Every self-published poem on the internet is a revolutionary anarchic act. We reject the capitalist economic system when we say, "This is free
( Read more... )
Every self-published poem on the internet is a revolutionary anarchic act. yes and that's a beautiful concept, allowing even unreadable efforts some legitimacy unto themselves. and i am fine with that; pointing out the important distinction between the act itself and content, and thereby pointing out a different criteria of value for each, is not just whimsical but geopolitical.
it's a great standard concerning art of all fields and those who make it. and the fact that the value of the act itself comes from an objective judgement, i think, only increases the validity of value for content, which remains (ultimately) subjective.
on a wholistic level, the rebirth of poetry on the internet, therefore, is a MAJOR atom-bomb in the War nurturing the value of the individual.
it's a great standard concerning art of all fields...
Well, yes, and how wonderful it would be if all art forms were able to equally embrace the internet. But it is precisely because poetry has no economic weight (we're not all going to be rock stars, Mark) that we have nothing to lose by posting it to the 'net. A painter, a musician, a moviemaker: the stakes are higher for them.
...two other factors, perhaps: 1. the ease of publishing text online (as opposed to, I don't know, a ballet) 2. the low cost of producing poetry (in that it requires no specialized equipment)....
I agree with this, to some degree, and obviously we all know there's no money in poetry. I'm thinking particularly about d.a. levy, a poet who shunned copyright laws, who didn't care if anyone reproduced his work, stole it, whateverand yet how when his poems, self-published during his life, were collected in the last 10 years or so, the logo of a publisher is on the spine and ... what do you know? They hold the copyright to the book. Strange. Fucked up.
Also, where does this put online journals? How do they factor in to this anarchism or do you think they are profiting by it?via advertisements, pop-up windows, the like.
Let me see here - there's definately some need to equivocate (with respect to the Internet, not self-publishing).
First of all, the Internet preferences certain classes over others. And while the cost of publishing on, say, lj, is nil, the cost of accessing it is unequally distributed--because the big hunk of circuitry sitting in front of you obviously has a cost. And although libraries are pretty good for internet access, they are imperfect as well (small towns, the non-west)
And of course, the journaling community hosts make money. Or if you host your own site, the domain registry makes money, and the server makes money. But I wouldn't say that any of these players are profiting from poetry, per se... but of course, thy are profiting from the internet in general, which raises an interesting point about my romanticizing the internet in general...
Ha! I used it first a few months ago in a derogatory way - about a friend who refused to really open up. But, I think the onion metaphor is always about layers, unravelling, peeling away, etc. And the sound. Admit it: "onion union" has a certain ring to it. The only emperor is the emporer of ice cream, therefore the only union is the onion union. Hmm...
Comments 14
yes and that's a beautiful concept, allowing even unreadable efforts some legitimacy unto themselves. and i am fine with that; pointing out the important distinction between the act itself and content, and thereby pointing out a different criteria of value for each, is not just whimsical but geopolitical.
it's a great standard concerning art of all fields and those who make it. and the fact that the value of the act itself comes from an objective judgement, i think, only increases the validity of value for content, which remains (ultimately) subjective.
on a wholistic level, the rebirth of poetry on the internet, therefore, is a MAJOR atom-bomb in the War nurturing the value of the individual.
Reply
Well, yes, and how wonderful it would be if all art forms were able to equally embrace the internet. But it is precisely because poetry has no economic weight (we're not all going to be rock stars, Mark) that we have nothing to lose by posting it to the 'net. A painter, a musician, a moviemaker: the stakes are higher for them.
...two other factors, perhaps: 1. the ease of publishing text online (as opposed to, I don't know, a ballet) 2. the low cost of producing poetry (in that it requires no specialized equipment)....
Reply
ha i think producing poetry on a continual basis requires specialized equipment indeed: an admirable pair of balls ;-D
Reply
Reply
Reply
Also, where does this put online journals? How do they factor in to this anarchism or do you think they are profiting by it?via advertisements, pop-up windows, the like.
Reply
First of all, the Internet preferences certain classes over others. And while the cost of publishing on, say, lj, is nil, the cost of accessing it is unequally distributed--because the big hunk of circuitry sitting in front of you obviously has a cost. And although libraries are pretty good for internet access, they are imperfect as well (small towns, the non-west)
And of course, the journaling community hosts make money. Or if you host your own site, the domain registry makes money, and the server makes money. But I wouldn't say that any of these players are profiting from poetry, per se... but of course, thy are profiting from the internet in general, which raises an interesting point about my romanticizing the internet in general...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Emily
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment