got interrupted during the summer. Tonight, starting near the bottom of my lengthening Blog List, I reinstated that routine. This post, however, is not going to be about my routine or about my being remiss. When I arrived at Mark Wallace's blog I encountered an opinion post preceded by a cartoon that made me laugh. I paraphrase: Is making a poem a form of work or a form of play? It may not seem so, but to me this is a complex question; therefore, my answer will be complex. - I make poems, or objects like poems, using what I will call here an open aesthetics because any object I am making, or which I am participating in making, takes precedence. I have sometimes called it my It Poetics. Do I care how good it is? Yes, but only to the extent that it is true to itself. As a result of my openness, all manner of objects occur: ditties, muttobs, multimedia poems, picture poems, phonetic poems, silly poems, varing degrees of serious poems. Further, I contend that some of those objects are best read with an accent or in a tone that is unlike my accent or the tone I would normally use. Point: the perceiver of an object ostensibly from me becomes that object's judge and jury; so let each such perceiver interpret it as s/he wills. I, while I am Earth-alive, can make known my insights about it and can change it if I so desire; but after that it is in stasis until it is perceived. - So, is my making/ work or play: both. A poem may come to me in its final form, or it may take years for it to attain a form I am satisfied with, or I may let it out to be seen even if I'm not satisfied with it, or even if I am satisfied with it/ I may never let it out. Do I ever use a set of constraints prior to making an object? Yes I do. See my alphabet experiment in the ghost in the dumpster. kh00009
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."