Tagged: Tom Konyves Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Tom Konyves 2:46 pm on February 10, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Poetry Quebec, , Tom Konyves,   

    Two new essays on videopoetry 

    I have been doing much thinking about Visual Text in a videopoem. Unfortunately, at the rate that my fingers touch the keyboard, I haven’t had much to show for it. But Litlive just posted my essay, Visual Text/2 Case Studies, in which I comment on two of my favourites from the finalists for their VidLit Contest, both in the Visual Text category: “24″ by Susan Cormier and “Profile” by R.W. Perkins.

    This past year I was also invited to participate in the Zebra Poetry Film Festival Colloquium in Berlin, but had to cancel the visit due a family emergency. A few days before the event, it was suggested I write something to contribute to the discussion. My good friend and former Vehicule poet, Endre Farkas, read it aloud at the Colloquium. It’s now been posted at http://www.academia.edu/3474487/Address_to_the_Colloquium_Berlin_Zebra_Poetry_Film_Festival_2012. In it, I argue that, among other things,

    A good videopoem is not predetermined from a script juxtaposed with illustrative elements – it is produced during the editing stage, when the elements are brought together, positioning and duration of text are determined, images and their duration are selected, and sound is chosen, the work is constructed segment by segment, as if they were raw materials in a cauldron. The role of “chance” in this process should not be underestimated or absent.


    Editor’s note: For more on Tom and his work, go to TomKonyves.com.

     
    • Dave Bonta 3:22 pm on February 10, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Much as I like and agree with most of the distinctions you make between videopoetry and other poetry videos, it still leaves me struggling to find a good catch-all term for poetry films and videos that on the one hand are not mere documentaries of readings but on the other hand aren’t slavishly literal illustrations. “Poetry video” seems too broad and “videopoetry” too particular, though I do (mis-)use it in this way in the categorization scheme at Moving Poems. The question I suppose is why, as a poetry video curator, I feel the need for such a category in the first place. I guess it’s all part of my clever scheme to lure in unsuspecting poetry fans searching Google for videos of a certain poet or poem, and get them browsing and thinking more broadly about how film and poetry might work together. Which does seem to have worked for at least some poetry filmmakers who have found their way here, judging from what they’ve told me…

  • Dave Bonta 1:39 pm on November 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Alison Watkins, , Tom Konyves   

    New paper/videopoem on “Videopoetry: The Hegemony of Image or Text,” by Alison Watkins 

    Via a link from Tom Konyves on Facebook, I was delighted to discover this presentation, which takes the form of something quite like a videopoem (rather than using the dreaded Powerpoint). It includes one of the most thorough responses to Konyves’ Videopoetry: A Manifesto that I’ve seen. While Alison Watkins acknowledges the effectiveness of poetic juxtaposition between textual and filmic images, she also argues that it isn’t always sufficient or even appropriate; sometimes a more literal match might well better serve the viewer.

    Diversity of viewpoint is of course essential if this nascent field of what might be called videopoetry studies is to really get off the ground. Watkins made the presentation for NYSVA Annual Conference on Liberal Arts and the Education of Artists, 2012. Her description on YouTube frames it as follows:

    This video takes a look at what’s become of word and text in a visual world. The power of image, in particular moving images, in collaboration with words has unleashed an avalanche of new media artists, and videopoets who have let loose a jumble of poetic text, sound and images on our omnipresent computer screens. Have words and text been turned into mere accessories?

     
    • Erica Goss 2:31 pm on November 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      This is extremely interesting and vital to our understanding of video poems. I have no problem with any attempts to create categories for video poems – on the contrary, it creates a language for us to use in discussion and criticism. As long as we stay inclusive, I anticipate that the art form will keep moving beyond any labels we try to apply. And I very much agree that performance poetry has a special value when the poet performs his or her own work. Thank you, Dave, for this post.

      • Dave Bonta 2:53 pm on November 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        You bet. “As long as we stay inclusive, I anticipate that the art form will keep moving beyond any labels we try to apply.” Let’s hope so! I’ve been thinking it might be fun to try and come up with a list of common videopoetry tropes and cliches, just to keep our filmmaker friends on their toes…

    • George Aguilar 10:24 pm on November 20, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I respectfully disagree with Alison on the grounds that she clearly hasn’t seen very many videopoems. There are many works that support Tom’s position and only someone who has a “limited” understanding of the art form, would make such a…statement.

