Inquistor: Ray DeJesús
Participants: Christine N. Kanowink, Jeff T. Johnson, Claire Donato, Mark Guarie, Amanda SmeltzScene: Virtual round table discussion. Questions are posed by the inquisitor. Panelists eag, Allison Power, David Blasco
Let's get it on!
Do you consider yourself 'poets'? If so, how do you negotiate around the traffic of social conversations that would require you to admit such a label, or is it as my friend Lauren Hunter says, "your dirty little secret"?
CK: It helps that 90% of my friends are also poets or something equally silly, but, yes, it is hard to say it with a straight face sometimes, especially among respectable members of the community.
JJ: I admit to writing poetry, but don’t usually call myself a poet. If someone else does, fine. But what do we even mean by poet, or by poetry? Even in a poetry workshop, we all have different ideas of what poetry is, or what effective or worthwhile poetry is. Anyway, I’d rather describe myself as a writer, just as I prefer to think about writing as writing, rather than a particular form or genre. I do think what is it is an ok question, but just like I prefer what does it do to what does it mean, I prefer what does it do to what is it. And maybe what does it do and who or what does it do it to, and when, etc, is a more productive series of questions. So when people ask me what I do, I might say I write, or that I write poetry, if it makes sense in context, but I am a poet sounds to me like I’m different from you, or I have a different/superior grasp of language than you do. If we feel self-conscious as writers of poetry, or as self-proclaimed writers of poetry, is it because we perceive poetry to be ridiculous or unnecessary? Or are we giving ourselves a backhanded compliment, bemoaning the myth that poetry is not valued in society, or that poetry is an occupation that doesn’t pay, but we do it anyway, or that we are misunderstood? Poems are more interesting than poets, and poetry is more interesting than poems. I make poems, sometimes with words; call me what you want to. Call me Jeff or hey you.
MG: Well yeah, so I just tell them that I write stuff and it’s mostly poetry. I don’t often use that label (‘poet’) in describing myself, but I certainly won’t correct anyone if that’s what they chose to use to describe me.
CD: In response to the first question, a quote from my friend and teacher Ross Gay comes to mind: ‘We are not our poems.’
In response to the second question: When I find myself in a social situation that requires me to talk about poetry, I usually say, ‘I studied poetry in graduate school’ or ‘My formal training was in poetry writing.’ And then I qualify the statement by stating that I’ve also studied and written and done a lot of things, all of which feel like poetry to me.
AS: I don’t know that I’d call myself a Poet. I’ll wait for other people to do that.
When it comes up in conversation, I often dodge - talk about writing first, and then if people press, I mention poetry. I’m reluctant to have to explain myself too much.
DB: In my experience, the conversation rarely makes it much further. If you say you're a poet, people take your word for it; whether it's from manners or indifference or both, most people leave it at that (& I don't feel obligated to explain anything).
AP: I smile and change the subject.
Why? Why poetry?
CK: No one has good reason to do anything. I was good at writing and people complimented me on my writing and I kept on writing and then I went to study poetry at various accredited universities and now it is what I am always doing and thinking about. That’s not a very romantic answer. I think it suits me and the way my brain processes things, but if things had gone a little differently I could imagine myself pursuing any number of ridiculous artist endeavors.
JJ: Because it is.
MG: For the money and the fame.
CD: Right now, my mind goes here: Because everything has a poetics, and because language lets me check in with my ears.
AS: Because I came out of the womb rhyming. Because elliptical and inverted expression. Because over-explanation bores. Because the mystery of shared language is one I serve. Because singing.
AP: Because I'm not a painter. (Too obvious? Sorry, but I hate this question.)
DB: Could you repeat the question?
But isn't poetry a dead art form?
CK: If an art critic for the New York Times hasn’t declared your art form dead, then it isn’t worth doing.
JJ: What is poetry’s form? What’s it made of? If language, what is that? Isn’t language always dying in the form of utterance? How long do poems stay fresh? Why do we keep making them? Are we just trying to make a really good one so we can stop making them? Poetry is a form of death. Art is what you make it.
MG: Most things taste better when they are dead.
CD: If every word invokes a little death, I die – ‘I’ become(s) dead – as I write. I aspire toward the deadest death, and I call for you, the reader, to press your mind against the surface of this text. It will come alive.
AS: As long as humans speak to one another and babies babble after birth, poetry is inherent in existence.
DB: Undead.
AP: Nope.
One of our panelists, Jeff T. Johnson has said that, and correct me if I'm wrong, JJ, that poetry is as much an art form as the visual arts (e.g., painting, photography, video, et al). Jeff, can you can you exlplain this theory a bit more? How do the you others feel about this theory?
CK: I’m not sure I get this one and would hate to get egg on my face in front of the whole BAP readership. Poetry is art, the same way a painting is art and dance and basket weaving and songwriting are art. Is poetry a visual art? Depends on the poet/poem. Poetry does exist visually since most people experience it on the page in its visual form; however very few poems would do well framed and hanged in a gallery. Saroyan and Appolinaire would, though.
JJ: Claire Donato and I have an ongoing conversation about this. I probably got the notion from her, and she probably discovered it elsewhere. We (the larger, more nebulous we) are comfortable describing painting as art (though art, or the art world, whatever that is, is currently over painting, maybe), but we don’t necessarily think of poetry as art. Or, better said, when we say art we might think of painting or sculpture or drawing or video installation, etc., but we probably don’t think of poetry. Why is that? Visual art sounds familiar to us, but we don’t think of poetry as visual art, even though we like to recognize poetry as text with line breaks. (Who is we?) But poetry is visual art. Poetry is language art. Sound and meaning are important in poetry, but so is shape. And, to be sure, poetry (and language) is not just words. If one of poetry’s best strategies is juxtaposition, can we do the work of poetry using only images? Of course we can. And words can also act as visual objects to be looked at. We can read images, we can look at text. And we do. Why shouldn’t we create multimedia poetry?
MG: I’d argue that poetry can work like the visual arts, and yet, on a couple levels it is a completely different animal. For one thing, the aural quality of poetry predates its written presentation: long before languages were codified, long before print, there were story-tellers, Greek theatrical epics, bards, etc. Here’s the big, bold and probably refutable statement: No matter what their aesthetic is, all poets working today are still reckoning with the pre-codified, aural ancestry of the art form. I’d even argue that “visual approaches” to poetics, still imply some sort of sense of real-time, of being inside time with the spaces between stanzas enacting pauses of sorts. That being said, I think visual arts approaches to poetry most assuredly do inform the way a poem is read. Many decisions that poets make are ‘visual’ or ‘graphic’ in nature. I don’t even know if I answered the question.
CD: I’m interested in what Jennifer DeVere Brody calls “an expanded field of writing” where language is embodied material that takes shape both on- and off- of the physical page. With regard to embodied writing practices, it seems many visual artists are writers and vice-versa and versa-vice until the boundaries are broken down and blurry. I think of Jenny Holzer’s nighttime projections, Tom Phillips’s treated Victorian novel A Humument, Caroline Bergvall’s language-driven installations, Aram Saroyan’s lighght verse, Kenneth Goldsmith’s book-objects, C.D. Wright’s carefully sculpted texts. The list goes on.
AS: Of course it’s an equal art form. Poetry does things these other arts can’t, which is not to their detriment, but is worth noting: verse can be memorized and carried in the brain whole. You can only have a memory of your experience of those other art forms, but the moment you recite a poem from inside your self you experience it again, in total. It’s awe-inspiring.
DB: There's less money in it.
AP: Agree.
Okay, time for some irreverence. Are smoking and drinking prerequisites to becoming a 'poet'?