 | |
jp sipilä
offlineMember
/amp/quot;The most successful tend to be those in which the words do not directly describe the footage, so that the video poem ends up being greater than the sum of its parts./amp/quot;
Yes.. this is it... Oh, sorry ren... you made the point :)
I have read p0et1cs... it's a great book. Eduardo Kac's biopoetry ideas are really interesting.
And Dave... let's have a forum of /amp/quot;how you do vidpo/amp/quot;.
rob kistner
offlineMember
Following this thread has been interesting. When it is boiled down to the bone what it appears to be is a presentation of a number of types of /amp/quot;Poetic multi media/amp/quot;, assigning each varied approach an arbitrary name of its own, defining some rules and/or elements believed common to the now-named approach, and finally attaching some 'value and/or sorting' descriptives (good, bad, best, is, is not) to the now-named approach.
The relevance of this aforementioned subjective exercise is confusing to me. All these wonderful works are a form of /amp/quot;Poetic multi media/amp/quot;. Different approaches appeal or do not appeal to different folks. I for one just look to be moved by what is created, and believe we've only just begun to create, what will become, a plethora of approaches to /amp/quot;Poetic Multi Media/amp/quot;.
In the end the poetic nature of what is created, regardless of what name it is assigned, will either shine through or not shine through. I pray the poetic fearless will continue to break down every barrier, and ignore every preconception, to create bold, daring, and amazing 'types' of poetic multi media -- forever.
ren powell
offlineMember
Rob, I don't think anyone is attempting to codify terminology. But we do need to understand what we each mean when we want to differentiate methodology and aesthetics. Otherwise we cannot discuss it at all.
Even as you criticize this, you are now attempting to coin /amp/quot;poetic multimedia/amp/quot; - but that is not a term I would apply to my own work at all. It in no way describes what I do, even if it describes how it could be perceived. I disagree with your subjective sorting of terminology.
Some people do find discussions of intellectual intention and aesthetic vision relevant. A philosophical approach to craftsmanship is not new to any of the arts, to imply that it might get in the way of bold, daring and even novel work is to ignore all of 19C art/theater/literary history with its manifestos and close attention to philosophy: from the symbolists to the postmodernists.
rob kistner
offlineMember
OK - nevermind... ;)
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
jp - You got it. I'll start with a re-post of my paragraph above.
ren powell
offlineMember
Rob- in part, I want to make my response public. I was in no way offended by your terminology. I see the word "poetic" in "poetic media" as an adjective that puts poetry in the position of being something other than the substantive "craft". It is a "spirit": ie, I would interpret the term as multimedia work with the spirit of poetry. But I am not using mulitmedia to create poetry, I am using multimedia in the service of poetry, so the terminology isn't something I could settle in comfortably. If that makes sense :-) it comes down to some basic views of what poetry is. I am working (at this moment actually) with a presentation of the way the different directors of the theater in the 19C approached theater. Some saw it as a form of art of its own, the text being nothing more than an impetus or inspiration - even if the text were Ibsen. Others saw theater as an art form in service to the author/text itself. Both were called theater. For me, videopoetry does work better than poetic multimedia in that regard. Does that make sense? It is all in the adjective or the noun of "poetic/poem" :-) Sorry if I sounded hostile. I am in pedant mode today. I have GREAT respect for you and your ideas, Rob.
rob kistner
offlineMember
/amp/lt;i/amp/gt;Ren - For the folks following the thread of this particular forum, I will post here the relevant portion of my email to you that prompted your well-considered response./amp/lt;/i/amp/gt;
------------------------
Hi Ren -
Trust this finds you well my friend!
Want to respectfully share some personal thoughts with you.