  • Dave Bonta 5:47 pm on March 21, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Avi Dabach, J.P. Sipilä, Lyrikline.org, Paul Bogaert, , Tom Konyves, Uljana Wolf,   

    “Poetry & Film” feature at Lyrikline blog 

    Lyrikline.org, an international audiopoetry site, is celebrating World Poetry Day with a feature on Poetry & Film at their blog. Since their parent organization, Literaturwerkstatt Berlin, also sponsors the ZEBRA poetry film festival, they were in a good position to solicit statements from a number of practitioners of the art. Begin with their own statement:

    Diverse as the entries might be, there’s one thing that all the good ones have in common: they succeed if one can experience in some way a clever and maybe even poetic relationship and correspondence between the words and images. When poetic principles and features, such as rhythm, tempo, meter, imagery, denseness, and tone unfold, poetry and film together can reach another level and merge into something unique.

    Then read the statments by Paul Bogaert, Avi Dabach, Tom Konyves, J.P. Sipilä, and Uljana Wolf.

    I particularly liked the statement by Wolf, a German poet and past member of the ZEBRA film jury, for its concision and gnomic quality:

    Like a translation, and like poetry itself, or perhaps like prose poetry, or the prose poem—already we see the problem here—a poetry film exists in a between-space, a Zwischenraum. It can not be named. It can only be invented with each attempt; its inability to occupy a name or a space or a genre is what generates these attempts to create something that is true to its name. It will fail every time.

    But I think the most interesting thing about the feature is the extent to which these diverse filmmakers agree about what makes a good videopoem or filmpoem. There’s far less disagreement among them than one might have supposed.

     
  • Tom Konyves 12:12 pm on September 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Tom Konyves, videopoetry   

    Videopoetry: A Manifesto 

    Read at Issuu.com (email and RSS subscribers may have to click through to see the embedded media)

    I can’t remember what brought it on. Writing all the chapters of an introduction to videopoetry was going to be way too much, even from April 30 until tomorrow — for the first time I had all 4 months off. SO I wrote a MANIFESTO. (It’s very popular these days, have you noticed?)

     
    • Dave Bonta 4:28 pm on September 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, Tom. I think this really brings clarity to what works in videopoetry and why. A lot of what you say about juxtaposition, the role of text and sound, and other elements really jibes with my own discoveries both as a curator of poetry videos and as an amateur videopoemographer, even if not everything I like necessarily fits under the videopoem umbrella as you’re describing it here. While “manifesto” implies a certain radicalism or zealotry, I think your approach is more broadly inclusive than that. I personally feel that one-to-one matches of film imagery to textual imagery are a recipe for boredom and bad filmmaking regardless of how we characterize the results, so I guess I see what you characterize as “poetry video” as a bit of a straw man. Yes, there are some videos that fit that definition, but I’m not sure how seriously we should take them.

  • Dave Bonta 10:51 pm on December 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Tom Konyves   

    Konyves on mediocrity in videopoetry 

    Tom Konyves has a new comment in the thread to his “Brief Summary of Videopoetry,” in response to a question of mine: As videopoetry goes mainstream, what does that mean for the more avant-garde pioneers of the genre such as yourself? Do you worry about more serious work being drowned in a sea of mediocrity? Here’s his response.

     
  • Tom Konyves 12:00 pm on September 21, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Tom Konyves   

    A brief summary of videopoetry 

    Cross-posted from Vimeo. See also The Vehicle Poets.

    I’ve always been interested in experimental poetry, that is, exploring new ways to express an old form. I began by creating visual poems on the page as well as combining poetry with performance art. When I produced my first “videopoem” in 1978, I was a member of an artist-run gallery, the Vehicule Art Gallery in Montreal, where I was witnessing the advancements in painting, in installation and performance art, in graphic, multi-media and video art, so it was almost natural for me to experiment with video. I no longer saw poetry as limited to the printed page. Over the years, I produced numerous videopoems, which led me eventually into the video production field, where I began writing and producing documentaries, as well as other commercial work.

