Post 3: Calling an object a poem (pt 1)

Why do I love the idea of calling an object a poem? I've been thinking about this a bit and have come up with two reasons:

1. Because objects are not actually poems

2. Because objects can actually be poems

It may (does) sound like these reasons cover the entire territory of possible reasons, but I do really feel that these are two distinct motivations.

Wanting to call an object a poem because it isn't one:

Since a brick, for instance, is not literally a poem in the traditional sense of what I know a poem to be, deciding to call it a poem seems to stir up a new relationship between this word "poem" and the brick-object it is being applied to. This created relationship is inevitably specific to the particular pairing at hand, since there isn't a preexisting category for it to fit into--i.e., "a brick is a poem" isn't knowledge, it isn't naming, and it isn't describing. I think "a brick is a poem" is a "d) other" kind of thing--not a certain type of anything.

Wanting to call an object a poem because it is one:

An object is a piece of writing that was written with really bad handwriting (is illegible).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post 31: The negation of a painting

Post 38: A few things from The Pond Froze Over at Procession Gallery

Post 35: Writing about painting can't be done / writing about some paintings in Wet Diagram