35.480 align:middle line:84% But I don't necessarily know that it's native to the visual. 00:07:35.480 --> 00:07:39.830 align:middle line:84% To me, that seems even more about recording audio, 00:07:39.830 --> 00:07:40.340 align:middle line:90% in a sense. 00:07:40.340 --> 00:07:43.280 align:middle line:84% I assume there's an anticipatory-- 00:07:43.280 --> 00:07:44.000 align:middle line:90% Right. 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:45.560 align:middle line:84% What makes it funny is that you're 00:07:45.560 --> 00:07:47.150 align:middle line:90% expecting something else. 00:07:47.150 --> 00:07:47.690 align:middle line:90% Right. 00:07:47.690 --> 00:07:49.565 align:middle line:84% And you're expecting a rhyme, which is sonic. 00:07:49.565 --> 00:07:50.870 align:middle line:90% I agree. 00:07:50.870 --> 00:07:52.100 align:middle line:90% But the sonic-- 00:07:52.100 --> 00:07:53.630 align:middle line:84% Well, that's a good question, too. 00:07:53.630 --> 00:07:57.170 align:middle line:90% Is rhyme a sonic function? 00:07:57.170 --> 00:07:59.870 align:middle line:84% It's a really good question because there's irony, 00:07:59.870 --> 00:08:01.070 align:middle line:90% for sure. 00:08:01.070 --> 00:08:05.360 align:middle line:84% And then there's also this notion that, 00:08:05.360 --> 00:08:09.920 align:middle line:84% even imperceptibly to ourselves, we are vocalizing when we read. 00:08:09.920 --> 00:08:12.650 align:middle line:84% There's been studies that show that everybody, when they read, 00:08:12.650 --> 00:08:16.200 align:middle line:84% is moving their lips even if it's not visible, so to speak. 00:08:16.200 --> 00:08:20.450 align:middle line:84% So the question is whether that is auditory or not. 00:08:20.450 --> 00:08:23.250 align:middle line:90% I think it's a great point. 00:08:23.250 --> 00:08:23.750 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:08:23.750 --> 00:08:25.903 align:middle line:90% So this is a quadruple acrostic. 00:08:25.903 --> 00:08:28.070 align:middle line:84% Again-- Because we're working in a fixed pitch font, 00:08:28.070 --> 00:08:30.487 align:middle line:84% as long as we make the lines the same number of characters 00:08:30.487 --> 00:08:32.870 align:middle line:84% and their spaces, it gives us the opportunity 00:08:32.870 --> 00:08:37.280 align:middle line:84% to make it say, "other lovers" and then, 00:08:37.280 --> 00:08:41.120 align:middle line:84% "escape their others alone or so they say." 00:08:41.120 --> 00:08:43.727 align:middle line:90% 00:08:43.727 --> 00:08:44.560 align:middle line:90% How do you see that? 00:08:44.560 --> 00:08:47.050 align:middle line:90% I don't see that. 00:08:47.050 --> 00:08:53.465 align:middle line:84% The first letter of every line is, o-t-h-e-r l-o-v-e-r-s. 00:08:53.465 --> 00:08:55.340 align:middle line:84% And then over here, where there's this break, 00:08:55.340 --> 00:08:56.960 align:middle line:90% because this is a chunk. 00:08:56.960 --> 00:09:00.500 align:middle line:84% The last line of this chunk, the last letter of each line is 00:09:00.500 --> 00:09:05.710 align:middle line:84% e-s-c-a-p-e t-h-e-i-r, and so on. 00:09:05.710 --> 00:09:06.460 align:middle line:90% More of the same-- 00:09:06.460 --> 00:09:08.170 align:middle line:84% But as you multiply it, does that 00:09:08.170 --> 00:09:10.570 align:middle line:84% change the amount that the visual aspect 00:09:10.570 --> 00:09:15.150 align:middle line:84% is required for this piece to function as it does?