unique/provocative/weird poems

At my universtity I'm going to moderate a discussion on whether certain poems fit in what we call "art". I'm trying to compile examples that can be proven to be particularly problematic, i.e. that defy the common definition of "art" or "poetry".

Examples would be poems that are really prose, incredibly small poems, poems which result from automatic writing, poems that contain almost only gibberish, poems which deal with a very mundane topic, poems which are insulting, poems that are dangerously provocative (as an example I have a poem by Fernando Pessoa's heteronym in which he basically tells the reader to commit suicide, giving him several reasons to do so) or poems that are simply baffling/incomprehensible.

To get you started, here's a snippet of the poem I mentioned:

"You're needed? O futile shadow called man!
No one is needed; you're not needed by anyone . . .
Without you everything will keep going without you.
Perhaps it's worse for others that you live than if you kill yourself . . .
Perhaps your presence is more burdensome than your absence . . .

Other people's grief? You're worried
About them crying over you?
Don't worry: they won't cry for long . . .
The impulse to live gradually stanches tears
When they're not for our own sake,
When they're because of what happened to someone else, especially death,
Since after this happens to someone, nothing else will . . ."

Álvaro de Campos

I thank you in advance for having read this, and look forward to hearing your contributions. I'm counting on you, people!

Take a look at posting 21 on the "fragmenst of contemporary poetry" thread and see Jayne Cortez's poem. q1

Why do you imagine that something that is "problematic"... disturbing... provocative... somehow defies the definition of "poetry"... let alone "art". Are there subjects that you imagine are unworthy of art? Poems dealing with mundane subjects? That would suggest that Cezanne's painting of mundane apples are not art. Incredibly small poems? What is the cut-off? Hopefully 14 lines is not too short or we lose all those sonnets... and what of haiku? Poems that contain almost only gibberish...or poems that are simply baffling/incomprehensible? My initial thought is to ask whether this is the fault of the writer... or the reader? I would need an example to know what you are defining as "incomprehensible". A great deal of modern poetry avoids an easy or clear narrative or "meaning"... but rather conveys a certain unmistakable mood or "feeling"... not unlike music or some abstract art. Without a clear notion of what is being discussed, however, I don't think anyone could make much of a comment.

As for Pessoa's poem... where you do offer a concrete example... I immediately must ask do you really imagine that it is nothing more than advice for the reader... or an unknown audience member... to commit suicide? Certainly it strikes me as an expression of the author's own pessimism and frustrations with life... perhaps not unlike many of Hamlet's darker proclamations on life:

O that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d
His canon ’gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on’t! O fie! ’tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely.

Indeed, the very work invokes not only Hamlet, but Falstaff as well. If this poem strikes you as problematic... unworthy of the very names of "poetry" and "art", one wonders what you might make of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal?

Quasimodo, thank you for your suggestion, it has been added to the list!

Stlukesguild, I've always read your posts with attention, because you usually are very insightful and you think with your own head. Let me just say that you missed a very important point. I'm going to moderate a discussion, and you know very little about the context of this discussion (and you can't help it, because I didn't give much away). A lot of people participating in it don't study literature like I do, some don't even like books. What this entails is that these questions I've formulated will indeed create a debate, because not all of them think the way we do. Bottom line is, what you did was a bit of a straw man argument, because whatever I said in my post I said it in a detached manner. I'm not attempting to set a discussion of this sort here, because everyone will take your stand, which is also mine! I love poems about mundane things, I like some automatic writing, I adore modernism, and the excerpt I wrote here is from one of my favourite poems, so you're not really arguing with anyone when you say the things you said in your post, at most you're arguing with potential nay-sayers, with which I will have to deal in the discussion.

Further suggestions would be immensely appreciated!

