I think Internet Poetry makes sense if you think of it as a reaction to the poetry that came before it. As in a conversation, the previously held ideals are being reacted to in any of the ways a person can react. Sometimes they are affirmed, sometimes negated, sometimes modified, and sometimes critiqued. I don’t think pointless art can exist. Meaning can be added to it, and there’s a very strong message that the high art of the modern era –the Shakespeares etc.–isn’t the only kind of good art

I think we’re both approaching this in different ways. You seem to be talking about art as merely being a reaction to whatever else exists, e.g. context. This suggests that art should engage on a contextual level and as opposed to creating art purely for oneself one should try and create art as a reaction against what has gone before e.g. “I think Internet Poetry makes sense if you think of it as a reaction to the poetry that came before it.”


The issue I have is that this then becomes meta-ironic.  David Foster Wallace has this to say on the subject of meta-irony, “categories we divide into superior/arty and inferior/vulgar are in fact so interdependent as to be coextensive”. The whole idea of high/low art is one that has been pretty much abolished by post-modernism (Duchamp being maybe the most obvious example). Art that engages on this level is indulging only in anchoring as opposed to sublimation. For me art should be pointless because everything else is.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s