I think the articles' saying something along the lines of "Don't avoid unconventional/taboo ways of expression if it encourages the making of something new" (the shit part) but I then I also think it could be totally making fun of that (since it brings up parodies right before...) or that maybe its making fun of what poetry is and saying we need to shit on those old definitions to allow poetry to expand into a less definable, more inclusive concept, though what the terms of such still remain unclear...
Then it goes onto manifestos, which there are many of in the world and almost always stand to be at conflict when one feels their manifesto to be the 'only truth'. Once again, I think this is making fun of this concept that there can be only one or that it could just be saying that we all need to make a manifesto to bind us to a new personalized/subjective definition of poetry...
But since I'm obviously unsure, forgive me if I'm totally off base...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment