Response to Ryan

This is a response to Ryan, someone who commented on my flarf response.

Hey Ryan, this is Kevin. I actually just saw your comments today and felt I ought to respond to them (if I had seen them sooner I would have responded to them earlier, my apologies). Anyway, many of your remarks strike me as quite interesting and I'd like to respond to each. The phrases in quotes are Ryans, the passages following them are my response.

“You make a lot of assumptions, about poetry, about philosophy and certainly about Flarf here.”

This is very true, but what do we base our opinions and beliefs upon but assumptions? The interesting aspect here is to identify what assumptions you are making and how they differ from my own. I make assumptions largely about philosophy because it is my major and thus many of those classes tend to influence my line of thought on these matters.

When I speak of criticisms some have held of philosophy I am largely focusing on the logical positivists and my own personal experiences. As a little background, the logical positivists used linguistic analysis to “conjure away” philosophical questions by attempting to show that they were not, in actuality, questions at all. They largely focused on trying to prove that all philosophical problems were “cognitively meaningless” but held that such matters could contain “emotive meaning.” In using these terms, I am building from this type of foundation.

On a further note, I find it striking that you identify flarf as separate from poetry. Was this intentional? I’ve been under the impression that people consider flarf as a form of poetry… Either way, I would be interested in your opinion here.

“The above poem [in your post] isn't flarf: it's more like a copy of what Flarf seems like to someone who doesn't get it.”

Flarf, I will readily admit, is out of my element but it is interesting that you claim my “poem” isn’t flarf. Please, enlighten me if you will, as to how I ought to discern what is flarf and what is? By what criterion can you call something “not flarf?“ Also, I will fully agree that I do not get flarf. Feel free to explain to your heart’s content and I will do my best to understand.

“I should also add that you don't like what you don't like, and no one can argue with that.”

I would like to start by saying that I am not simply saying “I don’t like flarf” nor do I see it as a valid argument. My problem is that I can’t see why anyone at all would like flarf. Perhaps for some sort of humor which I fail to see but beyond that.. I have yet to discover an answer.

“So a good point to start off a critique of Flarf might be to ask just what it is that you don't like about Flarf and go from there.”

I find it difficult to critique Flarf based upon what exactly I don’t like about it largely because I can’t pinpoint anything of significance which I do like about it. I simply fail to understand any reason for flarf’s existence. It serves no purpose and I would still hold that in most instances, communicates literally nothing or communicates nothing which could not be better communicated through some other medium.

“But, your characterization of Flarf as plagiarism is a mischaracterization. Considering that poetry has often appropriated, and that some would contest that found poetry leans more toward plagiarism than Flarf, it seems weird to accuse Flarf of plagiarism”

My understanding of flarf, although heavily limited, comes directly from here and what has been covered in my class thus far. Here are some of the working definitions as explained in the link:

Flarf: A quality of intentional or unintentional "flarfiness." A kind of corrosive, cute, or cloying, awfulness. Wrong. Un-P.C. Out of control. "Not okay."

Flarf (2): The work of a community of poets dedicated to exploration of "flarfiness." Heavy usage of Google search results in the creation of poems, plays, etc., though not exclusively Google-based. Community in the sense that one example leads to another's reply-is, in some part, contingent upon community interaction of this sort. Poems created, revised, changed by others, incorporated, plagiarized, etc., in semi-public.

Flarf (3) (verb): To bring out the inherent awfulness, etc., of some pre-existing text.

Flarfy: To be wrong, awkward, stumbling, semi-coherent, fucked-up, un-P.C. To take unexpected turns; to be jarring. Doing what one is "not supposed to do."

Note how flarf is described as plagiarized and inherently awful in the definition. This is where I get my characterization of flarf and until you offer me a new definition, I will continue to hold that flarf largely involves plagiarism. As you seem to encourage flarf, I sincerely hope you can offer me a new definition from which I can find insight to your perspective.

“For more on what is NOT plagiarism, see here.”

I have checked this link out and I really don’t see how it defends flarf or other general “forms” as not plagiarism. An interesting link all the same.

“You further say this:

Before anyone argues that this “lack of style” ought to be considered a style all its own I’d like to state that such an argument cannot be construed as viable in any sense.

To which I ask, why? Why can't misspellings and mistakes of various kinds be considered style? Let's argue it. Not before, but now. Why can't these be style? Who's to say that they can't?”

It is not the random misspellings or mistakes which deprive flarf from achieving any kind of style. What I state is that “Misspellings, plagiarism, and shapelessness [held together] do not describe a style or form which ought to be considered in thought or pursued in practice. This is an important distinction but feel free to try and convince me that flarf, in essence, could be worth anyone’s time.

“Another assumption: poetry communicates ‘meaning.’"

Yes, I would argue that poetry must communicate meaning of some sort.

“Another: poetry communicates a linearly grasped idea (plot--> progression-->terminus)= pat idea/statement of ‘meaning’ to reader? Are poems supposed to ‘mean’ things? Is your ‘meaning’ my ‘meaning‘?

I do not assume, however, that all poetry must “communicate a linearly grasped idea.” Poems don’t even necessarily have to “mean things” in and of themselves but they ought to communicate something. My ‘meaning’ of a given poem may be different from yours but there remains some meaning involved with both of us. In actuality, some of the best poetry inspires contrary meanings in multiple individuals.

“Another: Flarf communicates nothing. (Have you ever read "Chicks Dig War" by Drew Gardner?)

Please read “Chicks Dig War” and then come back to your blog and tell me that Flarf communicates nothing, nothing about war, nothing about chicks digging it, nothing about GWAR.”

I hadn’t read this before but I have now. Here is a link in case anyone else would like to read it. If you would prefer, it can also be found with ease on you tube. I’m not entirely sure about “Chicks Dig War” just yet but I will give it another read at a later date since you find it so highly recommendable. Until I’ve had a bit more time to think on it, I won’t say any more here.