    These days I am in the process of completing my research on materials for an examination of videopoetry (or filmpoems, as they were referred to in an earlier time). I began producing videopoems in 1978; now more than 30 years later, I find myself teaching a course in “Word and Image” at the University of the Fraser Valley here in BC, Canada. For the past 2 years, I have travelled to various archives in Berlin, Buenos Aires, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Toronto, taking notes on the work I encountered, eventually arriving at a workable definition and five main categories of the genre.

    Videopoetry is a genre of poetry displayed on a screen, distinguished by its time-based, poetic juxtaposition of text with images and sound. In the measured blending of these 3 elements, it produces in the viewer the realization of a poetic experience.

    The poetic juxtaposition of the elements implies an appreciation of the weight and reach of each element; the method is analogous to the poet’s process of selecting just-the-right word or phrase and positioning these in a concentrated “vertical” pattern.

    To differentiate it from other forms of cinema, the principal function of a videopoem is to demonstrate the process of thought and the simultaneity of experience, expressed in words — visible and/or audible — whose meaning is blended with but not illustrated by the images.

    ***

    In its early stages, “poetry film” used text to illustrate the soundtrack (for example, the vocal performance of a poem whose text is simultaneously presented on the screen) or illustrated the text with images which are easily identifiable with their verbal references. It has also been used to describe recorded performances at poetry readings and, in many cases, music videos with poetic elements.

    ***

    There are 5 principal forms of videopoetry, including a combination of any of these:

    KINETIC TEXT
    VISUAL TEXT
    SOUND TEXT
    PERFORMANCE
    CIN(E)POETRY

    KINETIC TEXT is essentially the simple animation of text over a neutral background. These works owe much to concrete and patterned poetry in their style — the use of different fonts, sizes, colours to create unusual visual representations of text.

    VISUAL TEXT, or words superimposed over video/film images, presents the most significant challenge to the videopoet — to integrate the 3 elements. The role of the videopoet is to be an artist/juggler — a visual artist, sound artist, and poet combined — to juggle image, sound and text so that their juxtaposition will create a new entity, an art object, a videopoem. Text can include “found text”, i.e. image as text.

    SOUND TEXT, or poetry narrated over video/film, is the videopoem without “superimposed text”. The “text” of the videopoem is expressed through the voice of the poet, accompanying the video/film images on the screen. Of the five forms of videopoetry, SOUND TEXT — with or without music — is the most popular; essentially, this is due to the facility of working within the traditional form of video/film, i.e. using the narrative techniques of the medium — without the additional difficulty presented by visual text — to illustrate a previously written poem. Once the illustrative function is removed, the work appears as the non-referential juxtaposition of sound and image.

    PERFORMANCE is the appearance of the poet, on-camera, performing the poem. Some poets will mimic the MTV-music video style of presentation.

    CIN(E)POETRY is the videopoem wherein the text is superimposed over graphics, still images, or “painted” with the assistance of a computer program. It closely resembles VISUAL TEXT, except the imagery is computer-generated, not captured by a motion picture camera. The term was introduced by George Aguilar, who works most often in this form.

    ***

    In addition to image and sound, text is THE essential “element” or raw material of a videopoem, implying a differentiation from the ‘poetic film’ which relies, almost exclusively, on the visual treatment — the composition and editing of the images — in contradistinction to its verbal treatment. Indeed, the text, whether displayed on the screen or heard on the soundtrack of a videopoem, need not be an appropriation of a previously published poem.

    What differentiates videopoems from poetry-films today is the use of non-poetic texts to effect the experience of a poem — my interpretation of Maya Deren’s “verticality” — in which the text, when extracted and examined as an independent element, can not be identified as “poetry”. The poetry is the RESULT of the juxtaposed, blended use of text with imagery and sound.

     
    • Dave 2:26 pm on September 21, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Tom, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I very much admire not only your zeal for this genre, which I share, but also the way you’ve changed and expanded your definition over time to accommodate more of what people are producing. Even still, I think there are closely related genres that remain outside your summary here, and perhaps that’s as it should be. But I am wondering whether, for example, the Performance category could be expanded to include films of interpretative dances? There are so many high-quality examples of this sub-genre on the web now, I’ve created a separate category for it at the main site: here. Anne Carson’s sonnet series is especially interesting to me because of the active collaboration of the poet with the videographer, Sadie Wilcox, and the three Merce Cunningham dancers. Another, very popular way in which poems are posted to YouTube and other video-sharing sites is what I call the video slideshow: still images of the text of the poem or illustrations of its content, with a reading as the soundtrack. These might not be too interesting in general, but occasionally they can juxtapose images and text in a true gestalt, which I think you’re correct in identifiying as the goal — if not always the reality — of videopoetry.

      I’m also wondering about the influence, historic or on-going, of video installations on videopoetry. Since I live out in the sticks and rarely visit a city, I have little notion of what video artists are up to these days aside from what I read online, whcih indicates that video installations are taking over the art museums. I get the impression that some of the same artists creating installations are also making videopoems, and that a sort of hybrid medium exists: videos created specifically as backdrops or perhaps rivals to live poetry readings. Indeed, I’ve begun to give some thought myself to how I might better incorporate video into my next live reading, aside from just turning the lights out and projecting some of my videopoems on the wall.

      Another thought is that I really ought to expand the Concrete Poetry category at Moving Poems to include kinetic text videos, since as you suggest these seem at times pretty closely related. Film students also use the term “motion graphics” quite a bit in lieu of, or in addition to, “kinetic text.” Until now I’ve lumped these in with animation, since that tends to be how their makers regard them. Perhaps the animation-live action distinction isn’t as important — or even always as possible! — as I tend to think.

      • Tom Konyves 2:00 am on September 22, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        “I am wondering whether, for example, the Performance category could be expanded to include films of interpretative dances?”
        Of the five categories, PERFORMANCE is still the most problematic. My dilemma begins with the nature of the images presented in a videopoem. I was not the first to demand that the visual element not illustrate the text (displayed or voiced). Essentially, it was a question of demystification; images – of the “real” world – tend to describe, but also to explain (break down not break open) the moment we are presented with. (What I always loved about poetry was its power of suggestion, how words/sounds/text could transport us into experiencing the marvelous, whether it was unexpected emotions or perceptions of a conceptual truth that would leave us so astounded that we would have to reread the poem to trace the clever strategies of the writer.)
        Early attempts at integrating poetry and film were, as you may expect, illustrations of popular poems; the text of the poem was used as the script for the film. These “literal” interpretations would bring a new audience to poetry but did little to advance the evolution of a new integrated form of poetry and film. The access to and affordability of video technology enabled entire poetry readings to be recorded, mostly for archival purposes. My own experience with video began thus in the late ‘70s when I organized a series of poetry readings and decided to record the poets’ performances. I would press record/play then sit down. Sometimes I got up and “zoomed in”. Later, I would “zoom out”. Fade to black.
        Coincidentally, I was also seeing the beginnings of video “art”, performance art, installations, etc., the new forms which we assumed were defining who we were and what we were ‘all about’. I began working with video to express my poems, a new medium for a new “kind” of poetry. I instinctively knew that visual treatment was critical, that there must be a symbiotic relationship between text and image.
        Which brings me to the interpretative dance videos. Videopoetry is foremost a work to be screened; of the 24 videos tagged “Dance”, most are documentations of performances. These performances were created/produced for a live audience, not for screening as video works. However, the visual treatment in these works – not the content of the frame, which is pleasing, to watch dancers perform to a recorded soundtrack of a poem being recited is most often pleasing – the visual treatment is non-existent. The camera-view is no more than a cycloptic pursuer of action, a faithful recorder of a performance meant for a live audience – not for us. It is no different from a video recording of ANY live event. In a videopoem, we are always aware of (working with) the frame; it constrains and defines the image, the creator’s point-of-view. The challenge facing the artist/videopoet is to select just-the-right-image to juxtapose with the text and soundtrack – to create a “suspension of disbelief”, to avoid the viewer’s recognition that the camera operator is in the first row of the balcony, “zooming in” and “zooming out”. The “two-camera switched” method is no better solution.
        “The Edge” by Josephine Jacobsen is a step in the right direction but the echo of her voice reminds us that she is in a studio with imperfect acoustics. The Anne Carson poems use interesting low-angle composition but I still can’t ignore the studio lighting (it’s perfect and, as such, noticeable). Donna Kuhn’s treatment – visual and sound treatment – of Dana Guthrie Martin’s poem can be considered a perfectly valid (alas, low-res) example of videopoetry. (I came across her videopoem “As You” on the Poetry Visualized website a couple of years ago and noted her interest in dance; it’s quite a smorgasbord of imagery but also has a powerful multi-layered soundtrack.)
        I should mention some PERFORMANCE category works which managed to “suspend” my disbelief: John Giorno’s “Just Say No To Family Values”, (2005); Kurt Heintz’ “H.O.D.” (1992); Anne Waldman’s “Plutonium” (1982); Patricia Smith’s “Undertaker” (1995) and “Chinese Cucumbers” (1994); Henry Hills’ “Kino-Da” (1981); Sheri-D Wilson’s “Airplane Paula” (2001) and “The Panty Portal” (2008) and, of course, the original, Bob Dylan’s “Subterranean Homesick Blues” (1965).
        “I get the impression that some of the same artists creating installations are also making videopoems…” I doubt it.
        “Indeed, I’ve begun to give some thought myself to how I might better incorporate video into my next live reading, aside from just turning the lights out and projecting some of my videopoems on the wall.”
        It’s always a good idea to add a visual element to a reading. Make the video “ambient” and be sure to time your reading with the video, because Charles Bernstein says poetry is “all about timing”.

    • Dave 2:50 pm on September 21, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      It was also interesting to read your older piece on The Vehicle Poets site. E.g.:

      For the longest time, I have wrestled with the definition and poetic was not a frivolous or facile use of the word. “Combination”, “integration”, “fusion”, even “marriage” (Heather Haley’s term) are the usual words employed to describe the presence of the three elements. What initially motivated my search for a better definition was the problem I had with the evaluation of how these 3 elements contributed to the experience one could call poetic. It was only my experience/practice of the form that suggested “juxtaposition” and later, “judicious blending” – as a measure of success (or failure). I often compare the practice to a form of “juggling” text, image and sound, whereby the artist/videopoet sustains the poetic experience.

      “Marriage” appeals to me, but then I’ve never been married. “Juxtaposition” is certainly more clinical.

      • renkat 12:06 pm on October 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        I have been thinking about these things:

        “To differentiate it from other forms of cinema, the principal function of a videopoem is to demonstrate the process of thought and the simultaneity of experience, expressed in words — visible and/or audible — whose meaning is blended with but not illustrated by the images.”
        The challenge facing the artist/videopoet is to select just-the-right-image to juxtapose with the text and soundtrack – to create a “suspension of disbelief”, to avoid the viewer’s recognition that the camera operator is in the first row of the balcony, “zooming in” and “zooming out”. The “two-camera switched” method is no better solution.
        “The Edge” by Josephine Jacobsen is a step in the right direction but the echo of her voice reminds us that she is in a studio with imperfect acoustics. The Anne Carson poems use interesting low-angle composition but I still can’t ignore the studio lighting (it’s perfect and, as such, noticeable).

        Am I right that your aesthetic here is one of non-artistry? Why would videopoetry be obligated to appear spontaneous? One can certainly achieve gestalt with careful craftsmanship.

      • Heather Haley 11:50 pm on December 15, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        FYI, Dave, I didn’t say “marriage.” I used the word “wedding” as in “a wedding of word and image.”

        • Dave 11:56 pm on December 15, 2010 Permalink | Reply

          “Wedding” is definitely a better word than “marriage.” Tom clearly has it in for you. :)

          • Tom Konyves 1:46 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

            “has it in for you”? On the contrary, my respect and admiration for Heather Haley as poet, media artist, curator, promoter, has only grown since I’ve known her. For more than a decade – given limited financial resources – Heather has championed the dissemination of videopoetry and is unequalled in her determination to raise the profile of the genre. My misquote should never be mistaken for anything other than simply that – a misquote.

