Last week, in my 'Art of the City' column in Beat magazine, I wrote a piece entitled 'Poetry ain't trivial' which attempted to mock some people's poor opinions of poetry and spoken word by using negative cliches about the artforms in a deliberately over-the-top way, and that I thought would clearly be read as firmly tongue-in-cheek.
Instead it appears that my words have been taken seriously by some people, and consequently I've ended up offending several Melbourne poets who I have nothing but respect for.
Oh dear. That so wasn't meant to be the case. Sorry, guys, it was a joke. Or at least it was meant to be. Maybe I'll just stick to reporting the facts from now on...
23 comments:
would have thought the 'feed them to the cannibals' comment made it fairly obvious you were joking!
Dear me. It doesn't say much for the poets' sense of irony...
Indeed it doesn't, Alison - nor does it say much about their senses of humour. :-)
Just for the record Rich, let's get some facts straight here. I can safely say the poets offended knew very well it was a joke, we may be literary but we ain't stupid, ;-). That wasn't the point, at all. The point is, it's a really tired joke. And for an arts reporter, it's a really lazy joke.
I know where you're coming from, really I do. Most performance poetry/spoken word is rubbish. And I should know, I've seen a lot of it! But you know what? It's the same with all art! Most of the plays I've seen are rubbish too! Paintings, movies, etc, etc.
Only a small percentage of any of them are actually any good. But that small percentage that is inspiring, heartfelt and challenging to the soul make these art forms worth pursuing.
And yet you're never prefacing an article about theatre by saying, 'most theatre is rubbish, but this play is great!'. Only poetry gets that gong.
Do you see what I mean?
For you to apologise on one hand and then suggest that 'they just can't take a joke' on the other, suggests that maybe you don't know what I mean at all?
Anyway, you know I love ya mate. Just had to pitch in my five cents worth.
"And yet you're never prefacing an article about theatre by saying, 'most theatre is rubbish, but this play is great!'. Only poetry gets that gong.
Do you see what I mean?"
Now that you put it like that, Sean, yes, I do: that clearly articulates the issue people had with what I wrote. As opposed to accusing me of sour grapes because other poets have been more successful than myself, or thinking I was being deadly serious, both of which I've been accused of by people who I thought knew me better.
Some people, quite simply, did not get the joke, let's be clear about that. Nonetheless I appreciate your clarification of the situation among those who understood I was being humourous.
I do disagree that myself and other arts writers fail to mention that so much of what we see is crap - it's been said many a time at Fringe for example, by myself and others, and of the Midsumma Festival to name but two examples, that you have to wade through the crap to get to the good stuff.
Nonetheless you're quite right that poetry gets tarred and feathered more often than other art forms. Perhaps that's because in other artforms there's more to focus on, ie in theatre and film you can admire production, lighting, acting etc even if the script or screenplay is bad. Poetry doesn't give you that option.
I'd be interested to know other people's thoughts on this. Why does poetry, especially performance poetry and spoken word, have such a bad reputation when other artforms, even other literary forms, do not?
Well, darlin', the sour grapes comment was a cliche, you might say, of letter writing (but as Beat doesn't have a public letters option there's little point in that). I guessed if you're going to take this Dominic Dunne-kind of stance in a column you've got to take some of the (well-meaning?) vitriol back...
No one didn't "get the joke" by the way. The joke is funny.
It's just a joke we've heard too many times and now twice from you and I did I must say find it hard to believe that you of all people wouldn't see how this particular joke could be more damaging to the form than just funny and ironic. (who'd get it, in the general public sense, do you think - enough to then go along, and support these actual poets in their benefit?)
In that sense, I did think I knew you better. Much better.
There is a sense that performance poets, spoken word artists - and by that I mean poets who are not aiming for page publication but for a wider field (that does in fact include music, production, lighting, performance if not acting ..) - spoken word artists still feel marginalised and possibly a bit vulnerable. Why is that?
That's a good question. Why are venues getting harder to get, radio apart from community radio even harder, festivals losing funding? American "slam poets" aside...
Is there just too much bad performance poetry out there? There's alot, to be sure. So how do people know, when they're invited to a spoken word event, that what they're going to get is a bit different, even, better, than what they might expect?
And so the really talented and hard working artists (those with the balls to take their work overseas), perhaps they are a bit vulnerable, and perhaps there's still good reason for that?
