I pity nonsense, because until now it has been so neglected in the making of art, and that’s why I love it.
My recent feeling is that poetry is nothing more (or less) than the attempt to make a thing called a “poem,” which means that nothing is actually a poem
Stay Away From Lonely Places, Ron Terada
iv. / by Ana Bozicenic
If the sign on the door signals to the passer-by that the store is OPEN, does the other side of the sign tell those inside the store that the world is CLOSED? Close up shop, put world back in business. This poem is called The Mystery of Commerce.
Spike Jonze: Mourir Auprès de Toi on Nowness.com.
“how weird it is that some people have normal lives and some people have very sad lives and then some people are Spike Jonze.” (thanks Louise)
Gertrude Stein: Tender Buttons (1914)
Wall Piece with 200 Letters (Kiasma) by Mikko Kuorinki
It used to be that if you wanted to be subversive and radical, you’d publish on the web, bypassing all those arcane publishing structures at no cost. Everyone would know about your work at lightning speed; you’d be established and garner credibility in a flash, with an adoring worldwide readership. Shh… the new radicalism is paper. Right? Publish it on a printed page and no one will ever know about it. It’s the perfect vehicle for terrorists, plagiarists, and for subversive thoughts in general. If you don’t want it to exist—and there are many reasons to want to keep things private—keep it off the web. But if you put it in digital form, expect it to be bootlegged, remixed, manipulated, and endlessly commented upon. Expect spiders to pick it up and use it as ad-bait on spoof web pages.
What are names for a sloping outside cellar door?” “What do you call the kind of owl that makes a shrill, trembling cry?” “What games do children play around here, in which they form a ring, and either sing or recite a rhyme?
he finds poetry most beautiful when it’s quoted in prose—line breaks replaced with slashes—
We know that having two thousand Facebook friends is not what it looks like. We know that we are using the software to behave in a certain, superficial way toward others. We know what we are doing “in” the software. But do we know, are we alert to, what the software is doing to us? Is it possible that what is communicated between people online “eventually becomes their truth”? What Lanier, a software expert, reveals to me, a software idiot, is what must be obvious (to software experts): software is not neutral. Different software embeds different philosophies, and these philosophies, as they become ubiquitous, become invisible.
I wrote THIS fictional craigslist missed connection for Brett’s blog, Ships that Pass, and it got one hilarious, real response. Check it out.