            “Wedding” is a better word, implying an act, not an institution.

            • Dave Bonta 10:26 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink

              I know. I was just teasing, Tom. Hence the smiley.

    • jpsipilä 6:51 am on September 22, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Well… this is getting interesting.

      Tom: Just a quick note about Cin(e)poetry. You should add there the interactive element.
      I think that was one of the ideas Aguilar had when he came up with that term as he wanted to separate (termically speaking) from “normal” videopoetry. Haven’t seen these yet but I thinks it’s just a matter of time.

      And Dave:
      “Indeed, I’ve begun to give some thought myself to how I might better incorporate video into my next live reading, aside from just turning the lights out and projecting some of my videopoems on the wall.”

      –> go and have look at London Poetry System’s stuff. They have A/V artist with them when they perform poetry,

      –> And to continue from here: I am thinking of a way to make a live videopoetry “reading”, which means that with the help of VJ software and some musicians it would be possible to create a live videopoem to be performed at a club or where ever… One could call it improvised videopoem. So many thing are possible now a days. And for videopoets I really think that the new consuming gadgets (like the iPad) will get us closer to the audience, the people who consume art, books, poetry… and they also give us new possibilities as we already have a way to make ebooks that includes video/audio/animation.

      Get back to you later with more time…

      -JP

    • Adam E. Stone 1:01 pm on September 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you Tom, Dave, and JP for the interesting analysis. I have just published Cache Girl Saves the World: A Novel in Visions. As the term “novel in visions” implies, this DVD combines audio of myself and other actors reading the text of the novel with still photos that depict some of the action of the novel. Some of the photos are concrete, and are meant to be literal representations of the characters, places, and events being described, while other photos are more abstract, meant to engage and stimulate the viewer’s imagination in the way a traditional print novel does. Unlike with most films made from novels, there is no condensation of the plot of the novel and no editing/rewriting of dialogue. Instead, you get every word of the novel: every internal thought of the narrator, every exchange of dialogue, spoken by myself and the other actors involved. Nothing is cut, not a word is lost. More info about Cache Girl Saves the World is available at my website: http://www.adamestone.com. Included there is a link to the IMDb listing for the novel in visions, where you can view 3 short excerpts from it.

    • Tom Konyves 4:20 pm on November 13, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      At the end of next week, “See The Voice: Visible Verse” will celebrate its 10th anniversary with 2 evenings of screenings as well as a panel discussion (which I will be participating in). The moderator has asked for the bios of the panelists so she can “prepare some juicy questions.”

      Any thoughts on the big questions facing videopoetry today?

      • Dave 2:10 pm on November 16, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        I guess the biggest question in my mind concerns the on-going spread of digital videography and the popularity of free video-upload sites such as YouTube. An online friend who majored in film 20 years ago recently made a few videopoems and marveled at the ease of it: a project that would’ve taken weeks back then now takes days or even hours, and costs almost nothing to produce. What does the online digital video revolution mean for videopoetry? Well, for one thing, it’s giving it a lot more visibility. Those of us in remote, rural areas can keep up with, and even contribute to, what used to be a pretty esoteric art form. And thanks primarily to Facebook, certain videopoems have gone viral and logged over a million views, so filmmakers can reach much larger audiences now. My hope is that the rapid proliferation of poetry videos on the web will also help bring new audiences to poetry in general, but that remains to be seen. Also, as videopoetry goes mainstream, what does that mean for the more avant-garde pioneers of the genre such as yourself? Do you worry about more serious work being drowned in a sea of mediocrity?

    • Tom Konyves 6:21 pm on December 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      In my view, mediocrity in videopoetry is that which does not advance the genre.

      Our precursors, D.W.Griffith (whose adaptation of poems served as scripts/intertitles for many of his early short films ) and Marcel Duchamp (whose non-referential use of language in a visual medium produced a new context for a poetic experience), suggested markedly different paths for the integration of word and image that would culminate in two forms of filmpoems or videopoems: illustrative and non-illustrative. Narrative and anti-narrative.

