purpose hypothesis experiment observation conclusion
PURPOSE: in considering the cross-section of charles olson's work and john cage's work to suggest a network of "framing" which seeks to deconstruct the piece's "ultimate" finished frame and thus remove its closed-system inducing "sheen."
HYPOTHESIS: the work of the artists will signify open-stem networks of framing which are both destructive to the idea of an "ultimate" finished work and elusive towards "ultimate" poam interpretation.
EXPERIMENT:
charles olson :: his work deals with the instant, or the snapshot of a thought in midprogression. by freezing the moment, his work extends both ways: by not awknowledging the past or future, both temporal distortions are implied through freezed motion. his dogma states that "all hiearchies, like dualities, are dead ducks."
john cage :: the lecture is divided into lyrical progression, removing its classification from a concrete poem to something more fluid and elusive. the poem should not be read in "an artificial manner", cleansing from its interpretation a critical eye.
OBSERVATION:
charles olson :: the poam is framed by elusive islands of prose composd randomly and at different angles among the page. he does not adhere to the heiarchy of the straight line across the page. rather, word association strings together abstractions.
john cage :: as the poem is read in 4/4 rythm, words begin to slip from their meaning and add to the rythm more than the interpretation. the poem therefore has a dual existance, saddling itself between comprehension of ideas and construction of a lyrical poetic form.
CONCLUSION: i was right! but this scientific process is probably a mere reframing of a traditional thesis anyway.
-when reading the print poam with reflection on my framing aesthetic, i've realized the importance of structural aesthetic within a piece.
-however, i by definition am reading these poams from an obscured point of view: my own. in this way, the role and heiarchy of the author is messed with. i'm essentially forcing my ideas onto others- yet is the removal of authorship from a poem necessarily a bad thing? my proposal is no in that it seeks to illuminate the objective beauty of the poem: a headless beast evokes great emotion.
1 comment:
Love the hypothesis!
And I appreciate the dead-duck literary modality, the plummet, the dropping dead, the weight felt even then, undeniable weight
so difficult to get rid of, the killing off of hierarchies forcing interaction with them, relationships depending on how well they die --there are, it seems, categories and hierarchies of dying well
--or at all depending on the rest of the classification, the more specific species identification; DEAD VAMPIRE LOONS, DEAD VAMPIRE MALLARDS
their calls as they fall, words slipping, losing meaning of course, some syllables right through tines, through Olson's ragged hierarchies, whatever remains of the decomposing ducks, so Cage, appropriately, works with whatever's left, captured: de pi lo ee al vam d ar d ar v
a phrase (?) that becomes so rhythmic once you get used to saying it, and that might prove difficult for those who've lost their dead, god rest their ducky souls.
--An astute conclusion, by the way.
Post a Comment