Beginning with Monday’s readings, and including today’s, I have all of a sudden noticed several distinct changes in style that, to me, almost make these poems a different art form from “poetry.” For instance, it seems like the poets from Monday and today all meant for their poems to be read aloud; all of the strange punctuation and enjambment almost makes the poems make more sense out loud than on the page. Other signs of this change are the lack of rhyme scheme and meter. The presence of these in earlier poems, in my opinion, made reading them out loud feel a little unnatural. With both gone, poems sound closer to the way someone might speak in a conversation, which takes focus off of how the poem sounds and replaces it on what the poem is saying, especially via unique word choice (since it is no longer restricted by rhymes). The reason I say these new poems seem like a different art form from just plain “poetry” is because I feel like they lose something without a voice to read them. They’re like a cross between poetry and a play – or maybe a song. And by being called “poetry,” I bet they aren’t reaching the entirety of the audience they should reach.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Poetry, of course, began as an oral art form--and many poets today, of a variety of races and for a variety of reasons, are interested in returning poetry from the page to the stage. Check out "sound poets" like Tracie Morris and Christian Bok, or spoken-word poets like Saul Williams, Liza Jessie Peterson, and Beau Sia, for examples . . .
ReplyDelete