Is this meant to be a spreading thing, like a drop of ink on a blancmange, or is it a pairing of poet/artist one-to-one.

What I mean is, if others posted visual responses to Jane's poem, and then more others wrote poems in response to those pictures (like our jolly 'exquisite corpse' game) would it matter if it webbed-out all over itself?

Or do we wait for another, unrelated poem or picture to appear and then claim it?

In other words, has Jane bagsied Jayne?

Hi Ann,

The way I've played it before is more linear (in other words, I have indeed bagsied Jayne).

Can we do linear to start with please so my poor brain can cope - and if we find it doesn't work or gets boring we can go all rhizome later on?

Sarah-Jane

Fine. So what's the next step? I mean, when you post your image in response to Jayne's poem, who gets to repond to that - does Jayne have first dibs?

I'm assuming whoever shouts first.

I'd be interested to see more than one image in response to a poem, and more than one poem in response to an image. One way to do that without branching would be like this:

Sarah-Jane has baggsed the image, which means the next poem will be written in repsonse to her image. However, anyone who wants to can also produce an image in response to Jayne's poem.

Next, someone bags the role of responder to Sarah-Jane's image, but anyone else can write a poem.

And so on.


-Matt

Matt, do you mean we could all use the "official" poems and images as triggers, but just among ourselves and not posting them here (on this thread, I mean) so as not to rhizomatise the linearity?

Like wandering round the National Gallery or the Poetry Library; we can take away anything we find in the way of inspiration and use it privately without having to be artists-in-residence at the Institutions (as we do) ?

And if we wanted to share something we wrote in "response" to a item that had been privatised here, we'd post it in Met. or Non-met...?

Nope. I mean posting them here. This wouldn't wouldn't result in rhizomatising the linearity (if that means what I think it does) since it would be clear which image or poem was being used to 'seed' the next round.

See? Seeds not rhizomes! :)

So, thusfar:

Jayne has posted a poem. Sarah-Jane has baggsed the image.


So let's say Sarah-Jane, you, me and Roger each write and post an image in response. However since Sarah-Jane baggsed it, hers 'seeds' the next round.


So, next someone, let's say it's you, baggses the poem to respond to Sarah-Jane's image. But even so, Jayne and I and also write a poem and post it. But since you baggsed the poem, it's yours that will be used as the seed for the next crop of images.

Like this:


Poem
..|
..|-----------------------------------------
..|................|...............|...............|
baggsed....image 2....image 3......etc
image
..|-----------------------------------------
..|................|...............|...............|
baggsed...poem 2.....poem 3 ........etc
poem
..|
..|-----------------------------------------
..|................|...............|...............|
baggsed....image 2....image 3......etc
image

I dunno, it just seems like it might be more if people can join in. Might still get messy at times, I guess. But with all these gardening metaphors, that's almost inevitable :)

I don't know how to make my image smaller.

I think I see, Matt. It's complicated but it would mean that more people can join in.

I got the lines-and-rhizomes expression from Jane, who has used the 'R' word twice. I confess I don't know for sure what she meant by it (it may have a specialist meaning in the art world) but I have taken it as a reproductive method where a root extrudes lumps that break off and make other plants, which seemed to be what Jane was trying to avoid.

Orwn has given us a root with a rhizome. It's little bloke's head. If one were to break it off and plant it, it might turn into a basil bush (Shut up, Johnny, you are a bad influence on me...)

Jane, would your game still work if we applied Matt's idea to this thread, or were you hoping to keep it exclusive for a bit longer?

I’m evidently in the minority here. I’m on Eratosphere for words. Words. Words. And only words. Rick Mullin is also a painter, so I look at his images now and then. For me, the superposition of images and words inevitably takes all the blood out of the words. It’s simple, words and pictures go to different parts of the brain. Words take time! In most cases, images have practically instantaneous (and superficial) impact. It’s true that classical Japanese and Chinese paintings often have a visually based character written poem in a corner, but I’m using an alphabet. With words. The effect for me of mixing the two is exactly that of reading an advertisement on the wall of a subway car. The image totally dominates the verbal artistry, if there is any, especially with metrical writing. Whatever writing there might be is subordinated to the gestalt. I’m here for words. If there is to be a lot of image and word hybrids, I strongly recommend a new Forum for that, which I can avoid. Give me words, lots of words with the music of the mind, that’s what I want.