I. Do. Not. Like. Poets.
This was my first impression halfway into the book. I don’t like their worldview, or the way they write about experiencing things. I bet these people would’ve been been miserable to hang out with. As the book opened in the setting of college, something about the mood of this book greatly reminds be of the movie “In the mood for love”. I think theres something very distinct about the tonality of college students hanging out and figuring things out in uncertain political times that seem to transcend cultures.
The question from the lecture was something I was thinking about, even as I was reading the book. I was confused why the narrator referred to these people as poets (Weider, Lorenzo, etc) when their explicit circumstance didn’t consist of writing poetry (lexical art I guess) themselves anymore. I think this ties into the broader question asking if the photographs that Weider showed counts as art. Personally, I think at the core of art is this notion of creation, or birthing something new. In this sense, Lorenzo just living out his life is art, because he is creating all these possibilities despite his limiting circumstance; this notion is what he himself recognizes as ingenuity. In a similar vain, the act of Weider to collect these photos and present them in the way he did was an artistic move. His action birthed this sort of effect, and was meant to be a statement. What precisely he was trying to convey, I am not certain. As I said, I do not like poets and they way they convey experiences. But regardless, it was meant to create a sort of reaction, and doing it the way he did meant something more than just “submitting a document to spread information” and thus in my eyes, it counts as art. Maybe not the images solely, but the act itself. Personally, I am not educated enough about the different kinds of art to make a claim on what kind of artistic category it falls under, but I think a fair point can be made that art often crosses these boundaries and that boundaries often times do not work well in the realm of art.
A question everyone: In your view, what counts as a poet, or what makes a poet a poet? How has reading this book influenced your perspective on this matter?
“I think a fair point can be made that art often crosses these boundaries and that boundaries often times do not work well in the realm of art.” Speaking of boundaries, if you remember Dr. Beasley-Murray’s lecture he talks about territorialization and deterritorialization. What is the relationship between the poems written in the sky (a lexical art) and the photographs? This brings me back to the idea of film editing, especially from the first decades of the 20th century. It is the contrast between heterogeneous elements that produces a shock, a break in the continuum of consciousness. What opens in that space?
“I. Do. Not. Like. Poets.”
Haha! But fair enough.
Bolaño is fascinated by poets. He himself was a sort of failed poets, and in fact I think failed poets fascinate him more than successful ones… poets who dedicate their lives to something that probably nobody will read (because in fact lots of people are like you, but perhaps not so honest… they only pretend to like poetry). So he’s interested in what doesn’t get read, what doesn’t get understood, and asks us if it’s worth returning to it and trying again.
Loved the opening of this one! As I’m an English major, I can’t be more than a closeted poet-hater but I share your frustration. As to your question, poets are an interesting breed because, like you said, they can call themselves poets without actually doing any poetry. Historically then, poets seem to be like modern-day though-influencers, but nowadays they tend to just be starving artists who think life is harder for them than it is.
I think legally, anyone who makes an accidental rhyme is a poet, especially if they didn’t even know it. That aside, I think the question of whoever is or isn’t a poet can be extended to all the other arts; when does someone become an artist? It’s a very blurry definition because there is no measurable way to define it. People may self-identify, but then be faced with pushback because they’re not “enough” of a poet, or they may identify too late. Where to draw the line can be a difficult decision to make.
Hi Kelly! I really loved your blog post and your opening line definitely had me laughing. To answer your question I would say the definition of poetry can vary. I don’t think there is an exact definition for what makes “a poet a poet” because poetry has changed over the years. Some can see poetry as a rhyming game, or an image painted in words, and others as words written on a piece of paper that gets considered a classic in 12+ years. My view of poetry was what we read in high school and were forced to analyze, but after learning this book to be considered poetry, my view has changed. Truly at this point, it seems poetry can honestly be anything.