About my practice (notes for Tina Darragh)

I started writing poetry because I wanted to explain or describe things that I felt or experienced.

I continued writing poetry once I realized I could go beyond mere explanation, that I could use it to experience directly, that I could use it to “hack” my own mind. That is, once I “discovered” (read: was gifted by generous and wise friends) a set of practices (gathered under the moniker “avant-garde” for convenience) that reflected or embodied the mind/thought/language, rather than described what it experienced.

I stopped writing poetry (per se) once I became more enamored of systems than of words, of crowdsourcing than of individual practice, of improvisation than of static objects, of interfaces and structures than of poems. Still, I think like a poet, I hang out with poets, my work is built on avant-poetic practices, so … maybe I haven’t stopped writing poetry (per se)

A few big revelations / milestones / lessons:

  • [Language] is a material, an object that is everywhere and that can and should be manipulated as such.
  • [Language] is a system (within (and of) systems) that can and should be radically disrupted; since language is inextricably connected with thought, this practice leads to the disruption of “normal” thought patterns and the emergence of a greater understanding of understanding itself. John Cage: “close attention to close attention”
  • [Language] (and its extensions: conversation, books, poetry, the academy, nursery rhymes, board games, etc) is inherently social; therefore, any play with language must be social as well, must be shared, explained, and propagated. With their emphasis on games, the Surrealists were the first(?) intentionally(?) “poetic user experience designers.”
  • [Language] is intrinsically “of the moment,” the moment of speech, the moment of reading, the moment of performance. Language that is not performed is utterly inert, a dead thing. I hate publishing “poems.” It feels like death.
  • “I see [systems of] words.” – Me(as function of Hannah Weiner(as function of language generally))

So, the essentials of my practice (as I see them at the moment):

  • A belief that thoughts (and their extensions and sub-elements) can (and should) be conceived of as objects.
  • A restless desire to improvise through collections of such thought-objects gathered in my wanderings (as opposed to directly reading something that’s been directly written).
  • A belief that everything can (and should) be explained. Walter Benjamin: “the writer who doesn’t teach writing teaches nothing.”
  • A fascination with the systems and potential systems that surround and create any moment of thought or language, a fascination that (normally) exceeds that of the fascination with the actual thought or piece of language.
  • Holding a growing set of “catch-phrases” close to my awareness:
    • Thoughts are objects!
    • Everything is an interface!
    • No ideas but in (systems) of things!
    • etc
  • A relentless gathering of methods with affection for all and allegiance to none.

I perform with Jon in WE ARE SCIENCE! because we are both seekers using all methods at our disposal to understand what’s up, and to invite other people to participate

This entry was posted in In Process and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>