Interesting article. Nice to be reminded of the Oscar Wilde quote; I'm sure that if someone asked Kaur to defend any of her outings as art, she might say, "But that's sincerely how I feel." And she would not be alone in her perspective.

Cheers,
John

John: I'm sure that if someone asked Kaur to defend any of her outings as art, she might say, "But that's sincerely how I feel." And she would not be alone in her perspective.

...But it is my firm belief that what Kaur is "feeling" is self-obsession. In that regard, she is reflecting a multi-generational shift brought on by the superficial connection of the internet masquerading as experiential connection.

Thanks for the link Matt. It reinforces my skepticism.
x
But there are pools of brightness in the darkness of the internet. Brian Bilston is one. Yes, he's "clever", glib, etc. but clearly thoughtful, observant.

There are also low-tech media that are advancing poetry into wider circles. While he was U.S. poet laureate Billy Collins started a campaign to bring poetry to the masses by posting it on buses, trains, billboards, etc.. He even established a "Poetry Channel" you could access on planes. He has also collaborated with visual artists/animators to bring some of his poetry to life on screen. Here's a batch:

https://youtu.be/ddw1_3ZVjTE
x

Hi Jim,

Yes, all sorts of people have sincerely felt all sorts of things throughout history, some of them appalling. It takes a thoughtless mind, or perhaps a young one, to feel that sincerity is a passport to everything good in the world.

Cheers,
John

Thanks for link Matt, good article. Yes, I'm pretty much on board with the writer, who is articulating rather better than me what I've been saying 'ad nauseam' on this thread, with the added interesting slant of the poetry as pure capitalism. Talking of 'nauseam', the description of the 'sensitive male' equivalent of Rupi Kaur who furnishes his 'Instapoetry' with 'symbols of masculinity' made me laugh but also feel a bit sick simultaneously. But, each to their own.

I wonder what you think? Or are you just handing out buns for others to throw? ;)

Edit: Jim, yes at least Brian Bilston is clever and quite amusing.

Edit 2: I understand, also, that nobody here has been defending what Kaur writes as great poetry (though Julie was completely sincere in how some of it affected her). It's not like I'm claiming to be the only one able to see that the Emperor has no clothes and willing to 'tell it like it is'. Andrew M, and to a lesser extent Walter, have I think been making the suggestion that regardless of her dubious poetic talent, there's something interesting, and inherently positive, in the phenomenon of Rupi Kaur (and by extension Instapoetry' in general). I understand that notion, but really can't buy into the idea.

Edit 3: I've definitely done here now...

Don Patterson has just compared Rupi Kaur to Keats and Auden: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...g-female-poets

Okee.

Read the article. Unlike this post it is honest and trying to open up the conversation in helpful way as opposed to a condescending way.

I think it's misleading to say that Paterson is comparing Kuar to Auden and Keats. At best, one might say he mentions Keats and Auden in the same article as he mentions Kuar.

Here's the context for Paterson's comments. Watts writes:

So here the focus is more on "proper" poets like Ocean Vuong or Sarah Howe; it's a general point about arts media and certainly not limited to performance poetry or instagram poets. To which Paterson responds:

So in the first paragraph he's in some agreement with Watts on a general point about poetry. And in the second paragraph he's saying rapid promotion of any new poet can be harmful. Again this is a general statement about the arts media and poetry industry, not about Kuar.

But more than this, he's actually saying that you can't call any new poet game-changing or ground-breaking, since it'll be many years before you know if ground has been broken, the game changed. He's giving Keats and Auden of examples of this taking years. He's definitely not saying Kuar (or anyone else) is game-changing like Keats and Yeats were. He's actually saying such a claim is impossible to make. And also, I think, that truly ground-breaking poets are rarely met with widespread acclaim and recognition in the way that these rapidly-promoted poets are.

Paterson makes no defence of Kuar in this article and offers no praise. He objects to Watts grouping Katie Tempest, Holly McNish and Kuar together simply on the grounds of "accessibility". He professes admiration for Tempest and McNish. Of Kuar, he says that most poets don't even consider her a poet. That's it.

Matt