      While narrative or illustrative videopoems have served to advance the genre of poetry in no small measure (many excellent poems have reached a wider audience than their print origins), these works do not define a new genre of poetry; their appeal is the demystification of a poem, a comforting series of images directly related to the text of a previously composed series of words.

      Non-illustrative videopoems propose new, complex relationships between words and images — and sound, of course, whose illustrative or non-illustrative use should also be considered — wherein poetry is created from the unexpected collision of text, image and sound; it is a new “genre” of poetry that can only be experienced in its integrated form. If we were to dissect this new form of poetry, we should not find the poem in any of its elements; it exists only in the juxtaposition of its elements.
      .

    • Alex Cigale 2:41 pm on January 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      A fascinating discussion. Re: dance, I was reminded of Jackson Mac Low’s collaborations with his modern dancer daugher. I will check with his wife Anne Tardos and Poet’s House in NYC to see if they might share with us any video they might documenting these performance. On the film side, I will contact Jonas Mekas and the Anthology Film archives (I’m particularly interested in his own work as a foremost Lithuanian poet for whom film seemed an extension of his earlier lyrical textual documentaries). I have also invited Richard Kostelanetz to join in this discussion to share his long experience across the kinetic/visual/sound part of this spectrum.

  • Dave Bonta 7:26 pm on May 17, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: classification, , Tom Konyves   

    I believe we are witnessing the evolution of a unique form of poetry, a form which was barely recognizable 50 years ago, a new form of “visual poetry” which has survived the leap from the page to the screen, a form that is so intriguing and new that its definition, its features, characteristics, categories, its very NAME is being questioned — videopoetry.

    Tom Konyves (forum thread at Read Write Poem, now offline)
     
    • Dave 1:04 am on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is an example of a Quote post. (Also a nice quote, of course.)

    • beau blue 3:01 am on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      It is a new, unique form of poetry. Unfortunately, the mainstream lit community ( the MFA po-biz) refuses to acknowledge that it even exists. The likelihood that it will die an infant death is great just because of that refusal to acknowledge its existence. Believe me, I thought this form would be much, much bigger by now (I’ve labored in the these fields for 8 years) but the number of print and online sites that are indifferent and, sometimes, even hostile to the form is amazing. It has meant a very slow growth.

      -blue

      • Dave 12:50 pm on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Well, we’ll see. Here in the states, based on what I’ve been finding on Vimeo and to some extent YouTube over the past year, it looks as if a growing number of college film programs are promoting the form to their students. It may well be that acceptance will come from the film side of things rather than the poetry side. Writers, especially in academia, can be quite conservative about adopting new technologies. A lot of them seem to consider themselves quite daring just to have gotten on Facebook.

      • renkat 3:20 pm on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Blue,

        I wouldn’t say an infant death. Konyves has been working with videopoetry since the 70s.
        I don’t think it is a fault of the academy to accept it as an art form. Many of the videopoetry or poetry film festivals I have seen have been organized at least in part by universities. (In the UK).

        Accepting it in the literary departments is something else and is a serious question in regard to its appropriateness. You have to look at how you are defining poetry as a literary genre or “Poetry” as an Aristotelian concept of high art. You have to get into post modern ideas of what constitutes literature and language itself. Semiotics and even literacy theories.

        If it does belong in the Academy in the English department under Creative Writing, it means there will have to be people there to advise and mentor. That was the problem I faced. No one who could take me on. No one versed in the genre, if it exists yet – if there is one or many or if it is actually a genre unto itself that doesn’t belong in the English and Literature departments, but in the Art Department?

        • renkat 4:04 pm on May 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply

          I meant .. the fault of the academy NOT to accept it as a (literary) art form :-)

          • jpsipilä 6:40 am on July 13, 2010 Permalink | Reply

            Might be… In Finland was published a videopoem dvd that got the ISBN code from the national library. So atleast here videopoetry is now categorized as literature (it’s also on sale in book stores).

            But this is not too important. It’s only a nice detail to know when speaking of videopoetry as literature :)

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel