Dear Rupi Kaur,
Modern poetry, for me, has become conglomerate of the same distilled ideas, metaphors and, in essence, mindsets. Do not get me wrong: I won’t criticize anyone for having the same ideas nor the usage of similar rhyme patterns, but I must admit, wholeheartedly, that I am saddened by the modern representation of poetry.
It has been simplified not for the sake of “complex and compact simplicity”, which you might find in a haiku, but for accessibility and the short attention span of the likes of Instagram users and “Snapchatters”. We cannot spend more than 10 seconds on a picture. We “consume” more media; if we can call it that. We quickly glance by scrolling and forget how to engage with it, because why would we? One swipe and we are onto something new, something different and maybe something differently exciting until the next swipe or the one after that. Accessibility has killed the access; we don’t look at things anymore, we consume for the sake of consumption.
This, sadly, is in part represented within modern poetry. It has to be quick, accessible and easily digestible. I should be forced to engage with it to a minimal extend to be satisfied; and this will suffice. I should read something, understand it immediately. Ideally it should be accompanied by a picture I grasp immediately et voila: swipe, swipe, scroll, scroll onto the next bit. And if we would be a bit honest with ourselves, are we not all guilty? At least to some extent? Who takes time out of their day to go and read a caption or the wall of text you encounter on a stupid Instagram post?
Or something as absurd as a blog? Have we lost our attention span or are we not interested enough? Why is there such a big interest in poetry, but not the art? (And good god, to get to hear that from a person that has actual AD(H)D, and not the kind you would throw around willy- nilly when you can’t focus on a task at hand. Anyway, I will probably elaborate on this in a later and more personal blogpost. Besides showing my love for poetry, I might be able to talk about the stigmata that accompany ADHD, and just plain false information).
Accessibility is indeed a barrier, and it goes without saying that the targeted audience of internet poetry is by no means the same people that would enjoy a good ol’ Shakespearean banger of a sonnet… but it does it have to be? The consumers are growing, getting older, refining their interest and looking for more different new and exciting change. (I swear to everything that is holy to me, if I will ever read one more thing about cigarettes and wine, milk or honey, I will go mental…) Writers should be challenged to not appeal to the already explored market, and whilst I might come off as riding a high horse, I would like to point out that we are to blame! Yes we, all of us that write. Why force yourself and restrain yourself to this extend?
We as people that enjoy poetry should feel kinda guilty. Aren’t the ones that at least like the craftsmanship, like me, not to blame? Shouldn’t we try to portray the love we have for an art form or some sort of that art form? I do not badmouth about modern poetry, not in a direct way; it is still poetry.
I want to go the opposite direction; we should take the interest and exposure that poetry has achieved over the last years and we should elaborate on the art we love. We shouldn’t be the silent bystanders but self-reflect on the online presence we share. In a way, oughtn’t we to be thankful for an upbringing in something that might be considered a dying art?
Not claiming nor pretending anything of the likes that I might be a good representation of the cultural aspect behind writing poetry, if there is still such a thing anywhere on the social media platforms.
I think Flame and I did portray a wider array of stylistic variation within poetry. I wouldn’t dare to give any particular credit to any of the works I have done, but at least I can say with certainty that they adhere to aesthetic conventions. Conventials that are essential for a different kind of poetry. And it might be our fault that people that enjoy such formats, since we do not further our scope into these new types of media.
I might be idiosyncratic due to the environmental inputs and mindsets I encounter at the university. But I would dare to say that there is a big interest in the art of poetry and we shouldn’t blunlty assume that the recent craze for it is solely linked to Rupi Kaur, or dare I say “internet poetry”. I would claim that at least some of the people will like the depth this artistic endeavor has to offer and we need to somehow show that through the presence we have on the platforms.
We, as people that consider themselves artists to any extent, should be in the foreground, yelling and waving our art and show the world that yes, there is still poetry out there and no it is, not three sentences merged together with a a badly hand-drawn picture.
Sincerely Yours,
A Moron with a Blog aka Davide
(Another letter finds itself on the next page…)
Monsieur le Caire,
It must be sudden seeing this letter, no less in a section dedicated to contemporary poetry. But I vividly remember reading the poems you published on Facebook five years ago, and you’re still at it. Everybody apparently liked them, and so you became the renowned poet of our year.
Perhaps I was jealous, but now I have moved onto much more complex emotions than that. Yet, I noted that there was something inherently superficial about your poetry. It was universally applicable to ridiculous degrees. It was art that meant to appeal and to be relatable. Yet I would not clarify it as ‘popular art’, as it was targeted primarily towards peers from our immediate social context.
I must clarify the following: to my understanding and belief, art is like nature. This means to imply that its absence means its presence. It might be the case that one fails to find merit or value in a work, but that does not suggest it is not art.
That said, I did feel an inexplicable indignation at your publications. So much so that I wrote a poem called ‘Contemporary Times‘ to express my frustration.
It would seem, however, that your literary career is also more advanced than mine. A blog of the name ‘Beyond the Covers’ has published your works (also apparently in a homonymous newspaper). Additionally, you have published five books (yes, five books!). Tant pis all of them are about 30 pages regarding financial advice and not one of them is literature of artistic pretence. Here are three examples, titles translated on purpose:
- Comment postuler à, être approuvé et travailler votre job de rêve: conseilles et astuces pour atteintre votre salaire
- Le marché financier: la route de l’enfer au paradis
- Le problème : « J’en veux ! »
It really seems to me you treat your work as a stepping stone for social and personal gain, not as the end goal but as a means towards one. I would like to stress this does not imply your poetry is not ‘art’, but my appreciation of it (as well as everyone else’s, in my opinion) should not be very high.
“Death to the author!” Barthes aggressively whispers in echoes throughout time. But here my criticism is not of the author; I am not mistaking art for the artist. My judgement of the author came from the opposite direction – I saw the work, then I saw the character.
So now a fair proposition would arise: display one of the poems and explain why it fails as an aesthetic project. However, I would have to show a translation (which I myself would have to do), and in that act I will inevitably re-poeticise the piece.
This phenomenon deserves a post on its own, but the bottom line remains the same – it will ultimately be a misrepresentation of your work.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yours&etc.