FROM WIKIPEDIA: /amp/rdquo;The term multimedia art implies/amp/hellip; combining visual art with non-visual elements (such as recorded sound, for example) or with elements of the other arts (such as literature, drama, dance, motion graphics, music, or interactivity)./amp/rdquo;
What you are creating, and doing so wonderfully may I add, is inescapably /amp/rdquo;visual art/amp/rdquo;, and you are doing so by combining /amp/rdquo;literature/amp/rdquo; (in your case your poetry), with /amp/rdquo;sound/amp/rdquo; (your recorded voice), and /amp/rdquo;motion graphics/amp/rdquo; (your creative Flash work). By the definition above from Wikipedia, it would appear your creations are /amp/rdquo;multimedia/amp/rdquo;. I added the word poetic because your fundamental focus relates to, and in fact is based upon /amp/mdash; poetry.
I absolutely believe you can correctly place all the forms being discussed in the RWP Video Poetry group respectfully under the broad heading of Poetic Multimedia. I truly don/amp/rsquo;t see how you cannot.
I was, in my way of thinking, being most complimentary, and accurate with the phrase. If you took personal offense /amp/mdash; I apologize/amp/hellip; it was completely unintentional on my part.
ren powell
offlineMember
Seriously- what I believe (since I sounded so strident I want to state it for the record): I believe you (Rob) are an amazing *craftsman* (as a visual artist) and write very intuitive poems. (I feel I am the opposite. I am a formalist poet and am "intuitive" as a visual artist.) I am excitedly looking forward to seeing what you will be doing with your powerful, emotional poetry and your very disciplined skills as a visual artist.
rob kistner
offlineMember
Ren - I am having a ball, but I need to stop playing with the 'toys' and put some finished productions in the portfolio -- problem is, I'm having a tough time deciding when pieces are finished... too much possibility. However, I'm getting there.
tom konyves
offlineMember
What a cool topic for this forum ;)
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 /amp/ldquo;visual poetry/amp/rdquo; 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 /amp/ndash; videopoetry.
When I first used the term, in 1978, shortly after producing my first two poems-on-video, I was very deliberate about presenting the term /amp/ldquo;videopoetry/amp/rdquo; as a compound noun. (Compound nouns, like videopoetry, interrelate in such a way that a new meaning comes out which is very different from the meanings of the words in isolation.) I deliberately did not use the term /amp/ldquo;video-poetry/amp/rdquo; for the fundamental principle that the hyphen separated what I envisioned as inseparable: the medium and the message. So hyphenation was definitely out. /amp/ldquo;Filmpoetry/amp/rdquo; was clumsy, unwieldy. (It also suggested a /amp/ldquo;superiority/amp/rdquo; at a time when video could only muster 240 horizontal analog lines of resolution. But video was accessible and affordable, while film was not.) What have been the alternatives? Poetry videos, film poems, poetry films, vidpo, cyber-poetry, cine-poetry, visual poetry, kinetic poetry, digital poetry, poetic media, poetic multimedia/amp/hellip;?
I settled on videopoetry for one other reason: in that one word /amp/ldquo;video/amp/rdquo; I perceived two distinct meanings: one was the medium I was using; the second was the recognition that the translation of the Latin /amp/ldquo;video/amp/rdquo; was /amp/ldquo;I see/amp/rdquo;. (One word, two meanings: a poetic device.)
We are making great strides in videopoetry receiving acceptance as /amp/ldquo;the term/amp/rdquo; for the form, but /amp/ndash; as rob (and others) are demonstrating /amp/ndash; the battle is not over.
Why /amp/ldquo;do/amp/rdquo; we need a common term? Well, it/amp/rsquo;s because the form is new; and when something is so new, a type of /amp/ldquo;new-born/amp/rdquo;, then we feel like we need to give it a unique /amp/ldquo;identity/amp/rsquo;; so we can point to it and call it by its name and when we repeat it, to ourselves and others, it becomes something that really exists, something we can invest our creative forces in, and express what no words, images or sound can, separately, express.
Why do we need a definition, then? Well, it/amp/rsquo;s because we need to differentiate between works which succeed and ones which just do not. I began with a very narrow definition: Videopoetry is a genre of poetry defined by its time-based juxtaposition of text with images and sound.
As definitions can (and should!) change with increasing knowledge about a subject, I recently modified it to: Videopoetry is a genre of poetry displayed on a screen, distinguished by its time-based, /amp/ldquo;poetic/amp/rdquo; juxtaposition of text with images and sound. In the measured blending of these elements, it produces in the viewer the realization of a poetic experience.
At one point, I differentiated between videopoetry and poetry videos (see jp sipila/amp/rsquo;s first post to this topic), to which ren responded, /amp/lsquo;If it isn/amp/rsquo;t how he defines it, it is /amp/ldquo;just/amp/rdquo; something else /amp/ndash; I felt he was making an artistic hierarchy./amp/rsquo; She was right. In the past six months, I have reconsidered the distinction (having alienated many friends and poets with what could have been termed /amp/ldquo;elitism/amp/rdquo; or /amp/ldquo;artistic snobbery/amp/rdquo;) and devised an /amp/ldquo;inclusive categorization/amp/rdquo;. jani sipila anticipated my new perspective when he said, /amp/lsquo;I think that even Tom thinks there is room for many kinds of videopoetry/amp/hellip;cause at the end it/amp/rsquo;s the reader (viewer) who finds the poetics in it/amp/hellip;/amp/rsquo;
I now propose that there are 5 principal categories of videopoetry:
KINETIC TEXT
VISUAL TEXT
SOUND TEXT
PERFORMANCE
CIN(E)POETRY
(These are abridged descriptions)
KINETIC TEXT or Typo-Poetry is essentially the simple animation of text over a neutral (black or white) background. These works owe much to concrete and patterned poetry in their style /amp/ndash; the use of different fonts, sizes, colours to create unusual visual representations of text. Sound can be absent or ambient, illustrative, contrapuntal, etc.
VISUAL TEXT, or words superimposed over video/film images, presents the most significant challenge to the videopoet /amp/ndash; to integrate the 3 elements. The role of the videopoet is to be an artist/juggler /amp/ndash; a visual artist, sound artist, and poet combined /amp/ndash; to juggle image, sound and text so that their juxtaposition will create a new entity, an art object, a videopoem. Text can include /amp/ldquo;found text/amp/rdquo;, i.e. image as text.
SOUND TEXT, or poetry narrated over video/film, is the videopoem without /amp/ldquo;superimposed text/amp/rdquo;. The /amp/ldquo;text/amp/rdquo; 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 /amp/ndash; with or without music /amp/ndash; 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 /amp/ndash; without the additional difficulty presented by visual text /amp/ndash; 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-musicvideo style of presentation.
CIN(E)POETRY is the videopoem wherein the text is superimposed over graphics, still images, or /amp/ldquo;painted/amp/rdquo; 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.
(As you can tell, I have borrowed George Aguilar/amp/rsquo;s term, cin(e)poetry and applied it to the category which best describes his more innovative work in this field. So, ren, who said, /amp/lsquo;what I am doing, animated poems is not videopoetry/amp/rsquo;, I would say, yes it is, it is cin(e)poetry.)
I still maintain that a videopoem is not an illustration or imitation of the text or the voice/amp/hellip;
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I thought I/amp/rsquo;d share some of my recent concerns with you, before I revisit all these ideas again, in a small book perhaps.
Looking forward to your comments, all
ren powell
offlineMember
I am thankful for your long-windedness. A small book would be welcome! Videopoetry wasn't even on my radar 6 months ago and now it is becoming a significant part of my doctorate thesis - and I have found little integrated discussion - that is, I had found few people discussing it outside of the framework of their own work. (I am certain they are out there, I just haven't found the correct rooms in which the conversations are taking place). I have been looking for conferences and festivals and nearly all the information I find is out of date (ca. 2006).
/amp/quot;Why do we need a definition, then? Well, it/amp/rsquo;s because we need to differentiate between works which succeed and ones which just do not./amp/quot;
I believe this is why there is and has been resistance for 30 years to the /amp/quot;naming of the thing/amp/quot;. Speaking only for myself, but certain it is true of others, I didn't begin working with videopoetry or animating poems because I set out to succeed with something defined as a /amp/quot;videopoem/amp/quot;. But I certainly set out to succeed at something. I realize there is a fine line between narcissistic petulance and personal artistic integrity, but I think I am walking on the right side when I say I don/amp/rsquo;t want my work to be measured by genre norms that I have not set out to fulfil. My guess is that is why the (a) term has not stuck as well as it deserves to stick. I noticed that even the biannual Zebra Poetry Film Festival in Berlin offers a prize for the best /amp/ldquo;film based on a poem/amp/rdquo; rather than videopoetry or any derivative thereof.
Having said that, I feel very fortunate that you have sat down here to talk about videopoetry! I would say /amp/ldquo;from the horses mouth/amp/rdquo;, but it wouldn/amp/rsquo;t sound as dignified as I/amp/rsquo;d intend it to.
I am thinking, oh lucky me, today! Thank you for being here.
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
Tom, thanks for a very useful expanded definition. Categories are something I've thought about a lot in the months since I began the Moving Poems site, since a big part of my role as curtor there is to categorize the videos in a way that makes sense.
I wonder if we might persuade you to put your thoughts into an essay for the front page of Read Write Poem? I'm sure Dana, Andre, and the others would welcome such a contribution if you have time to write it -- or simply adapt this comment, which is already fairly well fleshed out.
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
/amp/quot;Sound text/amp/quot; sounds a bit oxymoronic to my perhaps overly literal ear. It assumes the primacy of the textual, whereas in fact for one of my own videos I recorded the words - in response to some video I'd just shot - in advance of writing them down. It's possible that someone will make videos for recitations of poems from surviving oral traditions, if they haven't already (doesn't Mali have a fledgling film industry). So I'd propose something like /amp/quot;oral-only videopoetry/amp/quot; instead for that category.
Cinepoetry is one category I've mostly excluded from the Moving Poems site so far, in part I guess because poetry on YouTube is so dominated by really lousy, cliched slideshows. But I have seen a few examples of that genre that knocked my socks off.
Tom, we would love to have you share your thoughts in an article for Read Write Poem's online magazine. Dave read my mind -- I was just reading your last comment and thinking how much I would love to see this featured on the main site.
This entire conversation has been really exciting to read.
jp sipilä
offlineMember
/amp/quot;KINETIC TEXT
VISUAL TEXT
SOUND TEXT
PERFORMANCE
CIN(E)POETRY/amp/quot;
This is interesting and well thought. Then we do have also the interactive /amp/quot;video/amp/quot;poetry, or poetry on motion. I think those kind of work would fit the Cin(e)poetry -category. Anyhow...
People have asked me lately /amp/quot;why isn't videopoetry video art?/amp/quot; And I tend to reply: /amp/quot;Well it is and it is not... Is sound poetry music? Is visual poetry (painted) art? Is poetry literature?/amp/quot;
The thing is that on one aspect medium defines the art/literature, medium defines the act itself. Videopoetry is poetry that uses the video as its medium. And when we start to think what kind of possibilites video as a medium offers for a poet we are in the mids of videopoetry. Thus it is only a narrow transition from being a poet for being a videopoet. One doesn't need to be trained as a professional director, editor, cameraman etc. The making of videopoetry is in the medium, the possibilities that the video has /amp/quot;in poetry/amp/quot;.
And what are these possibilities (negative or positive)?
- movement
- sound
- timing
- visuality
- time*
- color
- multi-image
... and so on...
*time here meand the actual duration of a videopoem. Reading a videopoem is always a session. If vidpoem lasts for three minutes it is to be read in three minutes (this differates from reading a poem on paper).
/amp/quot;I still maintain that a videopoem is not an illustration or imitation of the text or the voice/amp/hellip;/amp/quot; -/amp/gt; agreed!
-jp
You must log in to post.