Kandaurov- Moderating a discussion or dialog with persons who who do not study literature... or in some cases even particularly like to read... in which you are raising some questions that challenge the very notions of what art/literature is? I certainly wish you luck. I tried a few lessons along these lines in my own art teachings... to my own frustration. Lacking much by the way of experience with art the students hadn't really formed a great deal of biases against which I might challenge. If time allowed I would certainly toy with Swift's Modest Proposal or some portions of Sterne's Tristam Shandy... or perhaps even something from Borges. But considering your focus is poetry... perhaps you might look into something like William Carlos Williams' Red Wheelbarrow or Wallace Stevens' Anecdote of the Jar (which were discussed here earlier... with some comments as to the "meaninglessness" of poems to something so mundane. For "meaningless" "nonsense verse" or gibberish poems check out Lewis Carroll, Edward Lear, Christian Morgenstern, or even John Lennon.

Yeah, Stlukesguild, my Presenting and Debating Topical Issues teacher has been learning that same lesson the hard way too. Unfortunately when we're discussing art and philosophy in the class his enthusiasm is only matched by some students' boredom. So I guessed that the only way to grab their attention was to show what they would call 'whacky' poems. I must consider their feelings, my grade depends a good deal on how interested they are on my presentation. And yes, I'll have to stick with poetry, it's a 15-minute presentation and I don't have time to show much. The Red Wheelbarrow is perfect, I don't know how I didn't remember it; I didn't know the Anecdote of the Jar, it will certainly be included now; I was already thinking about putting in the Jabberwocky, but for some reason I'm not sure whether I'll add it; Morgenstern is a great recommendation; and will look up the Lear fellow. Thank you for the great feedback!

Though I already have quite a decent amount of material, I'm still listening for recommendations, people

Perhaps something like this?

schtzngrmm

schtzngrmm
schtzngrmm
t-t-t-t
t-t-t-t
grrrmmmmm
t-t-t-t
s-------c-------h
tzngrmm
tzngrmm
tzgrmm
grrmmmmm
schtzn
schtzn
t-t-t-t
t-t-t-t
schtzngrmm
schtzngrmm
tssssssssssssssssssss
grrt
grrrrrt
grrrrrrrrrt
scht
scht
t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t
scht
tzngrmm
tzngrmm
t-t-t-t-t-t.t-t-t-t
scht
scht
scht
scht
scht
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
t-tt


[Ernst Jandl]

I've loved Morgenstern since I first came across him some years back:

Gruselett

Der Flügelflagel gaustert
durchs Wiruwaruwolz,
die rote Fingur plaustert
und grausig gutzt der Golz.


Scariboo

The Winglewangle phlutters
through widowadowood,
the crimson Fingoor splutters
and scary screaks the Scrood.


and Fishes' Night Song

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...achtgesang.gif

You should check out some of the New York School poets, such as John Ashbery and Kenneth Koch, as an important theme recurring in each's work concerns the act of writing poetry itself, which may strike some as potentially mundane/meaningless.

Here's from a Kenneth Koch poem:

In a poem, one line may hide another line,

As at a crossing, one train may hide another train.

That is, if you are waiting to cross

The tracks, wait to do it for one moment at

Least after the first train is gone. And so when you read

Wait until you have read the next line--

Then it is safe to go on reading.

- from "One Train May Hide Another"

and from Ashbery's "Farm Implements and Rutabagas in a Landscape":

The first of the undecoded messages read: "Popeye sits in thunder,

Unthought of. From that shoebox of an apartment,

From livid curtain's hue, a tangram emerges: a country."

Meanwhile the Sea Hag was relaxing on a green couch: "How pleasant

To spend one's vacation en la casa de Popeye," she scratched

Her cleft chin's solitary hair. She remembered spinach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I've loved Morgenstern since I first came across him some years back: [...]

---

I really like this poem by him:

DER AESTHET

Wenn ich sitze, will ich nicht
sitzen, wie mein Sitz-Fleisch möchte,
sondern wie mein Sitz-Geist sitzt,
säße er, den Stuhl sich flöchte.

Der jedoch bedarf nicht viel,
schätzt am Stuhl allein den Stil.
überläßt den Zweck des Möbels
ohne Grimm der Gier des Pöbels.



And another poem by E. Jandl:

i love concrete
i love pottery
but i'm not
a concrete pot.



And that's his version of J.W. Goethe's Ein Gleiches (Wanderers Nachtlied):

ÜBE!
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr
A!
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
(eng)
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ppp-
FEHL NIE!
ssssst
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr
(>>uuuhii<<)
NNNA!
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
EEE!
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
WIPP!
______
______
______
FEHL'N'S?
______
(>>püree<<)
ssst! du!
______
>>kau
meinen
(hhhhhhhhh)
auch...<<
_______
>>diii
eee<<
________
>>vögel!<<
___________
>>eee<<
__________
>>ihn!<<
_________
s-c-hwwwe-----------i<<
_______
_________
_____
GEH NIE IHM WALD
eeewa...
_____
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr
TEE.
nnn-
UUU?
(rrrrrrrb
alder uuhe)
_____
ssst! du!
_____
>>au!<<
c------------------------------------------------h

Edit: Here you can find more of Jandl's poetry.

Boy o boy, you people are pouring out solid gold! Thanks, everyone, I'm leaving out some poems I was thinking about and add almost all of your suggestions so far. I really should make this presentation about Morgenstern and Jandl, heh. This Jandl fellow is like the chicken of the golden eggs to me. The Night song is a good finisher, perhaps. A poem without letters, it's perfect!

edit: Il Penseroso... I read in class today, great poem. The first suggestion is actually quite insightful, and not outlandish enough for me to present it... I'll definitely use the second, though. The spinach part made me laugh

All these avant-garde poets all seem to start with Cummings, and to get more and more pointless as they go. Lets be honest, it may be interesting to see a new style like that, but no body is going to remember any of it the way they do other poetry. Those forms trigger nothing in memory, and therefore don't really have much of a result on ones emotions beyond the first read. To me, the only reason poems are written like that is to look original, but always there are pointless results. If you can type random letters on a sheet of paper you aren't exactly doing anything beyond trying to seem original. I don't even believe these forms are authentic to the artist, and are simply designed to be unique. I recently got a volume of new Canadian poetry, most looking like this in one way or another, and I'll tell you, it barely phased me. Compare that to an anthology of "real" poetry, and you can see the result.

There is nothing wrong with being unique, but lets be honest, no body really prefers to read that avant-garde work over work they actually can read. The proof of this is the fact that nobody cares about sound poetry anymore, yet it was a "hit" amongst poetic circles for a while.

Well, if my presentation is done well, that's exactly the kind of argument I expect to hear in the discussion section. The idea is to show some "official" definitions of 'art' and 'poetry' and then try to see whether these poems fit in them, and whether none/some/all a) should be considered poetry, b) are works meant to be thoroughly analysed, c) should be praised as high art, and d) should be taught in schools. I won't explain my point of view, since I'm the moderator, but I'm interested to see what people thinks about this.

I didn't say they were not art and poetry, I merely commented that they just aren't very good.

You didn't, but I hope someone from my discussion group says it, otherwise so much for the "discussion".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

All these avant-garde poets all seem to start with Cummings, and to get more and more pointless as they go. Lets be honest, it may be interesting to see a new style like that, but no body is going to remember any of it the way they do other poetry. [...]

---

Morgenstern wrote his poetry some years before Cummings, and I quite like it. His poems are very humorous and also critical, which also applies to some of Jandl's work.

Concerning Jandl: His poem lichtung (probably the most famous) is printed in many schoolbooks, and in secondary school I had to write an analysis on schtzngrmm. We really studied his "poetry". :sick:

Haha, interesting! Do you perchance remember any of the analysis? I'd very much like to know what there is to it.

When I said start with Cummings I meant build off of Cummings. But unlike them, they are less readable. Lets be honest, who really wants to read a bunch of gibberish and try to piece a meaning. When I read a poem I want something I can take with me, and mutter to myself over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kandaurov

Haha, interesting! Do you perchance remember any of the analysis? I'd very much like to know what there is to it.

---

From what I know, it is about trench warfare in world war 1. I prefer Owen to this, of course, as most people do.