I'm not one of the poets implicated in this per se - but this really matters to me because all you have to do is look around Australia at the moment to see that it's as much a struggle as it ever was and I wonder why ...
This really isn't about "getting the joke". It's about, for me, the timing and placement of a joke within a wider understanding of the responsibility you have as a public commentator.
Fair enough for you to feel righteous about this, it's your column and it's your opinion and we don't have to agree.
My opinion is that good art in the current Australian climate needs to be treated as something important, and respected, and nurtured. And if it's vulnerable, perhaps it's not so easy to just brush it off as a joke.
(PS, this may be my second post sorry, the previous one doesn't seem to have worked.)
"Perhaps that's because in other artforms there's more to focus on"
i think this is a crucial point here richard, i believe the performance of poetry does give you other elements to focus on when being critical, it's just that arts writers don't feel the need to treat it as a multi-layered performance/artform. there is the performance writing itself (ie the words), stage presence and use of stage space, use of voice, use of body and/or gesture, ideas relating to audience.....often there are also lighting considerations, music and other production techniques. i guess in some ways, it could almost be reviewed in the same way a lot of one person theatre shows are reviewed. this is where arts writers totally fail in generating real critical thinking on performance poetry and spoken word. just a thought....
Nope, only came through once, babe, though Blog only knows what happened to your first post - and oh, your first comment on my blog, hurrah! :-)
"So how do people know, when they're invited to a spoken word event, that what they're going to get is a bit different, even, better, than what they might expect?"
Good question, Lisa. Through reviews? Through hearing work played on RRR, JJJ or elsewhere? Through rigorously curated events that don't give microphone time to second or third rate work, saving that sort of thing for open mic nights?
"This really isn't about "getting the joke". It's about, for me, the timing and placement of a joke within a wider understanding of the responsibility you have as a public commentator... My opinion is that good art in the current Australian climate needs to be treated as something important, and respected, and nurtured."
For me, I guess, part of the issue is the difference between what I would see as my 'serious' arts writing (such as the features I contribute almost weekly to MCV, occasionally to The Program) and writing my 'Art of the City' column.
The former is deliberately 'journalistic' if you will, with a detached authorial tone, whereas for my column in Beat, I've been specifically briefed to be more flippant, less serious and more personal in tone.
That said, I agree with you that good art in the present climate needs to be supported and nurtured. I'll also agree that I showed a lack of respect for the skills of the writers in the piece in question, which I'll endeavour to rectify in next week's column.
Klare - your points are also well raised, and thank you for contributing to the dialogue.
While I agree that some writer-performers definitely do take music, lighting, posture, voice and other aspects of a multi-layered performance into account, I think far too few of them do.
That said, I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a spoken word performance that wasn't by William Yang reviewed in the mainstream arts media in Australia. Yang, I think, only gets reviewed because he came from a visual arts background (and because he appears in MIAF rather than Fringe)...
sure. the point is that there needs to be a 'point of reference' for writers reviewing performance poetry/spoken word (just like there is for most other artforms). if the performers don't take the elements into account, they still should be reviewed with those elements in mind. I've seen hundreds of theatre shows that don't take those things into consideration and yet they are still reviewed with those things in mind. i would be absolutely wrapped if i got a 'bad review' that at least took all of those elements into consideration (eg for our MIAF show last year). over and out....kl
Thanks Rich, for your articulate reply.
And I didn't mean to suggest that you're never critical at all of other art forms, one of the things I love the most about your work (and I do love your work, make no mistake) is that you're never shy of telling it like it is, when it needs to be told. An admirable quality in any journalist.
And if this debate fuels an open dialogue about the role of performance poetry in the greater arts community, then this has all been for good.
Cheers.
Sean.
Ahhh Sean and Lisa are truly great poets, so, tough love from a coupla talents there, Tricky!
I didn't read your piece, dunno if I would have 'got it', or thought it was funny... No idea, but...
I'm a fan of poetry, particularly spoken word, but I know that to get to the good, you gotta suffer the shit. I always have a hard time 'selling' poetry gigs to people, praps more so than music gigs or exhibitions. And each time there's a gig I want to go to, I get a sinking feeling that great work will be read but no-one I know will be there to witness it.
Sigh.
(Oh no, I'm sure I've dropped the occasional comment in here and there, usually to sigh stupidly whenever you mention Bogie...)
True words being spoken here and the soft underbelly of spoken word as always is surprisingly easy to expose (in me as much as anyone).
The reality is, that good performance poetry struggles with the bad. And yes that's true of any art form. But with poetry it seems to be that the form has already struck out a few times, and as new artists step up to the plate the audience is more interested in the nut guy, getting a coke, catching the show down the street etc....
Bad fringe festivals don't help. And everyone knows what I mean here - less, with more quality, is preferrable. But it's easy and cheap, let's face it, to put on a lot of bad poetry events...
Maybe, just maybe, there isn't enough at stake? What's the top, what are we aiming for, really?
It's a good point about William Yang - and yet he is such a safe bet for a reviewer, he's already got the mantle of treasure before you even sit down in the theatre... and yes, he's a photographer and it's billed as a self indulgent stroll through his life ... but it might be the closest thing.
How do we get the mainstream reviewers to write about spoken word and generate the kind of dialogue, that Klare's talking about? And also view these poets, artists, within their own wider context - ie, the many and varied sources of inspiration that we use for our practice (Gilberto, anyone? Noir, baby? You see what I mean?)
Lately the poetry slams have got the mainstream press, and the chorus one and all still says "wow, I was expecting it to be CRAP! and it was actually really good!" I mean ... this is getting so old to me...or I'm getting so old...
Klare, we should start writing critical articles for Real Time magazine ...
Now the really funny thing is Richard I just misread what you said in your post, as "with a debauched authorial tone" - I think that's a good direction with the columnn, si?
; ))
Tough love, no... it's good love, that speaks it's mind without injuring the heart.
"And if this debate fuels an open dialogue about the role of performance poetry in the greater arts community, then this has all been for good."
I'll drink to that, Sean-baby. I'll certainly be drawing upon the feedback so generously provided by yourself and others on this here blog for my column next week.
"Ahhh Sean and Lisa are truly great poets, so, tough love from a coupla talents there, Tricky!"
Ain't they just, though, Bonnie?! I've had the pleasure of seeing Sean perform many times, and have performed with Lisa, so I know only too well how damn good they are. Klare Lanson is also superb - well worth seeing if you get the chance when you get back to Oz from Korea!
May I also point out something that speaks volumes about where Spoken Word sits in the pecking order of the arts in Australia.
The only debate we can have about it, is amongst ourselves! From what I understand, Beat newspaper's editors weren't even interested in reading our grievances, let alone actually publishing them.
There is no public forum, because quite frankly the public aren't informed enough to care.
Maybe there is a distinction to be made between performance poetry and spoken word.
Most poetry gigs are just the reading of the work, and this how I like it, simple, just the sound and rhythm of the words. But some are performance, like the stuff I've seen of Klare's... which have theatrical elements - lighting, costumes, musical accompaniment.
I gotta say, when I read that line of Sean's I thought - 'yeah, right!'. I love the idea of a dialogue, but really, it's just a monologue... Poets lamenting the lack of interest in or respect for their work. To each other.
"Klare, we should start writing critical articles for Real Time magazine ..."
Yes, yes, YES! I can't think of people better placed to do that than yourselves.
Hi Richard. Once I became privvy to the kerfuffle about the mention of the fundraiser for Emilie, Klare and Alicia's NZ tour, I couldn't resist checking out what folks have said on your blog. (I was MC on the night.) Leaving the debate about spoken word's profile to others better equipped, I just wanted to add to what Lisa said about why it's likely your column got people's backs up. Whatever the tone of your Beat material, the trouble with having gone for the heavy irony without a 'just-kidding' clause is that it's difficult to imagine the casual reader responding positively: "Yeah, poets suck! I'm gonna make sure I go and give them my support!" So what was the point, then? Remember: this wasn't a review or preview publicity, but a call for folks to attend a fundraiser... in which you effectively told readers it wasn't worth their trouble. For someone with tremendous credentials as a supporter of the arts, it's not very supportive, is it? I'm sure you're wondering how the hell writing that little par turned into such a crit-storm, but you can't really accuse these guys of being thin-skinned when they tried to publicise a fundraiser and got a sarcastic piece that would have discouraged punters. Can you?
Michael - fair point, and I'm happy to concede I didn't think through the effects of the sarcastic tone in terms of its impact on the general punter...
...DEAREST DICK WATTS...whilst you ARE doing a "better" job than your post-modern-tosspot junk culture obsessed predecessor...might your column STILL be a fart in the city...it stinks more than a certain cock-sparrow led government...hope that is not too harsh...speaking of which...INSTEAD of revelling all desperate like to be on (or giver to friends of names)on free door lists in nepotistic farty cliques of this piss ant city in a c(o)untry that is culturally butt a piss in a LITERAL ocean...thanxxx ta all te COMMONt(r)a(i)tors...why not give more DECENT "copy" to some of THE SHIT-e(...as in INTERESTING not necessarily GOOD or POLISHED but PURE IN VISION...) going on ABOUT TOWN...rather than RIGHTEOUSLY writing SELF-OBSESSEDself-obsessed DISCLAIMER-Sdisclaimers...that ULTIMATELY celebrates all the so-called "critical" influence you wield about town in all the fartistic boreds(sic-(k))and committes you laud over...
..anyway...
...why does shIT-e get a bad rep...because most of it is SELF-CONSCIOUSLY INDULGENT which makes it on par with comedy STAND UP COMEDY...this is not a joke...i am...a performance (f)artist...so...i LOVE SELF-INDULGENCE...but NOT SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS...unless its BECOMING...(with) THE PERFORMERS PRESENCE...otherwise...THE HERD cringe in embarrassment...because...WE DO NOT HAVE WHATEVER IT TAKES TO BE CONSISTENTLY THAT VULNERABLE...emphasis on THAT...
...why are the (f)arts a struggle ?...because it is HIJACKED by people...the likes of you-se...whose aesthetic is that of a confused OSCAR WILDE...who do NOUGHT BUTT TAKE PRESTIGE in these...such NEPOTISTIC-MAN ABOUT TOWN DANDY WAYS...as for me ARTAUD IS MY MAN...of PASSION...best exemplified in this line of "No More Masterpieces" from THE SEMINAL WORK "The Theatre and Its Double"...-"EVERYTHING depends on the MANNER and the PURITY with which THE THING is done"-...refer page 82 of 1958 "Grove Press" published edition...which reminds me...YOU LIKED THAT ROCK EISTEDFORD VERSION OF "JET OF BLOOD" last year...didnt you...
...does multi-layered = MEDIATISED DISTRACTION...for LACK of a subject or content...
...i can tell YOU ARE CHRONICALLY SINGLE...because...LIKE ME...YOU ARE...WE ARE...ALL...WANKERS like oztrailya...and that's why you should take a leaf out of ANTHONY SK(CA)REWS film reviews for INPRESS...there is a MANNER AND PURITY in the writing...even if it is a so-called obNOXIOUS WANK...as the LOVErly "bonnie conquest" confessed...you-se all just ended up "critically" BACK-SLAPPING each other...its not wrong...neither helpful...we should all hook up one day...and piss in each other's pockets...ps...does oztrailya's UNSPEAKABLE yo(u)of cult-man-ure radio (that shalt NOT BE mentioned...nor LISTENED to...)headed by a certain well-meaning stooge DICK KINGSmill EVER play spoken word other than henry rollins?...NOW's i's ago go-go going..skipping off...with THE white rabbit in my mouth...lusciously tripping...ENJOY THE SYMPTOMS of my former "hometown"...SHITNEY...i LOVE..a self-procalaimed "renaissance" anonymity... kjgppp ;; instead of
Uh-huh.
"anonymous" wants manner and purity, and aligns him/herself with Artaud of all people! Whilst, and at the same time, not proving brave enough (or convinced enough by his/her/its own arguments?) to a) have a name or b) be know as "anonymous" when being a performance artist too - so that his/er/ts comments and artistic practice can be defined and aligned with s/he/t...
Point - Richard is not afraid to put his face - and hence his ass - on the line and be directly associated (and therefore accountable) to his criticism and opinions.
(At the risk of being attacked by your very scary capital letters) your comment is very self indulgent, isn't it?
Who are you? Hmmmmm?
(but then again, maybe I'm missing the joke.
boom, boom)
This might drop your jaw in a volte face
http://www.myspace.com/thegingerlight
Post a Comment